GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court has recently dismissed a petition filed by an individual seeking permission to resume their MBBS studies at Gauhati Medical College.
According to the petitioner, they had initially enrolled in the MBBS course for the 2009-2010 session but could not attend classes or take examinations due to a prolonged illness.
Justice Lanusungkum Jamir stated that there was no record of the petitioner's registration or participation in examinations, and the court could not grant permission for the petitioner to be admitted to the first-year MBBS course in the upcoming semester.
Noting that nearly 13 years had passed since the petitioner's admission to the first-year MBBS course, the court concluded that granting admission at this stage would be unfair to candidates who had already been selected for the same session.
The petitioner had paid the necessary admission fees and explained their absence was due to an accident resulting in injuries, psychosomatic disorders, and tuberculosis, which prevented regular attendance.
Although the petitioner submitted a representation seeking permission to resume studies, it was rejected by the Academic Registrar of Gauhati University, citing a lack of records regarding the petitioner's admission and subsequent registration for the MBBS course in the 2009-2010 session.
The petitioner then approached the High Court through a writ petition, arguing that the events between 2010 and 2019 were beyond their control and they should not be denied the opportunity to complete their MBBS course based solely on technicalities.
The counsel representing the National Medical Commission informed the court that there is no time limit for learners who joined the MBBS course before the 2019-2020 session to complete their studies. However, a maximum period of 10 years is allowed for students who enrolled after the 2019-2020 session.
The counsel representing the Assam Health Department argued against admitting the petitioner, stating that it would be unfair to other deserving candidates.
Considering the prolonged gap and absence of registration records, the court upheld the decision to reject the petitioner's plea. The ruling emphasised that admitting the petitioner in the next semester would be unjust and disadvantageous to other candidates.
