Dismissed¶55

Mr.Harka Ram v. the Director of Medical Education

Madras HC11 Aug 2025WP/24526/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MBBS first year; fifth attempt; mercy attempt; maximum four attempts; National Medical Commission (NMC) guideline; discharge from MBBS course order dated 06.02.2025; discharge and relieving order; representation dated 03.06.2025; writ of mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University; Kanyakumari Government Medical College; Director of Medical Education Tamil Nadu; liberty to challenge discharge order; Madras High Court WP No. 24526 of 2025; C. Kumarappan J.; dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition dismissed with no costs, with liberty reserved to the petitioners to challenge the Discharge and Relieving Order dated 06.02.2025 in accordance with law. ¶55

Mr.Harka Ram Vs the Director of Medical Education — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP No. 24526 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11-08-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

WP No. 24526 of 2025

¶7

Mr.Harka Ram S/o. Joita Ram, Residing at, Jiwana Road, Sangana, Jalor, Rajasthan 343 022.

¶8

2.Prahalad Ram S/o. Vaktha, Residing at Govinda Gorkhede Complex, Hazaripahad, Seminary Hills, Nakpur, Maharastra 440 006.

¶9

Petitioner(s)

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Director of Medical Education Government of Tamil Nadu, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai 600 006.

¶12

2.The Vice-Chancellor Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, No.69, Anna Salai,

¶13

1/7

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

WP No. 24526 of 2025

¶16

Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

¶17

3.The Principal

¶18

Kanyakumari Government, Medical College, Asaripallam, Tamil Nadu 629 201.

¶19

Respondent(s)

¶20

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondents to permit the petitioners one Mercy (fifth) attempt to appear for and clear the remaining subjects in their First Year MBBS Examinations.

¶21

For Petitioner(s): Ms.R.Abirami

¶22

For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Tippu Sultan, Government Advocate For R1 and R3 M/s.A.Mohamed Gouse For R2

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The instant writ petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to

¶25

permit the petitioners for one more attempt to appear and clear the remaining

¶26

subjects of the first year MBBS examination.

¶27

It is the contention of the petitioners that due to some mis-

¶28

representation and lack of clarity in counting the attempts, they were not able to

¶29

2/7

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

WP No. 24526 of 2025

¶32

complete the first year subjects, within the maximum available four attempts.

¶33

He further submitted that because of the financial constraints and psychological stress, mis-representation, they missed to complete one subject within four

¶34

attempts. It is also submitted that the petitioners have also made a representation on 03.06.2025 in this regard, however, the respondents have not taken any

¶35

decision.

¶36

At this juncture, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent

¶37

submitted that according to the National Medical Commission (NMC)

¶38

guidelines, the candidates must pass their examinations, within the maximum 4 attempts and the present petitioners did not pass the examination, within four

¶39

attempts and hence they were discharged from the MBBS course vide order dated 06.02.2025. Therefore, it is the submission of the respondents that unless

¶40

the discharge order is challenged, the petitioners cannot get any remedy before this Court. Apart from that, even to consider the petitioners' representation, NMC is to be a necessary party, as the respondents 1 to 3 have to act in accordance with the guideline and rules stipulated by NMC.

¶41

3/7

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

WP No. 24526 of 2025

¶44

The above said contention was reiterated by the learned Government

¶45

Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 3.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials

¶47

available on record.

¶48

The earnest submissions of the petitioners' counsel is that the

¶49

petitioners seek one more mercy attempt to appear and clear the remaining subjects in their first year MBBS Examinations. However, the obstructions for

¶50

such prayer is the NMC guideline. According to the NMC guideline, in any situation, who is pursuing MBBS decree has to clear the subjects within the maximum four attempts. In the case on hand, the petitioners have utilised four attempts, however, in all those four attempts, have failed to clear their examinations. Therefore, according to the NMC guidelines, the petitioners have already been discharged vide order dated 06.02.2025. In the present case,

¶51

such order has not been challenged by the petitioners. Unless the said order

¶52

4/7

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

WP No. 24526 of 2025

¶55

is challenged, the question of permitting the petitioners for availing 5th attempt, does not arise. Apart from that, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has rightly contended that NMC is not a party to consider the petitioners' representation and also to challenge the discharge and relieving order dated 06.02.2025. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to challenge the Discharge and Relieving Order dated 06.02.2025 passed against the petitioners in accordance with law. No costs.

¶56

11-08-2025

¶57

jd Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶58

5/7

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶60

WP No. 24526 of 2025

¶61

¶62