Results
Examinations & results
The institution publishes aggregate MBBS examination results from 2019 through March 2026. The tables below preserve each examination stage and session. They are not merged into an institution-wide graduation or placement rate, because supplementary attempts and different cohorts can overlap.
March 2026 final MBBS Part II lists 99 candidates, 97 passes and two failures: 97.98% by calculation, displayed as 98% by the college. No independently reconciled all-course PG result series was obtained. Students should use their university-issued result for individual status.
| Stage | Session | Appeared | Passed | Failed as printed | Published pass % | Calculated pass % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| THIRD MBBS ( PART II) | MAR 2026 | 99 | 97 | 2 | 98 % | 97.98% |
Calculated percentage = passed ÷ appeared × 100, rounded to two decimals. Published percentages retained separately, including rounding discrepancies.
| Stage | Session | Appeared | Passed | Failed as printed | Published pass % | Calculated pass % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FIRST MBBS | AUG 2025 | 100 | 99 | 1 | 99 % | 99.00% |
| SECOND MBBS | JULY 2025 | 100 | 94 | 6 | 94 % | 94.00% |
| THIRD MBBS ( PART I) | OCT 2025 | 101 | 100 | 1 | 99 % | 99.01% |
| THIRD MBBS ( PART II) | MAR 2025 | 97 | 95 | 2 | 98 % | 97.94% |
Calculated percentage = passed ÷ appeared × 100, rounded to two decimals. Published percentages retained separately, including rounding discrepancies.
| Stage | Session | Appeared | Passed | Failed as printed | Published pass % | Calculated pass % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FIRST MBBS | AUG 2024 | 100 | 99 | 1 | 99 % | 99.00% |
| SECOND MBBS | FEB 2024 | 100 | 96 | 4 | 96 % | 96.00% |
| THIRD MBBS ( PART I) | FEB 2024 | 99 | 99 | - | 100 % | 100.00% |
| THIRD MBBS ( PART II) | MAR 2024 | 94 | 85 | 9 | 90 % | 90.43% |
Calculated percentage = passed ÷ appeared × 100, rounded to two decimals. Published percentages retained separately, including rounding discrepancies.
| Stage | Session | Appeared | Passed | Failed as printed | Published pass % | Calculated pass % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st Year | Nov 2023 | 100 | 90 | 10 | 90% | 90.00% |
| 2nd year | Feb 2023 | 96 | 87 | 9 | 91% | 90.62% |
| 3rd year Part I | Feb 2023 | 97 | 94 | 3 | 97% | 96.91% |
| 3rd Year Part II | March2023 | 96 | 93 | 3 | 97% | 96.88% |
Calculated percentage = passed ÷ appeared × 100, rounded to two decimals. Published percentages retained separately, including rounding discrepancies.
| Stage | Session | Appeared | Passed | Failed as printed | Published pass % | Calculated pass % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st Year | Feb 2022 | 100 | 95 | 5 | 95% | 95.00% |
| 2nd year | March 2022 | 97 | 90 | 7 | 92.7% | 92.78% |
| 3rd year Part I | April 2022 | 96 | 95 | 1 | 98.9% | 98.96% |
| 3rd Year Part II | April 2022 | 101 | 99 | 2 | 99% | 98.02% |
| 1st Year Supplementary | May 2022 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 20% | 20.00% |
| 2nd year Supplementary | August 2022 | 9 | 9 | – | 100% | 100.00% |
| 3rd year Part I supplimentry | August 2022 | 4 | 4 | – | 100% | 100.00% |
| 3rd Year Part II supplimentry | August 2022 | 2 | 2 | – | 100% | 100.00% |
Calculated percentage = passed ÷ appeared × 100, rounded to two decimals. Published percentages retained separately, including rounding discrepancies.
| Stage | Session | Appeared | Passed | Failed as printed | Published pass % | Calculated pass % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First MBBS | 2021 | 102 | 98 | Not separately stated | 96% | 96.08% |
| Second MBBS | 2021 | 101 | 98 | Not separately stated | 97% | 97.03% |
| Final MBBS ( part-I) | 2021 | 101 | 98 | Not separately stated | 97% | 97.03% |
| Final MBBS ( part-II) | 2021 | 109 | 109 | Not separately stated | 100% | 100.00% |
Calculated percentage = passed ÷ appeared × 100, rounded to two decimals. Published percentages retained separately, including rounding discrepancies.
| Stage | Session | Appeared | Passed | Failed as printed | Published pass % | Calculated pass % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First MBBS | 2020 | 100 | 96 | Not separately stated | 96% | 96.00% |
| Second MBBS | 2020 | 101 | 88 | Not separately stated | 87% | 87.13% |
| Final MBBS ( part-I) | 2020 | 111 | 104 | Not separately stated | 94% | 93.69% |
| Final MBBS ( part-II) | 2020 | 101 | 89 | Not separately stated | 88% | 88.12% |
Calculated percentage = passed ÷ appeared × 100, rounded to two decimals. Published percentages retained separately, including rounding discrepancies.
| Stage | Session | Appeared | Passed | Failed as printed | Published pass % | Calculated pass % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First MBBS | 2019 | 108 | 100 | Not separately stated | 93% | 92.59% |
| Second MBBS | 2019 | 104 | 101 | Not separately stated | 97% | 97.12% |
| Final MBBS ( part-I) | 2019 | 102 | 98 | Not separately stated | 96% | 96.08% |
| Final MBBS ( part-II) | 2019 | 99 | 86 | Not separately stated | 86% | 86.87% |
Calculated percentage = passed ÷ appeared × 100, rounded to two decimals. Published percentages retained separately, including rounding discrepancies.
For April 2022 final MBBS Part II, 99 of 101 computes to 98.02% although the page prints 99%. For 2019 final Part II, 86 of 99 computes to 86.87% while the page prints 86%. Neither source value is silently corrected.
