NEET | Biology In Class 11 Not Mandatory Under NMC 2023 MBBS Norms; Rajasthan High Court Directs Admission Of Candidate Taking Biology As Additional Subject In Class 12
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Dr. Nupur Bhati set aside the rejection of a successful NEET-UG candidate’s admission to an MBBS course and directed the authorities to complete document verification and grant him the Government Medical College seat already allotted to him. The Court held that the candidate’s eligibility could not be denied merely because he had not studied Biology in Class 11, having subsequently studied and passed Biology in Class 12 as an additional subject. Referring to the 2023 Public Notice issued by the National Medical Commission and the corresponding Information Booklet, the Bench held that these documents make Biology in Class 11 non-mandatory for MBBS admission, so long as the requisite subjects are passed at the Class 12 level.
The petitioner, a NEET-UG aspirant, challenged the rejection of his candidature for admission to an MBBS course by the State counselling authorities and the National Medical Commission. He completed Class 10 in 2017, pursued science in Classes 11 and 12, and subsequently reappeared in the senior secondary examination in 2019 and 2020, when he took Biology as an additional subject and passed with first division, thereby holding a Class 12 qualification with Hindi, English, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Biology. He appeared in NEET-UG 2025, secured 550/720 marks with a 99.4359 percentile, and was provisionally allotted seats in successive counselling rounds, culminating in an allotment in a Government Medical College, subject to document verification.
During verification, his candidature was rejected by email dated 01.10.2025 on the ground that he had not studied Biology in Class 11. The petitioner relied on the National Medical Commission’s Public Notice dated 22.11.2023, the Information Booklet/Guidelines for NEET-UG 2025, and the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023, to contend that only passing Physics, Chemistry, Biology/Biotechnology and English at the 10+2 level, even with Biology as an additional subject, was required. The respondents relied on the NEET-UG counselling checklist requiring a Class 11 mark sheet bearing Biology and argued that, as the petitioner had reappeared in all Class 12 subjects along with Biology, he did not satisfy the eligibility envisaged in the Public Notice.
The Court recorded that the Public Notice dated 22.11.2023 contained no mandate requiring Biology in Class 11. It stated that “upon perusal of the Public Notice dated 22.11.2023 … it is clear that there is no mandate requiring a candidate to study Biology in Class 11th.” The Court noted that the earlier requirements of the erstwhile Medical Council of India regarding two years of continuous study of requisite subjects had been amended after being quashed by the Delhi High Court.
In discussing the NMC’s 2023 regulations, the Court stated that the statutory body “had framed the graduate medical education regulations, 2023 … mandating that candidates who have passed 10+2 or its equivalent with the subject of Physics, Chemistry, Biology/Biotechnology and English shall be eligible for appearing in NEET-UG.” The Court recorded that the NMC, in its meeting dated 14.06.2023, “consciously took a decision that candidates who undertake studies of requisite subjects … even as additional subjects after passing Class 12th … shall be permitted in NEET-UG test and would also be eligible for grant of eligibility certificate.”
Addressing the wording “after passing Class 12th,” the Court stated that the word “‘after’ has been erroneously mentioned instead of ‘at the time of passing Class 12th’” and that no examination mechanism existed allowing a candidate to pursue an additional Class 12 subject after already passing the examination. The Court observed that the respondents were unable to explain this inconsistency and therefore “the word ‘after’ was inadvertently used … and cannot be construed to create an artificial bar” on candidates like the petitioner.
The Court recorded that “there is no requirement whatsoever to have studied Biology in Class 11th” and that the only requirement was passing the subjects Physics, Chemistry, Biology/Biotechnology, and English from a recognized board. It further stated that the respondents had not demonstrated that the Information Booklet or Public Notice mandated Biology in Class 11.
The Court noted that Clause 5 of the Information Booklet reproduced the Public Notice and permitted candidates who had undertaken the requisite subjects “even as additional subjects after passing Class 12th.” It observed that the petitioner had Biology as an additional subject in Class 12 and therefore fulfilled eligibility criteria.
The Court finally recorded that the rejection of candidature solely on the ground of absence of Biology in Class 11 was “unjust, arbitrary, and contrary to the decision of the National Medical Commission.”
The Court declared that “the impugned communication/email dated 01.10.2025 … declaring the petitioner ineligible, is hereby quashed and set aside.” It directed that “the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s candidature for the document verification process without any further delay preferably within a period of one week from today.”
The Court further stated that since the petitioner had already been allotted a college pursuant to the interim order dated 10.10.2025, “the respondents are directed to accord the petitioner admission in the respective college forthwith and permit him to attend classes for the MBBS course.”
“Keeping in view the petitioner’s fulfillment of the eligibility criteria as per the applicable Information Booklet,” and further recorded that this was to ensure that the petitioner’s “academic and career prospects are not adversely affected by the arbitrary decision of the respondents.”
“The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sharad Kothari with Mr. Kalpit Shishodia
For the Respondents: Mr. Narendra Singh Rajpurohit, AAG with Mr. Sher Singh Rathore; Mr. Bhutid Gahlot for Mr. Siddharth Tatiya
Case Title: Gopal Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JD:50306
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19986/2025
Bench: Justice Nupur Bhati
