Madras High Court
Takshashila Medical College vs Union Of India on 5 November, 2025
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A No. 3350 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-11-2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.A No. 3350 of 2025
Takshashila Medical College,
Affiliated to Takshashila University
Represented by its Registrar
Ongur Post,Tindivanam Taluk,
Villupuram District,
Tamil Nadu -604305 ..Appellant
Vs
1.Union of India
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Health and Family Welfare Department
(Medical Education -I)
Government of India,
New Delhi.
2.The National Medical Commission
Represented by its Secretary
Pocket 14 Sector, Dwarka,
Phase-1, New Delhi-77.
3.Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB)
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 04:10:39 pm )
W.A No. 3350 of 2025
The National Medical Commission
Represented by its President,
Pocket 14 Sector, Dwarka,
Phase-1, New Delhi-77.
4.Principal Secretary to Government
Department of Health and Family Welfare
Secretariat,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu. ..Respondents
Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the
order dated 24.10.2025 passed in W.P.No. 39896 of 2025.
For Appellant: Mr.C.Sellapandian
For Mr. B. Balavijayan
For Respondents : M/s.Subharanjani Ananth, Standing
Counsel – R2 & R3
Mr. M. Bindran, AGP - R4
JUDGMENT
(Made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.)
This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 24.10.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 39896 of 2025, whereby the
writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. By the said order, the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 04:10:39 pm )
Single Judge rejected the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner, who had sought
a direction to the 3rd respondent to reassess and grant approval/permission for
150 MBBS seats.
2. The appellant is a constituent college of Takshashila University, a
private university, and intended to commence the MBBS course. For that
purpose, it submitted an application to the 3rd respondent seeking permission to
admit 150 students to the MBBS programme. Upon inspection, the 3rd
respondent observed that the appellant did not possess the requisite
infrastructure and facilities necessary to accommodate 150 students and,
accordingly, rejected the proposal. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal
before the 2nd respondent, who, after consideration, granted approval for 50
MBBS seats. A further appeal was carried to the 1st respondent, who, upon
examination of the matter, granted approval for 100 MBBS seats for the
academic year 2025–2026.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 04:10:39 pm )
3. The appellant contended that the two deficiencies pointed out by the
1st respondent had since been rectified. On that basis, it made a representation
before the 3rd respondent seeking reconsideration and reassessment of its
proposal for approval of the full 150 MBBS seats. The appellant alleged that the
said representation was not considered, compelling it to approach this Court by
filing the above-mentioned writ petition.
4. The learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the writ petition,
holding that the process of counselling for admission to the MBBS course had
already commenced and that directing the 3rd respondent to reassess the
proposal at that stage would render the order passed by the 1st respondent
redundant. Nonetheless, the learned Judge preserved the right of the appellant to
seek an increase in intake capacity for the next academic year. Being aggrieved
by this order, the appellant has filed the present writ appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and
carefully perused the materials placed on record.
6. The order passed by the 1st respondent granting permission to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 04:10:39 pm )
appellant for 100 MBBS seats for the academic year 2025–2026 has already
attained finality. In these circumstances, the appellant’s request for a direction
to the 3rd respondent to reconsider and reassess the approval for 150 MBBS
seats for the current academic year cannot be entertained. Since the counselling
process for the present academic year has already commenced and is at its
concluding stage, any such direction would not only nullify the order of the 1st
respondent but would also create confusion and uncertainty in the ongoing
admission process for the MBBS course.
7. The learned Single Judge, taking note of these aspects, has rightly
declined to entertain the appellant’s claim while preserving its right to seek
reconsideration and reassessment of its proposal for the next academic year. We
find no infirmity, illegality, or perversity in the impugned order that would
warrant interference in this intra-court appeal. The order under challenge is
well-reasoned and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 04:10:39 pm )
as to costs.
(R.S.K. J.,) (H.C. J.,)
05.11.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
ak
To
1.The Secretary,
Department of Health and Family Welfare Department
(Medical Education -I)
Government of India,
New Delhi
2.The Principal Secretary to Government
Department of Health and Family Welfare
Secretariat,
Chennai,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 04:10:39 pm )
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,
ak
05.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2025 04:10:39 pm )