Evidence context: existing college material reviewed 2026-09-24. Added institutional context reviewed 15 October 2026. Individual tables retain their own source years; no new historical series is implied.
Understanding the qualification and evidence
Identify the result you are trying to find
The examination authority and the institution have different roles. A search for an academic result should therefore identify the qualification, examination period, phase or stage, and any relevant institutional record before interpreting a number. This update does not provide a newly verified university pass-rate table for the college. It also does not treat the available counselling document as an examination result. A prospective student, a current learner and a graduate seeking documentation may be looking for different records. Naming that need clearly helps distinguish an application outcome, a university examination outcome, an internal assessment and the completion of a period of supervised training.
Counselling allotments do not measure academic performance
The 12 October 2026 provisional document used in the cutoff section concerns government-quota destinations during admission. Admission observations are also not a verified final joined cohort or a count of graduates employed after study. This distinction matters because the same broad word result can appear on pages about admissions, examinations and careers. The underlying record determines what can be calculated from it. A community-grouped admission observation can support a carefully labelled rank table, while a pass-rate calculation needs examination and cohort data. The current profile does not manufacture an academic performance claim by changing the label on information collected for a different purpose.
A pass rate needs a clearly defined denominator
A meaningful examination statistic identifies the qualification, period, group counted and the number whose outcomes are included. Different calculations can answer different questions: a first-attempt cohort, all candidates appearing in a session and a later supplementary examination are not necessarily the same population. A percentage without those definitions can look precise while leaving the reader unable to understand what it measures. The responsible approach is to leave the numerical rate unfilled while explaining which fields would be needed. It is not appropriate to estimate the number passing from the MBBS intake, from a small list of visible students or from an admission table that happens to contain the college's name.
Assessment types should not be confused with final outcomes
Written examinations, practical work, observed skills and discussion can measure different aspects of learning in medical education. Describing an assessment method does not establish a college's pass percentage or the outcome of a particular learner. The actual scheme and requirements belong to the relevant academic rules and batch. A student looking for their own position should use the authorised institutional or university process rather than a general public college profile. It explains why those details need to be read in their proper qualification and session, instead of being inferred from another medical college's published material or a general statement about how medical students are assessed.
Keep individual academic records private
A learner's marks, registration details and progress records should be handled through the authorised academic process. A public comparison page can discuss a properly defined aggregate without republishing a student's identity or unfavourable individual outcome. A family researching the college usually needs a reliable description of the academic programme and any verified aggregate performance evidence, not a collection of another learner's private records. If a published institutional report later provides a clearly defined result summary, it can be evaluated in its own scope. Until then, a lack of verified aggregate figures is not a reason to create a pass rate from anecdotes or incomplete screenshots.
Separate completing a course from the next educational step
For MBBS, the state prospectus describes a duration that includes the compulsory rotating internship. Examination progress, completion of required training and a later postgraduate or employment decision should be recorded as separate stages. A results page is more useful when it preserves these distinctions. It does not need an invented success percentage to explain what a reader should look for. The course section identifies the qualification names, the admission section explains the entry context, and the career section discusses later directions without presenting every next step as a placement or a guaranteed postgraduate admission.
Related educational context
Match the examination record to the question
An examination notice can establish that a particular document or event has been announced, while a result record addresses an outcome. A reader should identify the qualification, period and any relevant scheme or phase before interpreting either one. Those labels help distinguish an academic record from an admission publication or a general college update. This profile does not certify a current this institution examination timetable or turn the title of an indexed notice into an aggregate pass rate. It explains the information a learner needs to find the correct record and the limits that remain when only a notice, rather than a defined result summary, is available for inspection.
Keep different examination groups in separate calculations
A first attempt, a supplementary sitting and an entire graduating cohort can represent different groups. Combining them without explanation can produce a percentage that a reader cannot interpret. A useful result summary identifies who is counted, the relevant period and the outcome being measured. The denominator is as important as the number described as successful. No such current verified this institution calculation is supplied here. The profile therefore leaves the numerical rate unfilled rather than estimate it from the intake or a few visible records. If a defined institutional summary becomes available later, it can be discussed on its own terms without implying the same result for every subject, sitting or batch.
Use feedback to understand learning needs
A student's academic result can help identify material or practical skills that need further attention, but one mark does not fully describe their professional potential. A constructive discussion focuses on the relevant learning task and the support available through the authorised academic process. This is general educational context, not a promise of a particular this institution support service or a prediction about an individual's later progress. A learner can distinguish feedback on their work from a public comparison of the institution. That distinction allows them to use their own records for study planning without turning another person's result, an incomplete screenshot or an unsupported online claim into a measure of the entire college.
Present public evidence without exposing individual students
An institutional comparison should use an appropriately defined group record rather than a collection of identifiable personal marksheets. A public summary can explain its qualification, period and coverage without publishing a learner's registration details or unfavourable individual outcome. This update includes no student-level result sheet or names extracted from allotment documents. The absence of a verified aggregate is not a reason to build one from private records. A family researching a college usually needs to understand the academic programme and the scope of any credible performance evidence, while a current learner's personal academic query belongs with the authorised institution or university process.
Distinguish an examination outcome from a later opportunity
Passing an examination, entering a further course and obtaining employment are different events. A statement about one does not establish success in the others. A credible later outcomes report would need its own cohort, follow-up period and definitions. This matters when online discussions use academic success, postgraduate progression and placement as though they were one statistic. The profile keeps those claims separate. It explains the programme and its educational context without creating a graduation rate, postgraduate-selection percentage or salary summary that has not been verified. The course, admission and career pages remain related reading, but their different evidence should not be merged into a single unsupported measure of institutional success.