NMC Act | MARB Lacks Competency To Retrospectively Cancel Admissions Granted By Medical Institutions: Rajasthan High Court

In a recent decision, Rajasthan High Court has rebuked the Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB) for cancelling the admissions made to four medical colleges retrospectively, thereby jeopardizing the careers of the students involved.

The single-judge bench of Justice Arun Monga discussed Section 26(1) (f) and 26 (2) to hold that MARB lacks the jurisdiction to direct retrospective cancellation of admissions made to medical institutions; it can only recommend to the National Medical Commission (NMC) that admissions may be disallowed/ reduced prospectively.

“…Statutory words “reducing intake or stoppage of admissions” in sub-section 26(1)(f) cannot be interpreted to mean that intake can be reduced retrospectively or admissions once granted can be stopped retrospectively. For, that would result in consequences fraught with danger and play havoc with the career of students, who are otherwise meritorious in all respects…”, the bench sitting at Jodhpur noted in the order.

Among the four medical colleges against which the NMC proceeded against, Geentanjali Medical College, Pacific Institute of Medical Sciences, Ananta Charitable Educational Society, Pacific Institute of Medical Sciences, and American International Management Ltd. are included. Along with the civil writ of Geetanjali Medical College, many other connected matters were considered jointly and a judgment applicable to all stakeholders was pronounced by the High Court.

In the judgment, the court also added that NMC alone has the power to stop admissions by a separate speaking order after due application of mind, in case it decides to accept the recommendations made by MARB to that effect.

However, in this case, MARB issued a show cause notice to the concerned colleges after a surprise inspection was conducted to ascertain if there is a lack of facilities in these institutions, contrary to the standard norms for imparting medical education. In the impugned orders dated 14.04.2022 and 18.04.2022, letters of permission for the UG and PG courses for the academic year 2021-22 in these colleges were revoked, citing the explanations furnished by the colleges as insufficient.

On a solemn note, the court remarked that the impugned orders were equivalent to 'hanging a Damocles sword on their (students') head midstream of their medical education by leaving them high and dry'.

“…At the relevant time, the medical seats in all the other colleges in the country had already been consumed as per the merit list prepared by NEET. Therefore, even if the order of MARB is to be upheld the students have no-where to go”, the single judge bench pointed out in the order by adding that any such attempt would displace the students who were already allotted the vacant seats in other medical college, since many students were already allotted seats in the four medical colleges that were on the receiving end of the impugned orders passed by MARB and NMC.

Additionally, as another recourse, the creation of supernumerary seats by overlooking the limitations of facilities currently available in other medical colleges would also detrimentally affect the quality of education, the court observed.

About the allegations and counter-allegations raised by the petitioner colleges/affected students and the respondent authorities about the alleged deficiencies in facilities, the court opined that the impugned orders are non-est in itself and a discussion on the merits was not warranted. However, the court ventured to briefly analyse the issue at hand considering the possibility of the competent authorities passing another fresh order without the application of mind.

The court criticised MARB for passing a hasty order for cancellation of admission when the entire admission process was completed far before by the four petitioner colleges. Without firstly resorting to monetary penalties or other punitive measures as hinted in the show cause notice(SCN) and envisaged in Section 26, MARB embarked on cancelling the admission granted to the entire number of students in the 2021-22 MBBS Batch, along with the students in PG batch. Malafides on the part of the regulatory authorities cannot be ruled out either, the court further pointed out. The petitioners' counsel had earlier submitted that the surprise inspections were motivated by the prior attempt of colleges to increase the PG intake via litigation.

“There appears to be no merit in the feeble defense argument of MARB/NMC to contend that though in subsequent multiple surprise inspections carried out by them, all colleges were found fully equipped to impart education to the number of students allocated to them, but yet on a particular day i.e. 22.04.2022, since there were deficiencies, the entire batch of students, therefore, deserves to be thrown out of colleges...”, the court made this observation since the colleges were found to be in alignment with the standard norms in the subsequent surprise inspections conducted by NMC for enhancing/ renewing recognition of the PG course seats.

As many as 18 inspections were carried out by NMC in June and July after the passing of the impugned orders. However, in these inspections, the deficiencies and defects pointed out by MARB earlier were found to be cured effectively. Later, these colleges also obtained permission to admit students for the 2022-23 and 2023-24 academic years, pursuant to the satisfaction of NMC in the subsequent visits.

Before the High Court, the petitioners' counsel had also argued about the impact that Covid-19 had on the functioning of the hospitals, making it impossible to ensure compliance with the norms on that particular day. Despite detailing all of these attenuating circumstances in the explanation furnished, MARB did not consider conducting another compliance verification inspection or granting an opportunity of a personal hearing, the court found out after perusing the records.

“Such lack of transparency raises questions about the fairness of the decision-making process. To conclude on the conduct of MARB, it seems that there are valid concerns regarding the fairness and legality of the MARB's actions in this case”, the court noted in the judgment.

In the end, the court also emphasised about the necessity of striking a balance between 'maintaining standards and ensuring inclusivity in medical training vis-à-vis invocation of powers by the regulatory bodies.' To outline the powers vested in MARB by the NMC Act, the court once again iterated the four corners within which the regulatory body should carry out its functions.

While allowing the civil writ petitions and permitting the affected students to continue their education in the respective colleges, the court quashed the impugned orders passed by MARB. The ad-interim orders passed by the High Court to protect the students were made absolute by the final judgment. However, the court has granted MARB and NMC liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against colleges in due accordance with the applicable law, if they are found to be lacking any required facilities for imparting medical education in the future.

Petitioner Counsels: Senior Counsels Mr. K. Venugopal, Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Ms. Tanvi Dubey and Mr. Vikas Balia assisted by briefing counsels

Respondent Counsels: Mr. Manish Vyas, Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit, Mr. Ravi Malu, Mr. D.S. Beniwal, Mr. Uttam Singh, Mr. R.S. Saluja and Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit.

Case Title: Geetanjali Medical College & Hospital v. The Union of India & Ors.& Connected Matters

Case No: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6068/2022 & Connected Matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 15

Click Here To Read/ Download Judgment