High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition assailing the order dated 17.03.2022 passed by the respondent no. 1 rejecting its second appeal against the respondent no.2’s order dated 14.02.2022 where petitioner’s first appeal was dismissed against the order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Medical Assessment and Ratings Board (MARB), permitting only increase of 50 seats for the MBBS course, as against the petitioner’s application seeking increase of 100 seats for the MBBS course.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner is a private, unaided medical college being run under the aegis of Rama Educational Society being represented through its authorized representative, one Mr. Akash Kumar. The respondent no.1 is the Union of India through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the respondent no.2/NMC, the main contesting respondent, has been constituted under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (‘NMC Act’), and was set up in place of the erstwhile Medical Council of India with an aim to inter alia improve access to quality and affordable medical education, ensure availability of adequate and high-quality medical professionals in all parts of the country, and objectively assess the medical institutions periodically in a transparent manner. Respondent no.3 is the authority entrusted to conduct counselling for the UP NEET-UG 2021. The respondent no.3 conducts counselling for 85% quota seats in the state medical colleges.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Letter of Intent by which the permission was granted to the petitioner to increase MBBS seats from 150 to 200 only, as against its application for 250 seats, has been passed without assigning any reason as to why the petitioner’s request for enhancement of seats to 250 was not being accepted and that too without referring to any deficiency in the Assessors’ report.
By placing reliance on the proviso to section 28(3) of the National Medical Council Act, 2019 (the Act), it was contended that in case the respondents were of the opinion that there was any deficiency as per the assessors’ report, they were required to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to rectify the purported deficiencies found by the MARB, which they admittedly failed to do.
It was submitted that all the alleged three deficiencies are non-existent, as the petitioner has the necessary number of faculty members as also the requisite number of minor OTs. That the respondents, having blatantly violated the provisions of Section 28(3) of the Act as also the principles of natural justice, may be directed to carry out a fresh inspection of the petitioner institute, to ascertain the aforesaid two aspects.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that even though no reasons were provided in the Letter of Intent as to why an increase of only 50 seats was being permitted, as against the petitioner’s application for increase of 100 seats, both the first appellate order and the second appellate order, have clearly referred to the three deficiencies, in respect of the shortfall in teaching faculty, resident doctors and minor OTs. He submitted that as per the ‘Minimum Requirements for Annual MBBS Admissions Regulations’, 2020, the petitioner was required to have five minor OTs in order to be granted permission to increase seats to 250, but as per the assessors report it has only two minor OTs.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court stated that even though the petitioner had obtained an essentiality certificate from the state for increase of 100 seats in November 2020, the respondent issued the first order for increase of 50 seats only on 16.11.2021 i.e., after one year. Not only this, the respondents also delayed the disposal of the petitioner’s two statutory appeals, thereby compelling the petitioner to approach this Court to seek directions for expeditious disposal of its appeal so as to enable the petitioner to participate in the ongoing counselling.
HC opined that this failure of respondents to comply with the specific provision in Section 28(3) of the Act in itself prima facie shows that the respondents have chosen to act in an arbitrary manner and have failed to even comply with the principles of natural justice.
HC stated that it has been further urged that there was no deficiency qua the requirement of minor OTs, which plea of the petitioner is prima facie borne out from the Assessors’ report itself. The petitioner has already filed undertakings to this effect before this Court. However, the respondent’s apprehensions that the petitioner might still contain certain deficiencies, which would be against the interest of medical students, cannot just be brushed aside and rejected.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “It will therefore, be in the interest of justice to permit the respondent to once again inspect the petitioner institute to determine if the deficiency regarding faculty and minor OTs, still exists and in the meanwhile permit the petitioner to participate in the remaining rounds of counselling for the seats as sought for. Therefore, while permitting the petitioner to participate in the remaining rounds of the ongoing counselling, the respondent is granted four weeks’ time from today to verify regarding the deficiency in minor OT as also the faculty members.”
Case Title: Rama Medical College Hospital and Research Centre Hapur v. Union of India & Ors.
Bench: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Rekha Palli
Citation: W.P.(C) 5353/2022 & CM APPL. 16016/2022 -Stay
Decided on: 7th April 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
