NMC board can Stop but cannot cancel MBBS, PG Medical admissions: Rajasthan HC

Published On 2022-06-10 06:12 GMT   |   Update On 2022-06-10 06:12 GMT

Jodhpur: While considering a bunch of appeals by medical colleges, whose permission for admission in medical seats was cancelled by the National Medical Commission (NMC), the Jodhpur bench of Rajasthan High Court recently held that even though the Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB) can stop admissions in medical colleges, it lacks the jurisdiction for cancelling admission...

Login or Register to read the full article

Jodhpur: While considering a bunch of appeals by medical colleges, whose permission for admission in medical seats was cancelled by the National Medical Commission (NMC), the Jodhpur bench of Rajasthan High Court recently held that even though the Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB) can stop admissions in medical colleges, it lacks the jurisdiction for cancelling admission already granted.

"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," noted the HC bench comprising of Justice Vijay Bishnoi.

Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that the Rajasthan High Court was considering the question if the Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB) of the National Medical Commission (NMC) has the authority to cancel admission of students in various undergraduate and postgraduate medical courses.

Such a crucial question came up for consideration before the HC bench when several medical colleges approached the Court and challenged the recommendations made by MARB of NMC for withdrawal of letter of permission, and cancellation of admission in the UG and PG courses for the academic year 2021-2022 via letters dated 14.04.2022 and 18.04.2022.

Also Read: Can NMC board cancel MBBS, PG medical student admission? Rajasthan High Court to decide

At that time, the HC bench had also offered an interim relief to the petitioner institutes and students. The court had mentioned in its order dated 28.04.2022, "In the meantime, admissions already granted to the students in various under-graduate or post-graduate courses in the petitioner–institutions for the session 2021-22 shall not be cancelled and the students already admitted shall be allowed to pursue their studies in the respective petitioner–institutions till the next date."

Geetanjali Medical College and Hospital was one of the petitioner institutes. Established in 2007, the institute was granted permission by the erstwhile Medical Council of India for admitting 150 students in the MBBS course back in 2008. This recognition granted by MCI was valid up to the year 2023.

In the meanwhile, the Geetanjali Medical College and Hospital also applied for grant of permission to conduct P.G. Course (super speciality and broad speciality) and the same was also recognized by the MCI and as such 150 seats under the undergraduate course (MBBS) and 105 seats for postgraduate course were recognized by the MCI.

Consequently, the permission for MBBS seats increased from 150 to 250 back in the year 2019. Following this, the institute sought permission for increasing in intake of seats for PG Course for the academic session 2021-22, however, permission was given to increase in the intake for few seats and not for all the seats as applied.

At such a context, when the Institute had permission for 250 MBBS and 120 PG medical seats, NMC conducted a surprise inspection and consequently MARB prepared an assessment report on 25.02.2022. Following this, show cause notice had been issued to the medical college.
After taking into consideration the reply of the Geetanjali Medical College and Hospital, MARB in its order dated 18.04.2022 withdrew the Letter of Permission/Renewal of Permission for increase in intake from 150 to 250 (additional 100) MBBS seats and stopped all admissions in the said course for the academic session 2021-2022.

Apart from this, the Board had withdrawn permission earlier granted for the increase of seats in PG medical courses and Super Specialty courses. Besides, MARB further recommended to NMC to cancel the recognition for the college including undergraduate, postgraduate-broad and super-specialty courses.

Following this, the Institute approached the HC and assailing the validity of the impugned orders/letters, learned counsel for the petitioner-institutions argued that as per Section 26 of the Act of 2019, the MARB is empowered to perform certain functions, however, it is not empowered to cancel the admissions of the students in various courses and is also not empowered to issue directions for stoppage of admissions.

The counsel for the Institute further argued that the whole exercise of surprise inspections carried out by the assessors of MARB in the petitioner-institutions suffers from malafide because the said inspections were carried out solely for the reason that the institutions had approached Court for increasing in the seats in P.G. Course, which had wrongly been denied by the NMC.

