MBBS Student Can't Be Disqualified For Break Taken Due To Genuine Financial Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court
In normal circumstances, no student would take break from MBBS after going through 'gruelling' NEET prep, Court said.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the period during which an MBBS student discontinues studies for genuine reasons, like financial hardship or health issues, cannot be counted while computing the 4-year limit prescribed for clearing the First Professional exam of the course under Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2019 (GMER). In doing so, the Court allowed an MBBS student...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the period during which an MBBS student discontinues studies for genuine reasons, like financial hardship or health issues, cannot be counted while computing the 4-year limit prescribed for clearing the First Professional exam of the course under Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2019 (GMER).
In doing so, the Court allowed an MBBS student to continue her course after holding that a literal interpretation of the Regulations would irrationally disqualify students whose temporary break has no bearing on their academic ability or competence.
Under Regulations 7.7 and 11.2.7(a)(2) of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2019, a student must clear the First Professional MBBS examination within four years of admission and in not more than four attempts.
Justice Nyapathy Vijay held that the Regulations must be applied in line with their object. The Court observed:
"In the opinion of this Court, the break period in such genuine cases should not be counted for calculating four (04) years period as the break period has nothing to do with the ability or the competency of the student and the purport of the Regulations. After all, no student in normal circumstances would take a break from M.B.B.S., Course after securing admission going through gruelling preparation for NEET-UG entrance examination.
If the Regulations referred to supra are to be understood in literal sense, that would lead to disqualification of students who have taken a break from education under compelling reasons and such an approach would make the Regulations irrational. Whenever, a Regulation or a statute is being understood, irrationality has to be avoided and rationality has to be read in, to make it constitutionally sane."
The petitioner's daughter, an MBBS student joined the course at Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences in the academic year 2020–21 and took a break of over two years due to financial hardship. Although she rejoined the course with the University's permission in November 2024, the University declared her ineligible to appear for the First Professional examination in 2025, holding that she had exceeded the four-year limit under Regulation 7.7.
The petitioner contended that the break was occasioned solely by financial hardship and had no connection with the student's academic competence. Since the University itself had permitted her to rejoin the course, the break period ought not to have been counted towards the statutory four-year limit.
The University and the National Medical Commission argued that Regulation 7.7 was mandatory and that the break period necessarily formed part of the prescribed four-year duration, rendering the student ineligible to continue the course.
Rejecting the respondents' contention, the Court held that the purpose of the Regulations, as reflected in Regulation 2, is to identify academically faltering students who are unable to complete the MBBS course within the prescribed timelines. It observed that the petitioner had taken a break due to financial hardship, which had no bearing on her academic competence, and that a literal interpretation of the Regulations would irrationally disqualify students who discontinue their studies for compelling reasons.
The Court also noted that, pursuant to its interim order, the student had appeared for the examination, passed the First Professional MBBS examination with good scores, and was nearing completion of the second year of the course. It held that denying her the opportunity to continue her studies at that stage would be unfair.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and declared the petitioner's daughter entitled to continue pursuing the MBBS course at the respondent college.
Case Title: Kappala Joseph Paul v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case No.: W.P. No. 22689 of 2025
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S. Sesha Giri Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Medical & Health; Smt. T.V. Sri Devi, Standing Counsel for Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences.