Rajasthan HC Disapproves Of Interim Order Increasing Seats In Medical College, Refuses To Interfere Since Admission Process Was Already Over
While hearing an appeal against a single judge's interim order allowing increase in seats in a medical college, the Rajasthan High Court refused to interfere with the same since the admission process was already over.
In doing so the high court, while observing that an interim order increasing the seats should not have been granted, directed the single judge to decide the matter expeditiously.
The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman was hearing an appeal filed by the Union of India, National Medical Commission and the Medical Assessment And Rating Board, against the interim order of the single judge who had allowed increase of seats in JIET Medical College from 50-100.
Referring to various decisions of the Supreme Court the court said, "In the result, we are of the view that no interim order should have been granted and only course open was to expedite hearing of the case and if at all admissions were over by that time, the case was to be finally decided and appropriate relief could be granted to the Respondents-writ petitioners".
The bench however observed that even though they were of the view that the single judge should not have granted the interim order, however since the admission process in the present case was already over and students had paid fees and joined the college, the bench thereafter refused to interfere with the order.
"However, even though, we have held that interim order should not have been granted, we find that by the time, this appeal came up for hearing even on the first date of hearing, the admission process and the last date of admission was also over. By virtue of interim order, 50 seats were increased and those seats were thrown open for admission through the process of counselling. 50 candidates were allowed admission. They have paid their fees, admitted and joined also and by now they have completed about a month of study. The question would be whether at this stage, interim order should be vacated so as to result in ouster of those students, who have already been benefited by full execution of interim order," the court said.
The bench then referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Board of Governors in Supersession of Medical Council of India Versus Tirupati Balaji Educational Trust & Others in which interference was declined but it was directed that the final hearing be completed within 3 weeks and the judgment be delivered within another 2 weeks so that the students were not left hanging in uncertainty.
In view of the same the bench said, "In view of the above, even though, we have held that interim order ought not to have been granted, at this stage, we are not inclined to set aside the interim order, but request the learned Single Judge to decide the case. We direct the parties to complete their pleadings within a period of 10 days form today. We request the learned Single Judge to here the petition expeditiously and decide the same within a period of one month from the date of completion of pleadings".
In response to a public notice, the respondent college had applied for establishment of college with intake of 150 students. A show cause notice was issued to them requiring some compliances. A compliance report was submitted, but when physical inspection took place, the assessor found some deficiencies and the Medical Assessment and Rating Board (“the Board”) disapproved the establishment of college.
Appeal was filed by the respondents which was dismissed. In the second appeal, permission for 50 intakes was granted. Dissatisfied with the same, the respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court wherein the single judge passed an interim order and allowed increase in the intake to 100. The admissions in relation to these increased 50 seats also took place. Against this appeal was filed.
It was the case of the appellants that the increase in intake by way of an interim order was seriously deprecated by the Supreme Court in many decisions despite which the interim order was passed by the Single judge merely because a strong prima-facie case was made out. It was submitted that this might seriously jeopardise future and career of students who received admission against these increased seats.
It was further argued that even if the writ petition was decided in College's favour, permission to admit students could be granted for the following year with appropriate compensation. It was not a case of irreparable injury, and thus no interim order should have been passed.
On the other hand, it was argued by the respondent college that it was a case of extra-ordinary circumstances wherein they had a very strong prima facie case since most of the deficiencies were cured. Furthermore, many other institutions were permitted to grant admissions with certain undertakings despite there being many deficiencies. Hence, they had faced discriminatory treatment.
After hearing the contentions, the bench observed that in plethora of cases, the Apex Court had deprecated an interim order that directed increase in the intake of an educational institution. The Court referred to the case of Medical Counsel of India v Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences & Others in which it was held that the High Court should not grant interim orders in any cases where the Medical Council did not grant permission under the Medical Council Act. If permissions were granted to such institutions which were established without fulfilling conditions to admit students, serious jeopardy would occur to the admitted students.
Furthermore, in the case of Medical Council of India v JSS Medical College & Another, cautionary principle was reiterated and it was ruled that in normal instances, the High Court should not permit increase in seats. It was observed that in such cases, even though students might have taken the decision to take admission knowingly, however some might be ignorant.
The Court also concurred and made a reference to the case of Medical Council of India v Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) and others in which it was held that:
“Granting Admission to students in an educational institution when there is a serious doubt whether admission should at all be granted is not a matter to be taken lightly. First of all the career of a student is involved — what would a student do if his admission is found to be illegal or is quashed? Is it not a huge waste of time for him or her? Is it enough to say that the student will not claim any equity in his or her favour? Is it enough for student to be told that his or her admission is subject to the outcome of a pending litigation? These are all questions that arise and for which there is no easy answer. Generally speaking, it is better to err on the side of caution and deny admission to a student rather than have the sword of Damocles hanging over him or her. There would at least be some certainty.”
The Court also highlighted the case of Fuljit Kaur v State of Punjab & Others in which it was held that some other similarly situated people being granted some benefits inadvertently or by mistake, did not confer any legal right on someone to get the same relief.
In the background of this analysis, the Court observed that in all the cases, increase of seats in medical colleges by interim order, without final adjudication of the case, was held to be illegal and set aside with a direction to decide the case expeditiously.
Asking the single judge to decide the matter the bench disposed of the appeal.
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v JIET Medical College and Hospital & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 404