The issuance of Notice No. 10 dated 26-9-2023 by respondent No. 4 was in violation of the rules and regulations of the NMC Act, and the communication/order dated 18-10-2023 by respondent No. 2 was just and proper.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioners have preferred this petition challenging the communication/order dated 18-10-2023 issued by respondent No. 2 informing that the notice dated 26-9-2023 issued by respondent No. 4 for filling up the vacant seats in Private Medical Unaided College at College/Institutional Level is in violation of the letter dated 24-7-2023 issued by the Post Graduate Medical Education Board (for short “PGMEB”).

3. The petitioners are students and had appeared for the NEET-UG-2023 Examination. Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2 have secured 531 and 157 marks respectively in the said examination. They were eligible for admission to MBBS courses conducted by various colleges in the State of Maharashtra.

4. Respondent No. 1 is a Statutory Body constituted under Section 3 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (short “NMC Act”) for the purpose of regulating and maintaining of standards of Medical Institutions, Medical Research, and Medical Professionals. Respondent No. 2 is an Autonomous Board constituted under Section 16(1)(a) of the NMC Act. Respondent No. 3 is a Body constituted under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institution (Regulation of Admission & Fees) Act, 2015 (for short “Act of 2015”). Respondent No. 4 is a State Common Entrance Test Cell constituted under Section 10 of the Act of 2015. Respondent No. 5 is a Private Unaided Medical College that is affiliated with the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences.

5. The petitioners submit that Common Entrance Test i.e. NEET-UG-2023 was conducted by respondent No. 1 for admission to MBBS and other Health Science Courses for the academic year 2023-24. Accordingly, respondent No. 4 published an information brochure regarding the examination and admission process. The petitioners had appeared for the said examination. The admission process for MBBS and other Health Science Courses commenced pursuant to Notice No. 1, NEET-UG-2023, dated 23-7-2023 issued by respondent No. 4. The candidates were directed to apply for online registration from 23-7-2023 to 29-7-2023. Accordingly, the schedule of the process for admission was published in the said notice dated 23-7-2023. On 27-7-2023 respondent No. 4 issued a revised schedule for admission.

6. The petitioners participated in the admission process through online registration. Petitioner No. 1 has opted for admission to the MBBS course in 85% of State quota seats to be filled up through the Centralized Admission Process (for short “CAP”). Petitioner No. 3 has opted for a 15% institutional quota through CAP. On 24-7-2023 Clause No. 11.5.2 was issued as per Circular No. 044351 by PGMEB. Said Circular was issued pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, respondent No. 4 had conducted three CAP Rounds and one Stray Vacancy Round. The Notice No. 5 for the second and third CAP Rounds was issued on 21-8-2023. The candidates admitted in the third CAP Round were given time up to 5.30 p.m. on 20-9-2023 to join the allotted colleges by depositing all original documents and requisite fees.

7. It is further contended that since all the seats in the eligible colleges could not be filled in on completion of the third CAP Round, respondent No. 4 issued Notice No. 9 dated 18-9-2023 prescribing a schedule for filling in vacant seats through Online Stray Vacancy Round for MBBS and BDS courses. Despite all the vacant seats not being filled in the Stray Vacancy Round, respondent No. 4 issued another notice No. 10 dated 26-9-2023 prescribing the schedule for the Online Stray Vacancy Round, and as per the said Notice No. 10 applications were to be submitted between 27-9-2023 to 28-9-2023.

8. Pursuant to Notice No. 10 Respondent No. 5-College, on 29-9-2023 published two separate merit lists, one was for State Quota Seat and another was for Institutional Quota Seat. The name of petitioner No. 1 appeared in the merit list