It was further submitted by the Institute that as per Section 28 of the Act of 2019 and as per the Medical Council of India Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999, which are enforceable by virtue of Section 61 of the Act of 2019, the MARB is required to provide opportunity to the petitioner-institutions to rectify the deficiencies before passing the impugned orders/letters.

The counsel also referred to clause (f) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 26 of the Act of 2019 and contended that MARB can take measures such as issuing warning, imposition of monetary penalty, reducing intake or stoppage of admission and recommending to the Commission for withdrawal of recognition of an institution for failure to maintain minimum essential standards, however, before imposing harsh penalty, restricting the admissions or recommending for withdrawal of recognition, the MARB is required to adopt the alternative method of imposing monetary penalty.

Further seeking permission to fill in the remaining seats, the counsel for the college submitted that the colleges have invested heavily in establishing medical colleges and is also in requirement of funds for carrying out day-to-day activities and if they are not allowed to fill the remaining seats in P.G. courses during the pendency of the writ petitions, they would suffer huge loss. Therefore, the colleges prayed for a special counselling for facilitating the petitioner institutes for filling in the remaining seats in various P.G. courses.
On the other hand, the counsel for NMC and MARB vehemently opposed the stay petitions and argued 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.
They further contended that the explanations and replies submitted by the institutes in response to the show cause notice, were taken into consideration by the MARB objectively and the same had been rejected by giving valid reasons.
NMC counsel pointed out that the assessors of MARB, during surprise inspections, found that the petitioner-institutions failed to maintain the minimum standard regarding the faculties as well as the infrastructure and, therefore, they should not be given any interim relief.
Further pointing out that the last date for admissions in the postgraduate course was 07.05.2022, the counsel for NMC submitted that the date cannot be extended for any reason, particularly at the request of the Medical Colleges.
After taking note of the submissions made by both the parties, the HC bench noted that on 28.04.2022, it had passed an order as interim measure and protected the admissions of the students in the institutes for the session 2021-22 in various undergraduate and postgraduate courses and also issued a direction that students already admitted in the petitioner Institutes in respective courses shall be allowed to pursue their studies till next date.
While considering the question if MARB is empowered for issuing direction for stoppage of admissions, the bench referred to the provisions of clause (f) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 26 of the Act of 2019 and noted, "The above provision clearly speaks that MARB can take measures including stoppage of admissions."
The bench also referred to Bombay HC order in the case of Annasaaheb Chudaman Patil Memorial Medical College vs. Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB) & Ors and opined, "In such circumstances, this 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," further read the order.
The bench also considered the question of the petitioner institutes 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.
In order to address this issue, the bench noted that the top court in various pronouncements had clearly held that the time schedule for admission in the medical course should not be interfered with except in rarest of rare cases or in exceptional circumstances.
Reference was also made to the Supreme Court order in the case of Priya Gupta vs. State of Chattisgarh and Ors. and in the case of Index Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre. Therefore the bench noted,
"...as the petitioner institutions were found not meeting the minimum essential standards, as per impugned orders, it is not in the interest of any one to allow the petitioner-institutions to fill the remaining P.G. seats."
Further, the bench referred to Supreme Court order in the case of Shikhar & Anr. Vs. National Board of Examination & Ors., Dr. R. Dinesh Kumar Reddy & Ors. Vs. Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) & Ors. and noted,
"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 bench noted as it disposed of the stay petitions.
To read the court order click on the link below.
Tags:    

Disclaimer: This site is primarily intended for healthcare professionals. Any content/information on this website does not replace the advice of medical and/or health professionals and should not be construed as medical/diagnostic advice/endorsement/treatment or prescription. Use of this site is subject to our terms of use, privacy policy, advertisement policy. © 2024 Minerva Medical Treatment Pvt Ltd

Our comments section is governed by our Comments Policy . By posting comments at Medical Dialogues you automatically agree with our Comments Policy , Terms And Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Similar News