Medical Assessment & Rating Board Has Jurisdiction To Stop Admissions But Lacks Authority To Order Its Cancellation: Rajasthan HC Opines Prima Facie

Essentially, a batch of writ petitions were filed by medical colleges and its students, challenging the recommendations made by MARB for withdrawal of letter of permission, cancellation of admission in undergraduate and postgraduate courses for the academic year 2021-22 in the petitioner-institutions.

On 28.04.2022, the court had passed an interim order protecting the admissions already granted to the students in various undergraduate or postgraduate courses in the petitioner institutions for the academic session 2021-22.

Can Medical Assessment & Rating Board Recommend Cancellation Of Admission Of Students? Rajasthan High Court To Consider

While disposing of the stay application, Justice Vijay Bishnoi has observed,

"Court is prima facie of the opinion that the MARB is having jurisdiction to issue direction for stoppage of admissions. So far as the cancellation of admissions already made is concerned, this Court vide order dated 28.04.2022 has already protected those admissions as Section 26(1)(f) of the Act of 2019 does not speak for cancellation of admissions already granted and, therefore, prima facie it appears that MARB lacks authority to issue cancellation of admissions."

So far as stoppage of admissions is concerned, reliance was placed on Annasaaheb Chudaman Patil Memorial Medical College vs. Medical Assessment and Rating Board, where the Supreme Court held that the Bombay High Court's finding in regard to MARB's lack of authority to issue a stoppage of admissions does not appear, prima facie, to be correct in view of the provisions of Section 26(1)(f) of the National Medical Commission Act 2019.

The Court noted that Section 26(1)(f) of the National Medical Commission Act 2019 gives power to the National Medical Commission to issue directions for stoppage of medical admissions and hence the view of the High Court that the Commission lacked such power was not correct.

In addition to above, the Court also dealt with the question of whether the petitioner-institutions can be permitted to fill up the remaining seats in the postgraduate courses, which could not be filled on account of passing of the impugned orders/ letters.

It noted that petitioner institutions were found not meeting the minimum essential standards and thus, it is not in the interest of any one to allow the petitioner-institutions to fill the remaining P.G. seats.

Reference was also made to Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., where the Supreme Court indicated the disadvantages for not adhering admission time schedule and held that High Courts should not to interfere in the time schedule.

"In view of the above discussion, I am not inclined to issue any direction to the concerned respondents to conduct special counseling for the petitioner-institutions to facilitate them to admit students on the remaining seats of P.G. courses. However, the interim order passed by this Court protecting the admissions already granted to the students to various undergraduate or postgraduate courses in the petitioner-institutions for the academic session 2021-22 shall remain in currency and the students, already admitted, shall be allowed to pursue their study in respective petitioner-institutions till disposal of the writ petitions," the Court ordered.

The petitioners' counsel submitted that as per Section 28 of NMC Act and as per the Medical Council of India Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999, which are enforceable by virtue of Section 61 of the NMC Act, MARB is required to provide opportunity to the petitioner-institutions to rectify the deficiencies before passing the impugned orders/letters.

Further, it was argued that a bare perusal of the impugned orders/letters clearly demonstrates that the respondent-MARB has failed to appreciate the facts mentioned in the replies/explanations to the show cause notice and without even recording a finding that the facts disclosed by the petitioner-institutions, regarding the deficiencies pointed out, have been rejected, has straightway passed the impugned orders/letters. It was also argued that the assessors of MARB did not conduct the inspections as per the NMC Guidelines for assessment of academic session 2021-22.

In contrast, respondents' counsel argued that the petitioner-institutions are having statutory alternative remedy of filing appeal and second appeal under the provisions of the Act of 2019 and the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable and, therefore, no interim direction can be issued to allow the petitioner-institutions to fill the vacant seats of P.G. courses.

It was further submitted that as per Section 26(1)(f) of the Act of 2019, the MARB is very well in its jurisdiction to direct for stoppage of admissions. It was also argued that the explanations/replies, submitted by the petitioner-institutions in response to the show cause notice, were taken into consideration by the MARB objectively and the same has been rejected by giving reasons and as such there is no illegality in the impugned orders/letters passed by the MARB.

The court has listed the writ petitions on 18.07.2022 at the admission stage for final hearing.

Counsels for the Petitioners: Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr. Advocate all assisted by Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit, Mr. Hemant Dutt, Mr. Hardik Gautam, Mr. Harshit Vyas, Mr. Devesh A. Purohit, Mr. Shashank Saurav, Mr. Dilip Choudhary, Mr. Milap Chopra and Mr. Abhishek Mehta

Counsels for the Respondents: Mr. R.S. Saluja Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG, Mr. Kailash Choudhary, Mr. Uttam Singh Rajpurohit for Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, ASG and Mr. Mahendra Bishnoi

Case Title: Geetanjali Medical College And Hospital v. The Union of India with other connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 183