Join our WhatsApp Group
Latest
Wednesday, October 14, 2026
Rajasthan High Court
High Courts

MBBS Eligibility Needs Biology in Both Classes 11 and 12, Not Class 12 Alone: Rajasthan High Court

Published: · NyayVidhan

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court upheld the refusal of an MBBS seat to a NEET UG 2021 candidate who had studied Biology only in Class 12. The eligibility criteria require Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the last two years of 10+2 study, and the Court held two years of Biology to be an essential requirement (para 24). The earlier rulings relied on by the appellant did not decide the two-year question (paras 15, 17-21).

MBBS Eligibility Needs Biology in Both Classes 11 and 12, Not Class 12 Alone: Rajasthan High Court

Judgment Intelligence

Petition Dismissed
Krishna Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
2023:RJ-JP:25996-DB
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 689/2022 (in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4713/2022)
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision
29 September 2023
Bench
Justices Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Praveer Bhatnagar
Relevant Acts & Sections
Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (as amended by notification dated 22.01.2018) — Regulation 4(2)(a); NEET UG 2021 information booklet — eligibility criteria for MBBS; Constitution of India — Article 141
Final Outcome

Appeal dismissed. The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge's order of 18.05.2022 dismissing the writ petition, holding the appellant ineligible for MBBS admission under the Regulations and the information bulletin (paras 27-28).

Key holdings

  1. Biology studied only in Class 12 does not meet the two-year Biology requirement at 10+2 (paras 10, 24).
  2. Tanishq Gangwar allowed Biology as an additional subject; it did not hold one year enough (paras 15, 17).
  3. An order passed on a concession, or an SLP disposal that did not consider the point, is no precedent on it (paras 19, 21).
  4. Kaloji Narayana Rao's requirement of Biology in all the relevant years is its ratio (para 26).
  5. With neither the Regulations nor the criteria challenged, an ineligible candidate gets no relief (para 27).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The appellant scored 637 marks in NEET UG 2021 with All India Rank 6610. He was allotted Government Medical College, Pali in the first round of counselling and, on upgradation in the second round, Government Medical College, Kota, where he deposited the fee (para 2). The Principal did not let him join because he had studied Biology only in Class 12, while the information booklet required two years of study (para 3). In Class 11 he had studied Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Hindi; in Class 12 Biology was an optional subject (para 3). A Single Judge dismissed his writ petition on 18.05.2022 (paras 1, 5).

Court's Findings

The criteria, based on the Graduate Medical Education Regulations as amended in 2018, require that the last two years of the 12-year study comprise Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Biotechnology (paras 11-12, 14). Tanishq Gangwar struck down the bar on candidates who studied Biology as an additional subject; whether two years of Biology could be dispensed with was neither raised nor decided there (paras 14-15). As only the ratio decidendi binds, and a decision is no authority for what is read into it by implication, as restated in Secunderabad Club (para 16), reliance on it was misconceived (para 17). Deependra Sharma was disposed of on the respondents' concession and did not decide the issue (para 19). Sourabh Kumar Jeengar dealt only with Biology as an additional subject, and the Supreme Court's disposal of the SLP against it did not affirm a one-year rule (paras 20-21). Judicial intervention only allowed Biology as an additional subject; two years of Biology remains essential, and accepting one year would do "complete violence" to the mandatory criterion (paras 23-24). Kaloji Narayana Rao's finding of a compelling logic in requiring Biology for all the relevant years is its ratio and is not confined to equivalence (paras 25-26).

Legal Principle

Where admission criteria require Biology in the last two years of 10+2 study, two years of Biology is essential, and a candidate who studied it only in Class 12 is not eligible for MBBS. A decision is a precedent only for the question it actually decided, not for propositions read into it by implication (paras 16, 24, 26).

Precedents Relied Upon

  1. Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences v. Srikeerti Reddi Pingle and Others 2021 SCC ONLINE 94 [sic]
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 8, 10, 25, 26

    There is a rationale and compelling logic in requiring Biology in all the relevant years at the 10+2 or intermediate level; paras 14-15 are its ratio decidendi and are not confined to equivalence.

  2. Secunderabad Club Etc. v. C.I.T.-V Etc. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 660
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 16

    Only the ratio decidendi of a judgment is binding; a decision is not an authority for what can be read into it by implication.

  3. State of U.P. & Anr. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. & Anr. 1991 (4) SCC 139
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 21

    Rule of sub silentio: a conclusion reached without consideration of the point is not a declaration of law.

View all precedents (11)
  1. Tanishq Gangwar & Others v. Union of India & Others W.P. (C) 6773/2018, Delhi High Court
    Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 7, 14, 15, 17

    Struck down the bar on candidates who studied Biology as an additional subject; it did not decide whether two years of Biology could be dispensed with.

  2. Deependra Sharma v. Union of India & Others S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11747/2019
    Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 7, 18, 19

    Disposed of on the respondents' concession; it does not decide the two-year Biology issue.

  3. Sourabh Kumar Jeengar v. State of Rajasthan & Others S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15014/2020
    Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 7, 20, 21

    Decided only whether Biology as an additional subject made a candidate ineligible; the SLP disposal only modified the admission year and did not affirm a one-year rule.

  4. Dr. T. Rajakumari & Others v. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Others W.P. Nos. 39022 and 36735 of 2015, Madras High Court
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 7

    Cited by counsel for the appellant in support of his eligibility; not discussed further.

  5. Rajendra Prasad Saini v. Medical Council of India & Others D.B. Civil Writs No. 14547/2018
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 8, 22

    Cited by counsel for the National Medical Commission; the Court noted that it held the requirement of study in Biology to be mandatory and supported the respondents.

  6. Sohan Chouhan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Writ Petition No. 3619/2022, Madhya Pradesh High Court
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 8, 22

    Cited by counsel for the National Medical Commission; the Court noted that it held the requirement of study in Biology to be mandatory and supported the respondents.

  7. Niskarsh Singh Patel v. National Medical Commission & Others W.P. (C) 2606/2022, Delhi High Court
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 8, 22

    Cited by counsel for the National Medical Commission; the Court noted that it held the requirement of study in Biology to be mandatory and supported the respondents.

  8. Aayushi Dineshbhai Prajapati v. Union of India & Others LPA 422/2023, Delhi High Court
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 8, 22

    Cited by counsel for the National Medical Commission; the Court noted that it held the requirement of study in Biology to be mandatory and supported the respondents.

NyayVidhan
Court Judgments · 3 min read
Decided: September 29, 2023 Justices Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Praveer Bhatnagar
WhatsApp Telegram X / Twitter LinkedIn

✕

Try: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt