SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rekha Palli, J.
Sri Lakshmi Narayana Institute of Medical Sciences - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 1458 of 2022 & CM Appl. 4222 of 2022 (Application for permission to file synopsis and lengthy list of dates)
Decided On : 25-01-2022




The distinction between the establishment of new medical colleges and the enhancement of student intake in existing colleges is critical; prior judicial rulings must not impede justified applications to increase capacity.

Headnote:(A) National Medical Commission Act, 2019 - Sections 26(1)(b), 28(1), and 28(3) - Application for increasing intake of students in MBBS course - Petitioner contested rejection of application despite meeting required standards, arguing arbitrary application of prior court orders concerning new medical colleges - Court emphasized that previous rulings did not address seat enhancement in existing institutions and highlighted the urgent need for increasing medical manpower. (Paras 1-16)

(B) Discrimination and fair treatment in administrative processes - Importance of considering existing infrastructure and compliance in requests for increasing academic capacity - Court found reliance on irrelevant past orders was inappropriate. (Paras 5, 14, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to increase their MBBS student intake from 150 to 250 but faced rejections citing prior judicial rulings regarding new medical colleges, despite positive reviews from assessments conducted at the institute.

Findings of Court:
The rejection of the petitioners' request was found to be prima facie unsustainable and thus required reconsideration to avoid unnecessary prejudice against the public and students.

Issues: Whether the refusal to enhance student intake based on previous rulings about new colleges was justified; the implications of the previous rulings on current applications.

Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored the distinction between new college establishment and increasing capacity in existing ones, affirming the need to boost healthcare resources.

Result: The application is disposed of with a direction for reconsideration of the intake increase.

Table of Content
1. challenge to nmc's rejection of intake increase (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments supporting petitioner's compliance and discriminatory treatment (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
3. court's observations on maintainability and previous nmc decisions (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. interim order for reconsideration due to potential public health impact (Para 16 , 17)
5. scheduling next steps and timelines for proceedings (Para 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (ORAL)

W.P.(C) 1458/2022 & & CM APPL. 4221/2022 (Interim Relief)

1. The petitioner no.1, a medical institute, along with the its trustee petitioner no.2, has approached this Court assailing the communications dated 15.11.2021 and 30.11.2021 issued by the Medical Assessment and Rating Board (`the Assessment Board') of the respondent no.2/National Medical Commission(`NMC'), rejecting the petitioners' application seeking permission to increase the intake of students in the MBBS course for the academic session 2021-22 from 150 to 250. The petitioners also assail the decision dated 20.01.2022 of the respondent no.2's First Appellate Committee (`the Appellate Committee'), whereby its appeal under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (`the NMC Act') against the impugned letters, has been rejected.

2. The petitioner no.1 Institute is a constituent of Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research, a deemed to be university under Section 3 of the UGC. Based upon an Essentiality Certificate issued by the Government of Pondicherry, the petitioner no.1 was granted approval and consequently, set up the institute which was being granted renewals from time to time.

3. The petitioner no.1 Institute made an application on 12.11.2020 before the respondents seeking to increase the intake of students in the MBBS course from 150 to 250 students per year under section 26(1)(b) & 28(1)(2) of the NMC Act, 2019 for the academic year 2021-22. Upon receiving the application, the Assessment Board of the respondent no.2 sought certain documents from the petitioner no. 1, which were duly submitted on 26.05.2021.

4. However, the Assessment Board of the respondent no.2/NMC failed to process the petitioners' application and vide letter dated 27.08.2021 informed the petitioners that due to the constraints of sending the assessors to physically inspect the colleges in view of the Covid-19 pandemic, the respondent No. 2 had taken a decision to carry forward the application for the next academic year i.e., 2022-2023. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioners approached the Madras High Court by way of Writ Petition No. 19005 of 2021, which rejected the writ petition on 16.09.2021 as it did not find any arbitrariness in the respondent no.2's decision to not process any application for increasing the intake during the covid-19 pandemic.

5. However, soon thereafter the petitioner was informed by the respondent no.2 that the Institute will be inspected, and accordingly an inspection of the faculty and infrastructure at the petitioner Institute was conducted on 08.10.2021 and 09.10.2021, wherein the inspection committee concluded that the respondent no.1 Institute had adequate clinical material and infrastructure as per the NMC norms. Despite this assessment report, the respondent no.2, issued the impugned letter dated 15.11.2021 by referring to the order passed by the Madras High Court in W.P.(MD) 17263/2020 on 30.07.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made a representation dated 22.11.2021 to the NMC, whereafter another inspection of the petitioner no.1 Institute was carried out on 26.11.2021 and 27.11.2021, wherein again no deficiency was found. However, despite the said inspection's finding that the petitioner was fulfilling all the applicable norms for increasing the strength of intake for students in the MBBS course from 150-250, the Assessment Board of the respondent no.2 issued yet another letter of disapproval on 30.12.2021.

6. The petitioners challenged both the letters

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top