Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
JUSTICE N. SESHASAYEE, J.
Vels Medical College & Hospital, Under Vels Institute of Science, Technology & Advanced Studies (VISTAS), (Deemed to be University) - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Department of Health & Family Welfare and Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No.22750 of 2022 and WMP. Nos.21789, 21790 & 21791 of 2023
Decided On : 28-03-2024
NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION ACT - MEDICAL EDUCATION SEAT ALLOCATION - Sections 22, 26, 28, 38, 57, 61 - The court discussed the National Medical Commission Act, particularly Sections 22, 26, and 28, which empower the MARB to regulate medical education standards and seat allocations. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining high standards in medical education and the authority of the MARB to take necessary actions, including reducing student intake, based on inspection findings. The court interpreted these provisions as allowing for administrative discretion in ensuring compliance with educational standards, which influenced its decision to uphold the reduction of seats from 150 to 100.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a deemed university, challenged the decision of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the National Medical Commission (NMC) to reduce the number of M.B.B.S. seats from 150 to 100 due to deficiencies identified in a surprise inspection conducted by the Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB). The petitioner argued that it was not given a fair opportunity to address the deficiencies before the decision was made.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the MARB and NMC acted within their statutory powers under the National Medical Commission Act. It held that the petitioner was given a show-cause notice and had the opportunity to respond, but the deficiencies cited were significant enough to justify the reduction in seats. The court concluded that the procedural requirements were met and that the decisions were not arbitrary.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was denied a fair hearing before the reduction of seats and whether the actions of the MARB and NMC were justified under the National Medical Commission Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the MARB's inspection report, prepared by qualified professionals, should not be interfered with unless there is clear evidence of malfeasance or jurisdictional error. It emphasized that the right to a hearing does not necessarily require a personal hearing, and the petitioner had ample opportunity to present its case. The court upheld the authority of the MARB to enforce compliance with educational standards.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court directed the identification and relocation of 50 affected students to other medical colleges at the petitioner's expense, ensuring that they do not bear additional financial burdens due to the decision.
ORDER :
(N. Seshasayee, J.)
(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the entire records relating to the impugned order dated 05.08.2022 in No.V.11013/94/2022-ME-1 (FTS No.8177284) of the first respondent and quash the same.)
The petitioner herein is a deemed university and challenges in this case the proceedings of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India dated 05.08.2022, by which it confirmed the proceedings of the National Medical Commission (hereinafter the NMC) dated 27.06.2022, reducing the number of seats for M.B.B.S. Course in the petitioner-college from 150 to 100.
2.1 The relevant facts and circumstances that led to the institution of this petition are stated below:
(b) Owing to Covid Wave II, admission for the academic year 2021- 2022 itself took place only in February, 2022. While so, after about a month, on 30.03.2022 to be precise, MARB conducted a second surprise inspection. This time it had listed few deficiencies or inadequacies in the petitioner's institution. As required, MARB prepared a report on the same day. According to the petitioner, in terms of the Assessor's Guide for UG Assessment for the year 2021 - 2022, as has been provided for, the Dean of the college made his remarks in defence of the allegation made by MARB in its report.
(c) On 13.04.2022, MARB issued a show-cause notice based on the report earlier mentioned, and this was responded to by the petitioner vide its explanation dated 29.04.2022, accompanied by a 195 page annexure in defence of the allegations made in the show cause notice.
(d) This was followed by a proceedings of the MARB, dated, 30.05.2022, where under it reduced the number of seats allotted to the petitioner-college from 150 to 100 for the academic year 2021- 2022 (very obviously after the competition of the admission process for the said academic year).
(e) The aforesaid proceedings of the MARB, dated 30.05.2022 is literally a non-speaking order in that it did not take into consideration either the specific remarks made by the Dean of the college on the report prepared on the date of the second inspection of the MARB, nor the Inspection Report of the MARB dated 30.03.2022, nor has it taken into account the explanation and the annexures provided by the petitioner vide its communication dated 29.04.2022. Hence the petitioner challenged this proceedings of MARB under Section 22(3) of the National Medical Commission Act, before the 2nd respondent herein.
(f) The NMC, vide its order dated, 27.06.2022, confirmed the proceedings of MARB. The critical ground that had guided the NMC to its decision is the finding of the MARB that the bed occupancy was a bare 7.93% as against the minimum requirement of 60% besides 31% deficiency in the faculty strength and 51% in the residents. The petitioner preferred a second appeal to the Government (the first respondent) under Sec.22 of the NMC Act, and on 05.08.2022 the second appeal came to be dismissed after afforded an opportunity to hearing to the petitioner. This order of the first respondent is now under challenge in this writ petition.
(g) The present petition was filed on 24.08.2022. On 26.08.2022, this Court passed an interim Order in WMP 21789 of 2022 had injuncted the respondents from disturbing the interest of 50 students, whose fate hanged in uncertainty in view of the order reducing the number
The court established that the National Medical Commission Act grants the MARB the authority to regulate medical education standards, including the power to reduce student intake based on inspection ....
The court upheld the authority of the National Medical Commission to regulate medical education standards, emphasizing adherence to statutory requirements for college establishment.
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.
The Medical Assessment and Rating Board lacks jurisdiction to retrospectively cancel admissions, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness in educational regulation.
Principles of natural justice require that a party be given a fair hearing before a decision is made that affects their rights. This includes the right to be informed of the allegations against them,....
When public interest is involved, facts emerging from subsequent events can be looked into to support an administrative order.
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
