Order : SUNIL BENIWAL, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in the Second Year MBBS (Main) Examination scheduled to commence from 26.07.2025, to conduct remedial classes for all subjects, and to allow the petitioner to appear in the supplementary examination. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was admitted to the MBBS Course at the Government Medical College, Bhilwara in the year 2024. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged against him at Police Station Shastri Nagar, Patna for offences under Sections 407 , 408, 409, and 120-B of the IPC , alleging his involvement in the NEET examination paper leak. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested and remained in judicial custody from 02.08.2024 to 21.05.2025. 2.1 Owing to his judicial custody, the petitioner could not attend his regular classes and was consequently not permitted to appear in the Second Year MBBS (Main) Examination. He was also placed under suspension by order dated 17.05.2025. 2.2 Aggrieved by the said suspension order, the petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11050/2025 before this Court. In the said writ petition, while issuing notice, a Coordinate Bench of this Court stayed the suspension order and directed that the petitioner be allowed to attend the Second Year MBBS classes. However, the petitioner’s request to appear in the examination was made subject to fulfillment of the attendance criteria as prescribed under the NMC Regulations. 2.3 Despite the aforesaid order, the petitioner was not permitted to appear in the Second Year MBBS Examination. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while arguing the writ petition, made the following submissions:- 3.1. The petitioner could not attend regular classes as he remained in judicial custody, and the shortfall in attendance occurred due to circumstances beyond his control. 3.2 The petitioner was arrested merely on apprehension, despite having no involvement in the alleged NEET examination paper leak. The charges levelled against him are yet to be proved, and as on date, he is only facing trial. Therefore, unless and until he is found guilty, the respondent authorities are bound to allow him to continue his MBBS course and to appear in the regular examinations. 3.3 The petitioner has been subjected to discriminatory treatment by the respondent authorities. The charges levelled against him are yet to be proved, and as on date, he is only facing trial. Therefore, unless and until he is found guilty, the respondent authorities are bound to allow him to continue his MBBS course and to appear in the regular examinations. 3.3 The petitioner has been subjected to discriminatory treatment by the respondent authorities. It is submitted that other students, who also had a shortfall in attendance, were permitted to appear in the Second Year MBBS Supplementary Examination, whereas the petitioner has been denied the same opportunity solely on the ground of his arrest pursuant to the said FIR. 3.4 It is further submitted that if the petitioner is permitted to attend the Third Year MBBS classes and to take remedial classes of MBBS II Year, he would be able to save one precious academic year. By attending such remedial classes, the petitioner would be in a position to make up the shortfall in attendance and thereby become eligible to appear in both the Second Year MBBS and the Third Year MBBS Main Examination. 3.5 No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the petitioner is allowed to appear in the examinations after fulfilling the requisite attendance criteria. In view of the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the petitioner may be permitted to attend the Third Year MBBS classes during the current academic session and that the respondents be directed to allow him to undertake remedial classes to compensate for the attendance shortfall in the Second Year MBBS course. 4. Per contra, while opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents made the following submissions:- 4.1 The petitioner has criminal antecedents and is facing serious and grave charges pertaining to the NEET examination paper leak. Therefore, such a student is neither entitled to sympathy nor to the reliefs sought in the present writ petition. 4.2 As a matter of fact, the petitioner was permitted to attend remedial classes during the current academic year; however, he failed, of his own accord, to attend the said classes so as to meet the required attendance criteria. Consequently, no further opportunity to attend additional remedial classes can be extended to him. 4.3 The minimum attendance required to become eligible for remedial classes is 60%. Consequently, no further opportunity to attend additional remedial classes can be extended to him. 4.3 The minimum attendance required to become eligible for remedial classes is 60%. The petitioner has not placed any material on record to demonstrate that he meets this threshold. The objective of remedial classes is merely to compensate for attendance shortfall arising out of genuine reasons. The ground put forth by the petitioner, his judicial custody owing to allegations of involvement in a paper leak, cannot be considered a genuine reason for relaxation. 4.4 As per the prescribed guidelines, a minimum of 75% attendance in theory and 80% attendance in practical classes is mandatory to be eligible to appear in the University Examination. The petitioner admittedly failed to meet the said attendance criteria. 4.5 The allegation of discrimination is wholly baseless. The petitioner has sought parity with one Ali Mohammad; however, his case is not comparable. Ali Mohammad had attended the requisite number of remedial classes and, therefore, was permitted to appear in the Second Year MBBS Supplementary Examination. The petitioner, on the other hand, does not fulfill the requisite attendance norms. 4.6 It is not the case of the petitioner that on account of judicial custody, he could not attend the remedial classes. The petitioner was released on bail on 27.05.2025 and the remedial classes were conducted on May 22 nd , 23 rd , 26 th , 27 th , 29 th to 31 st , 2025; June 2 nd to 6 th , and 7 th to 24 th , 2025; so also on July 1 st , 3 rd , 5 th , 7 th to 12 th 14 th and 16 th , 2025, but the petitioner attended remedial class only on 16.07.2025. 4.7 All the students, who were having short-fall of attendance, were allowed to attend remedial classes, irrespective of the fact whether any particular student was having minimum 60% attendance or not and such decision was taken on humanitarian grounds. 