Prashanth Singh Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH, MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522237.

¶13

THE DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, REP BY ITS DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HANUMANPETA (OLD GOVERNMENT GENERAL HOSPITAL), VIJAYAWADA-520003.

¶14

NRI MEDICAL COLLEGE AND GENERAL HOSPITAL, REP BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, CHINAKAKANI, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522508

¶15

NRI MEDICAL COLLEGE AND GENERAL HOSPITAL, REP BY ITS DEAN, CHINAKAKANI, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.-522508

¶16

DR NTR HEALTH UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE NTRUHS, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA520008

¶17

2

¶18

NV, J W.P.No.8667 of 2026 Dated 09.04.2026

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing circular dated 18-03-2026, detaining the petitioner from appearing in the Final Year MBBS Part-II, Dr. NTR UHS Regular Examination for the Paediatrics subject under the guise of shortage of attendance, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to DIRECT the respondents to permit the Petitioner to attend the paediatrics examination in Final Year MBBS Part-11, Dr. NTR UHS Regular Examination scheduled to be conducted on 17.04.2026, pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.YASHWANTH YARLAGADDA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.CKR ASSOCIATES

¶27

2.GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW

¶28

3.Tata Venkata Sridevi,Standing Counsel For Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

3

¶31

NV, J W.P.No.8667 of 2026 Dated 09.04.2026

¶32

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO: 8667 OF 2026

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the

¶36

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶37

<….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing circular dated 18-03-2026, detaining the petitioner from appearing in the Final Year MBBS Part-II, Dr. NTR UHS Regular Examination for the Paediatrics subject under the guise of shortage of attendance, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and pass…=

¶38

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned

¶39

Government Pleader for the respondent No.1, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.5 and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as per the circular dated 07.12.2022 issued by the National Medical Commission (Undergraduate Medical Education Board) for the curriculum of the 2022–23 MBBS batch, the respondent No.4–college is required to conduct clinical postings in the Department of Paediatrics for four weeks each in second MBBS, third MBBS Part-I, and third MBBS Part-II, totaling 12 weeks. Thus, the college is required to conduct 84 days of

¶41

4

¶42

NV, J W.P.No.8667 of 2026

¶43

Dated 09.04.2026

¶44

clinical postings. However, for reasons best known to respondent No.4, the same were not conducted in full length and violated the terms of circular dated 07.12.2022 issued by National Medical Council (Hereafter NMC).

¶45

So far as the petitioner is concerned, the clinical postings in Paediatrics were conducted only for 49 days out of the required 84 days. Had 84 days been conducted, the petitioner would have attended the same and might have achieved 80% attendance. In view of the failure on the part of respondent No.4/institution in not conducting the required clinical postings in compliance with the circular dated 07.12.2022, the petitioner was detained in the said subject, though he qualified in the written examinations in all other exams in the fourth year. Therefore, such non-compliance and detention of the petitioner from taking the final examination in Paediatrics is arbitrary and contrary to the said circular.

¶46

He further submits that respondent No.4/institution, while not extending the same benefit to the petitioner, but conducted 84 days of clinical postings for certain students bearing roll numbers 1, 2, 5, and 8, thereby depriving the petitioner of similar benefit. He also draws the attention of this Court to the fact that certain students bearing roll numbers 111, 117, and 193 were permitted to appear for the

¶47

5

¶48

NV, J W.P.No.8667 of 2026

¶49

Dated 09.04.2026

¶50

examination despite not achieving the required attendance. Denial of such benefit to the petitioner is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, restraining the petitioner from appearance in the written examination in Paediatrics scheduled on 17.04.2026 is illegal and arbitrary, and the circular dated 18.03.2026 under which the petitioner was detained is liable to be set aside.

¶51

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submits that the circular dated 07.12.2022 issued by the National Medical Commission is applicable only to the academic batch 2022–23 and not to the 2021–22 batch. Admittedly, the petitioner was admitted in the MBBS course for the academic year 2021–22 under B-Category, and therefore the said circular is not applicable. Instead, the circular dated 04.11.2019 applies to the 2021–22 batch. As per the said circular, respondent No.4 is required to conduct clinical postings in Paediatrics for 2 weeks in Second MBBS, 4 weeks in Third MBBS Part-I, and 4 weeks in Third MBBS Part-II, totaling 10 weeks (i.e., 60 days).

¶52

He further submits that, due to national holidays, festivals, and vacations, though 60 days are prescribed, it may not always be possible to conduct all 60 days for every group. However, a minimum of 80% of the total schedule must be completed. Accordingly, at least 48 days of

¶53

6

¶54

NV, J W.P.No.8667 of 2026

¶55

Dated 09.04.2026

¶56

clinical postings in respect of Paediatrics must be conducted. He has also placed material before this Court showing the clinical postings conducted for various groups and subjects. The petitioner belongs to the group comprising roll numbers 106 to 114. Whereas in respect of this group, clinical postings in Paediatrics were conducted for 49 days; however, the petitioner failed to achieve 80% attendance, whereas all other students in the group have attained the required attendance.

¶57

The contention of the petitioner that he suffered from a stomachache ulser and was admitted in respondent No.4/institution for treatment, and thereafter went to his native place for recovery, due to which he could not achieve the required attendance, is denied as incorrect. It is demonstrated that clinical postings were conducted in three spells. In the first spell (13.12.2023 to 30.12.2023), the petitioner did not attend even a single day out of 15 days. In the second spell (08.07.2024 to 31.07.2024), he attended 9 out of 18 days. In the third MBBS Part-II, he attended all 9 days (12.10.2025 to 10.11.2025) and another 7 days (14.02.2026 to 20.02.2026). Therefore, the claim that illness prevented attendance is not supported by the record. Detailed clinical posting records have been submitted before the Court.

¶58

7

¶59

NV, J W.P.No.8667 of 2026 Dated 09.04.2026

¶60

The further contention is that other groups were provided 84 days

¶61

while the petitioner’s group was deprived is also denied. Variations in clinical postings across groups are common due to holidays and other practical factors. The allegation that students bearing roll numbers 111, 117, and 193 were allowed despite insufficient attendance is also to be proved by cogent evidence, incorrect. The material on record shows that they achieved more than 80% attendance. The petitioner, having failed to meet the requirement, to appear for the examination in May or June 2026 after fulfilling the criteria.

¶62

Heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the material on record.

¶63

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was admitted in to the MBBS course in the year 2021, and thus belongs to the 2021–22 batch. Therefore, the circular dated 04.11.2019 applies, and not the circular dated 07.12.2022. The contention that respondent No.4 is selectively allowing certain students to appear for examinations is not a merit submission in the absence of any cogent evidence. As explained by the learned counsel for respondent No.4, variation in clinical schedules between groups is natural due to holidays and other factors. In the present case, respondent No.4 conducted 49 days of clinical postings in

¶64

8

¶65

NV, J W.P.No.8667 of 2026

¶66

Dated 09.04.2026

¶67

Paediatrics, but the petitioner failed to achieve the mandatory 80% attendance out of total postings of 49, but not calculated for as 84 days. As such this amounts to a default on the part of the petitioner. The claim of illness at the time schedules is also not substantiated by the medical record, as the attendance pattern does not correlate with the period alleged illness. Therefore, the petitioner cannot attribute the fault to respondent No.4.

¶68

The other contention that certain students with inadequate attendance were permitted to write the examination is also a bald allegation without any supporting evidence. Since the petitioner is pursuing an MBBS course, which mandates minimum attendance in both theory and clinical postings as per the regulations of the National Medical Commission, failure to meet such requirements disentitles the petitioner from appearing for the examination. For all the reasons stated above the petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶69

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner should be permitted to attend the clinical postings in the Department of Paediatrics hereafter so as to achieve the required 80% attendance, and should be allowed to appear to the next immediate written examination for the subject of Paediatrics. No order as to costs.

¶70

9

¶71

NV, J W.P.No.8667 of 2026 Dated 09.04.2026

¶72

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

¶73

Petition shall stand closed.

¶74

________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

¶75

09.04.2026 PBS