Rajasthan High Court: In a case wherein, the actions and directives of the Medical Assessment and Rating Board (‘MARB’), an autonomous board set up under the overall supervision of National Medical Commission (‘NMC’), were under judicial review, Arun Monga, J.*, referred to Section 26(1)(f) and Section 26(2) of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (‘the NMC Act’) and opined that MARB lacked the jurisdiction to retrospective cancel admissions by medical colleges/institutions. The Court opined that the words “reducing intake or stoppage of admissions” in sub section 26(1)(f) of the NMC Act could not be interpreted to mean that the intake could be reduced retrospectively, or admissions once granted could be stopped retrospectively. Further, the Court opined that no doubt, MARB was vested with the power to disallow or stop admissions, but only prospectively. Thus, the Court quashed the impugned orders dated 18-04-2022 and 14-04-2022, passed by MARB, in respect of all four colleges, including the petitioner, to the extent of retrospectively cancelling the admissions. Further, the Court opined that pursuant to the decision dated 11-05-2022, students who had been adjusted to other colleges should continue to study in the same colleges and there should be no interruption in their future continuation in the colleges allotted to them.
Background
Since the writ petitions had almost similar facts, the matter was taken up together for adjudication.
In an instant case, since 2008, the petitioner had been imparting education in MBBS and after passing of first batch, the petitioner’s institution was recognized with an annual capacity of 150 seats. Thereafter, Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 was repealed and subsequently the NMC Act was promulgated. Thus, the petitioner applied for increase of intake in MMBS from 150 to 250 seats to the NMC. After carrying out the required inspection, and on being fully satisfied, NMC granted additional 100 seats from academic session 2019-2020, and vide letter dated 22-09-2021, NMC renewed the permission for intake of 250 students for academic session 2021-2022.
Thereafter, on 24-02-2022 the team of assessors of the NMC conducted surprise physical inspection of the petitioner’s institute and three other medical colleges and pointed out some deficiencies in all four colleges. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted its detailed clarifications on the assessment report. However, on 21-03-2022, NMC issued a show cause notice and asked the petitioner to rectify the deficiencies within fifteen days, and on 05-04-2022, the petitioner provided an elaborated response to the show cause notice.
Meanwhile, till the order was pending, the counselling for 2021-2022, batch for admission in MBBS and MD commenced and pursuant to the undergraduate (‘UG’) counselling, 250 students were granted admission by the State Counselling Board in the petitioner’s institution. However, without granting any opportunity of hearing on the detailed reply filed to show cause notice, the MARB passed impugned order dated 18-04-2022, cancelling the letter of renewal permission granted to the college for 250 MBBS seats of UG and PG seats, both in Broad specialties and Super specialty courses, for academic session 2021-2022.
Thus, all the four medical colleges and their students had assailed orders dated 14-04-2022 and 18-04-2022 passed by the MARB, vide which it had withdrawn the letter of permission for UG and PG courses in the said colleges for academic session 2021-2022. Consequently, it had cancelled the admissions granted to the students in those colleges, due to alleged deficiency in infrastructure and faculty. Further, recommendation had also been made by MARB to NMC for cancellation of recognition granted to the medical institutions with effect from the date of passing of impugned orders.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that there was no dispute related to the merit of the students, who had been granted admissions in their respective colleges, to the extent that the students were fully justified that for no fault of theirs, their careers have been jeopardized mid-stream of their medical education. The Court referred to Section 26 of the NMC Act and opined that it empowered the MARB with the vital role of ensuing quality healthcare education, paramount for the development of competent medical professionals and the delivery of efficient healthcare services.
Further, regarding the question that whether MARB could cancel the admissions already granted, the Court referred to Section 26(1)(f) and Section 26 of the NMC Act and opined that MARB lacked the jurisdiction to retrospectively cancel admissions by medical colleges/institutions. The Court opined that the statutory words “reducing intake or stoppage of admissions” in sub section 26(1)(f) of the NMC Act could not be interpreted to mean that the intake could be reduced retrospectively, or admissions once granted could be stopped retrospectively, as it would result in consequences fraught with danger and play havoc with the career of meritorious students. Further, the Court opined that no doubt, MARB was vested with the power to disallow or stop admissions, but only prospectively.
The Court opined that the impugned orders had been passed by the MARB with retrospective effect, thereby putting the career and future of all the students under peril. The Court opined that the MARB did not fully evaluate the college’s explanations and requests for a compliance verification inspection or a personal hearing. Further, the impugned order passed by the MARB did not provide any reason for its dissatisfaction with the petitioner’s reply and such lack of transparency raised questions about the fairness of the decision-making process. The Court opined that to conclude on the MARB’s conduct, it seemed valid that there were valid concerns regarding fairness and legality of the MARB’s actions in the present case.
Thus, the Court quashed the impugned orders dated 18-04-2022 and 14-04-2022, passed by MARB, in respect of all four colleges, including the petitioner, to the extent of retrospectively cancelling the admissions. The Court opined that pursuant to the decision dated 11-05-2022, students who had been adjusted to other colleges should continue to study in the same colleges and there should be no interruption in their future continuation in the colleges allotted to them. Further in case, MARB or NMC found the medical colleges to be lacking in any manner, they should be at liberty to proceed against the erring medical colleges or institutions in accordance with law.
[Geetanjali Medical College and Hospital v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 209, decided on 18-01-2024]
*Judgement authored by- Justice Arun Monga
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: K. Venugopal, Senior Advocate, Nidhesh Gupta, Senior Advocate, Vikas Balia, Senior Advocate (Assisted by) Ravi Malu, Abhishek Mehta, Charu Mathur, Tanvi Dubey, Akhilesh Rajpurohit, Hemant Dutt, Advocates
For the Respondents: Manish Vyas, AAG, Mukesh Rajpurohit, AAG, Deepesh Beniwal, Uttam Singh, R.S. Saluja, Mahendra Vishnoi, Harsh Chittora, Advocates
