Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, C.J., MUNNURI LAXMAN, J.
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
JIET Medical College And Hospital – Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1057/2024 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16822/2024
Decided on : 11-12-2024
(A) National Medical Commission Act, 2019 - Section 28(3) - Interim orders - Increase in intake capacity of medical colleges - The learned Single Judge allowed an increase from 50 to 100 seats based on a strong prima facie case, despite the Supreme Court's consistent disapproval of such interim orders in similar cases. The court emphasized that interim orders should not be granted lightly, especially when they could jeopardize students' futures. (Paras 3, 5, 9, 30)
(B) Admission Process - The court reiterated that provisional admissions without proper approval from the Medical Council are impermissible and could lead to significant consequences for students. (Paras 12, 14, 20)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from an interim order allowing an increase in medical college seats during ongoing litigation, despite previous disapproval from the Medical Assessment and Rating Board.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the interim order was unsustainable but chose not to vacate it due to the students already admitted.
Issues: The main issues were the legality of interim orders allowing seat increases and the implications for students' admissions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that interim orders should not be granted in cases involving educational institutions without compliance with necessary regulations, emphasizing the potential harm to students.
Result: The appeal was disposed of without vacating the interim order, requesting expedited final hearing.
Based on the provided legal document, the interim orders allowing increases in medical college seats without proper approval have been explicitly overruled or set aside by the court. The court consistently emphasized that granting interim relief to increase seats in educational institutions, especially medical colleges, is impermissible and contrary to established legal principles. The court highlighted that such interim orders can cause significant harm to students and undermine the regulatory framework governing medical education.
The court's detailed analysis and authoritative pronouncements make it clear that interim orders permitting seat increases without following the due approval process are not sustainable in law and are to be set aside. The court directed that such interim directions are not justified and should be vacated, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and the risks posed by provisional seat increases.
Therefore, the interim orders allowing seat increases have been overruled or set aside by the court.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is directed against order dated 16.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the learned Single Judge by interim order has allowed increase of the seats in the medical college.
2. Respondents-writ petitioners, in response to the public notice dated 18.08.2023 inviting applications for establishment of new colleges for MBBS Course and revised intake of existing colleges, submitted application for establishment of college with intake capacity of 150 seats. A show cause notice was issued on 04.04.2024 requiring certain compliance and it is the case of the Respondents-writ petitioners that compliance report was submitted on 12.04.2024, physical inspection was conducted by the assessor of National Medical Commission. The assessor found that there were some deficiencies insofar as faculty and SR are concerned. On 04.07.2024, Medical Assessment and Rating Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MARB’) disapproved the entire scheme for establishment of medical college with 150 seats. Respondents-writ petitioners filed first appeal, which was dismissed. A second appeal was then filed on 04.08.2024. During pendency of the appeal, counseling started on 14.08.2024. Till completion of first and second round of counseling, the second appeal remained pending and was finally decided on 30.09.2024, partly allowing the same and granting permission for only 50 seats. The Respondents-writ petitioners dissatisfied with the rejection of application insofar as remaining 100 seats was concerned, approached the Writ Court by filing writ petition wherein, interim order came to be passed in its favour on 16.10.2024. By interim order, learned Single Judge allowed increase in the seats from 50 to 100. In compliance of order of the Court, the appellants and the other instrumentalities had to increase and issue notice enhancing seats from 50 to 100 which eventuality led to publication of increased vacant seat matrix in the stray vacancy round held on 30.10.2024. The students were allowed admission against 50 enhanced seats who later on deposited tuition fee and were admitted from 04.11.2024 to 05.11.2024 in the concerned college.
3. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants would submit that increase in the intake capacity of a medical college by an interim order has been seriously deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in plethora of decisions but despite that learned Single Judge has passed an interim order directing increase in the intake of seats by as many as 50 seats. Learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellants would submit that merely because a prima-facie case or strong prima-facie case is made out, interim relief ought not to have been granted as increase in seats by such interim order results in admission of large number of students and in case, the writ petition is dismissed, it will seriously jeopardise the future and career of those students who applied for admission against the seats increased provisionally by an interim order. On the other hand, if the writ petition is allowed, permission could always be granted to admit students in the following academic session. It is not a case of irreparable injury. The Court may even award appropriate compensation if ultimately it is found that rejection of application was illegal but no interim order should have been passed. Learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellants has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Medical Council of India Versus JSS Medical College & Another, (2012) 5 SCC 628, Medical Council of India Versus Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences & Others, (2004) 6 SCC 76, Dental Council of India Versus Dr. Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal Hingoli and Others, (2017) 13 SCC 115, Medical Council of India Versus N.C. Medical College and Hospital and Others, (2019) 17 SCC 655, State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Versus Sandeep Kumar Balmiki & Others, (2009) 17 SCC 555, M
Interim orders allowing increases in medical college seats without proper approval are impermissible and jeopardize students' futures.
The court held that expert regulatory bodies' assessments of medical institutions' deficiencies are not to be overridden by the judiciary unless significant jurisdictional errors are proven.
Court reaffirmed the necessity of timely processing applications for educational seat enhancements, emphasizing adherence to statutory timelines under the National Medical Commission Act.
Interim relief in educational admissions must not equate to final relief unless justified; compliance with statutory standards is essential for approval.
The court emphasized the necessity of caution in issuing interim orders affecting medical seat allocations, affirming the principle of restitution for parties adversely affected by such orders.
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Siddharth Radhe Lal Gupta For the Respondent : J. K. Jain, Anoop Nair, Akshay Pawar
When public interest is involved, facts emerging from subsequent events can be looked into to support an administrative order.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of strict adherence to the admission schedule prescribed by the Medical Council of India's Regulations 2000 and the principle of mer....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of the petitioner's request for increasing the intake of students in the MBBS course was unjustified and unsustainable, as it....
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....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