4.6 Reliance has been placed on a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in a batch of petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17615/2024, Surendra Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 18.02.2025. 4.6 Reliance has been placed on a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in a batch of petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17615/2024, Surendra Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 18.02.2025. In the said judgment, it was observed that MBBS students, upon obtaining their degrees, are entrusted with the responsibility of serving as doctors, and hence, the highest standards in medical education must be maintained as they directly affect the quality of healthcare available to the public. It was further emphasized that strict adherence to attendance norms is essential to ensure that medical students acquire the necessary knowledge and practical skills to become competent professionals. The said batch of writ petitions was accordingly dismissed. In view of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel for the respondents prayed that the present writ petition be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is noted that the petitioner remained in judicial custody from 02.08.2024 to 21.05.2025, and on account of the same, he could not attend the classes of the Second Year MBBS course. The petitioner was arrested on serious allegations of being part of a paper-leak syndicate, and for this reason, he was suspended from the college by order dated 17.04.2025. The trial pursuant to the said FIR has since commenced but has not yet concluded. Perhaps considering these circumstances, a Coordinate Bench of this Court stayed the petitioner’s suspension and permitted him to attend classes. The interim protection by way of stay of the suspension order was evidently granted on the premise that the petitioner had not been found guilty at that stage and that continuation of the suspension could have irreparably affected his academic career. 6.1 It is further noted that a student is eligible to undertake remedial classes only if he has at least 60% attendance but less than the requisite 75%. It is rather surprising that the respondents have sought to shift the burden upon the petitioner to show that he possessed 60% attendance. In fact, attendance records are maintained by the institution, and therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondents to place the correct attendance figures on record. It is rather surprising that the respondents have sought to shift the burden upon the petitioner to show that he possessed 60% attendance. In fact, attendance records are maintained by the institution, and therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondents to place the correct attendance figures on record. 6.2 Be that as it may, in the absence of any specific data regarding the attendance of the petitioner, this Court refrains from making any conclusive observation as to the exact attendance percentage held by him. Even otherwise, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that all the students, irrespective of their attendance, were allowed to participate in the remedial classes on humanitarian grounds. The respondents, in their additional affidavit, have stated that a student may be allowed to participate in classes for the Third Phase of the MBBS programme but shall not be permitted to appear in the Phase III Part-I examinations until all subjects of the Second Professional Examination are cleared. Further, to become eligible for the Second Professional Examination, the student must fulfill the prescribed attendance requirements. 7. This Court has no hesitation in observing that a person pursuing a professional course such as MBBS cannot be permitted to appear in examinations without fulfilling the norms prescribed by the competent authorities. As stated by learned counsel for respondents, Rules permit a student to attend the Third Year MBBS classes; however, it simultaneously imposes a condition that such a student shall be eligible to appear in the Third Year MBBS Examination only upon passing all the subjects of the Second Year MBBS and upon fulfilling the requisite attendance criteria. 8. In the judgment rendered in Surendra Bishnoi (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court was dealing with MBBS students who had taken admission in the course but had a shortfall in attendance. In that case, there was no provision enabling such students to undertake remedial classes. It was, therefore, observed that in the absence of any provision for remedial classes, the deficiency in attendance could not be condoned, and unless the students fulfilled the prescribed attendance criteria, they could not be permitted to appear in the subsequent examinations. 8.1. In that case, there was no provision enabling such students to undertake remedial classes. It was, therefore, observed that in the absence of any provision for remedial classes, the deficiency in attendance could not be condoned, and unless the students fulfilled the prescribed attendance criteria, they could not be permitted to appear in the subsequent examinations. 8.1. In view of the above, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is distinguishable on facts and does not materially assist them in the present case, as here, there exists a provision for remedial classes. Looking to the fact that petitioner has voluntarily not attended most of the remedial classes, he does not deserve any sympathy, however, considering peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, when the guidelines itself permit and allow a student to attend remedial classes to make-up the short-fall of attendance, so also looking to the academic career of the petitioner as a young medical student, this Court deems it appropriate to issue necessary directions in the present writ petition. 9. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner may be allowed to undertake MBBS III Year Classes and he may also be allowed to attend remedial classes for the purpose of over-coming the short-fall of attendance of MBBS II Year. If, after attending such remedial classes, petitioner fulfills the required attendance criteria, he may be allowed to appear in the MBBS II Year Examination. 10. Needless to observe that on fulfilling the attendance criteria and also passing the MBBS II Year Examination, the petitioner may be allowed to take-up MBBS III Year Examination. 11. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.