Rajasthan HC Greenlights 100 MBBS Seat Hike at JIET Medical College despite voicing objections

Jodhpur: A Division bench of the Rajasthan High Court recently refused to interfere with a single-judge bench's order allowing an increase of MBBS seats in a medical college, despite disapproving the same.

Even though the bench held that the interim order should not have been granted, it also noted that by the time the appeal against the interim order came up for hearing, the admission process and the last date of admission were already over. Accordingly, the bench directed the single-judge bench to decide the matter.

"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," ordered the HC bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman.

The matter concerns JIET Medical College which had submitted an application before National Medical Commision for establishment of college with an intake capacity of 150 MBBS seats. A Show-cause notice was issued on 04.04.2024 requiring certain compliance. The college submitted that the compliance report was submitted on 12.04.2024 and a physical inspection was conducted by the NMC Assessor, who found that there were some deficiencies regarding faculty and SR. 

Also Read: NMC vs Pacific Medical College: MBBS Students Facing Uncertainty as HC stays Ruling on additional Seats

On 04.07.2024, the Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB) disapproved the entire scheme for establishment of medical college with 150 seats. Consequently, the college filed the first appeal, which was dismissed. Following this, a second appeal was filed. Meanwhile, the counselling started and through the second appeal, which was finally decided on 30.09.2024, the institute got permission for only 50 seats. 

Dissatisfied with the rejection of the application for 100 seats, the college filed a plea before the High Court, which issued an interim order in favour of the college. By the order, the Single Judge allowed the increase of seats from 50 to 100 seats.

In compliance with the order, the number of increased seat were added to the seat matrix for the stray vacancy round and the students were allowed admission against the 50 enhanced seats by depositing the tuition fee.

Challenging the interim order, the State approached the Division Bench of the Court. The Additional Solicitor General submitted that the increase in the intake capacity of a medical college by an interim order has been seriously deprecated by the Supreme Court in plethora of decisions. But despite that the Single Judge passed an interim order directing an increase in the intake of seats by as many as 50 seats.

The Government submitted that merely because a prima-facie case or strong prima-facie case was made out, interim relief ought not to have been granted as increase in seats by such interim order results in the admission of large number of students and if the plea is ultimately dismissed, it would seriously jeopardise the future and career of the students who applied for the admission against the seats increased provisionally by an interim order.

On the other hand, the college's counsel submitted that even though normally the court does not allow an increase of intake capacity by an interim order, this case is of extraordinary circumstances and a very strong prima-facie case.

It was the college's argument that the deficiency as pointed out was negligible and statutorily permitted within the permissible range of deficiency for the purpose of grant of permission for creation of seats in the institutes.

While considering the matter, the Division Bench of the High Court noted that the operative reasons for the Single Judge to increase the seats from 50 to 100 by the interim order was based on the ground that the petitioners had a strong prima facie case and therefore it had become necessary to protect them.

"An interim order in the nature of directing increase in the intake capacity of an educational institution including medical college has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in plethora of decisions..." noted the Court.

Referring to the relevant judicial precedence, the Court observed, "The consistency of the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in plethora of decisions referred to above is clearly to the effect that by interim order, increase in seat should not be allowed in educational institutions. We notice that in all the cases, increase of seats in medical colleges by interim order without final adjudication of the case has been held illegal and set aside though coupled with a direction to decide the case expeditiously and as early as possible."

The Court observed that the decisions, which have been relied by the college's counsel, do not come to his aid. "Those decisions are either on the merits of the case or to say that where interim order is not granted, final hearing of the petition itself may be frustrated. In view of series of decisions particularly dealing with admission to medical colleges, as referred to herein above, the decisions cited at the bar by learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents-writ petitioners cannot be made a basis to justify grant of interim order," opined the Division Bench of the High Court.

Accordingly, the Court opined 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 petitioners.

"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 counseling. 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," noted the Court.

Disposing of the case, the Court ordered, "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."

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/rajasthan-hc-266161.pdf

Also Read: Delay in completing AIIMS Jodhpur Trauma Centre: HC criticizes State Govt, warns of Rs 50 crore penalty