Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
The Patna High Court delivered an important judgment on 23 December 2022 in a group of five connected writ petitions concerning the withdrawal of permission granted to Radha Devi Jageshwari Memorial Medical College and Hospital, Muzaffarpur by the National Medical Commission (NMC).
The petitions involved the college management, the sponsoring society, and several students affected by NMC’s order dated 18 April 2022, which cancelled the college’s Letter of Permission (LoP) and directed cancellation of 150 MBBS admissions for the academic year 2021–22.
Background and Chronology
- The medical college was run by a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
- The State Government issued an Essentiality Certificate on 3 July 2019, and the NMC’s Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB) granted permission for 150 MBBS seats for 2021–22.
- However, during a surprise inspection in November 2021, the NMC found major deficiencies — 85% shortage in faculty, 90% shortage of residents, and less than required hospital occupancy.
- The college claimed that many staff were absent due to a family bereavement in the management’s family, and requested a re-inspection.
- The MARB found the reply unsatisfactory and withdrew the Letter of Permission (LoP) on 18 April 2022.
- The Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (BCECEB), despite NMC’s prior instruction (15 February 2022) not to admit students, went ahead with allotments during the mop-up counselling round in April 2022.
Petitioners’ Arguments
- The college argued that under Section 26(1)(f) of the NMC Act, 2019, MARB could only stop admissions or impose penalties, not withdraw permission or cancel existing admissions.
- The college said the deficiencies were rectified and sought a fresh inspection, citing precedents like Rajiv Memorial Academic Welfare Society v. UOI (2016) 11 SCC 522.
- Students argued they were innocent victims and requested to be accommodated only in Government Medical Colleges, not private ones.
NMC and State’s Response
- The NMC defended its action, asserting that such severe deficiencies warranted withdrawal of permission to protect medical education standards.
- It emphasized that the State had violated NMC’s directions by admitting students after 15 February 2022, making those admissions illegal.
- The State of Bihar admitted its role in allotting students despite NMC’s letter, claiming confusion and delay in communication.
High Court’s Observations
Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma noted several key legal points:
- Scope of MARB’s Powers:
- The Court analyzed Sections 26, 28, and 29 of the NMC Act, 2019 and concluded that MARB possesses both the power to grant and withdraw permission if a medical college fails to maintain standards.
- State’s Responsibility and Violation:
- The State and BCECE Board were at fault for including the college in the counselling despite explicit directions from NMC not to admit students.
- Students’ Admissions:
- Since the admissions occurred in the April mop-up round, long after the NMC’s letter, the Court held they were wrongly made and cannot confer any right on the students to demand seats in government colleges.
- Subsequent Developments:
- A fresh inspection in September 2022 found that all deficiencies were rectified, and MARB granted permission for the 2022–23 batch.
- The Court observed that granting permission for the second batch implied that the college had regained compliance, making the 2021–22 cancellation effectively redundant.
Final Judgment
- The Court declined to interfere with NMC’s original withdrawal order for 2021–22 but recognized that due to the subsequent permission for 2022–23, the college stood restored.
- It held that students already studying would now be treated as regular students, and the University must register them accordingly.
- However, the Court refused the demand to transfer them to Government Medical Colleges, reasoning that it would unfairly displace more meritorious candidates.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
- For Medical Colleges: Reinforces that surprise inspections are binding, and false claims of compliance invite cancellation of permissions.
- For State Authorities: Counselling authorities cannot override NMC’s directions; doing so may result in illegality of admissions.
- For Students: Even if admitted by mistake, relief will be limited; the Court will balance fairness with merit protection.
- For NMC: Clarifies that MARB’s power includes withdrawal of permission, not merely stoppage of future admissions.
Legal Issues and Court’s Decision
- Can MARB withdraw permission (LoP) already granted to a medical college?
✔ Yes. Under Section 26 read with Section 28 of the NMC Act, 2019, MARB can withdraw permission if deficiencies persist. - Was Bihar Government justified in allotting students despite NMC’s direction?
❌ No. It acted contrary to statutory instructions and caused wrongful admissions. - Should affected students be accommodated in Government Colleges?
❌ No. Doing so would harm merit-based candidates; students must continue in their existing institution. - Does subsequent reinspection and reapproval validate earlier admissions?
✔ Yes, effectively regularizing the college and existing students for continuity.
Judgments Referred by Parties
- Rajiv Memorial Academic Welfare Society v. Union of India, (2016) 11 SCC 522
- Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital and Dental College v. Union of India, (2014) 13 SCC 506
- Royal Medical Trust v. Union of India, (2015) 10 SCC 19
- Government of A.P. v. Medwin Educational Society, (2004) 1 SCC 86
- Dr. M.K. Shah Medical College v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Delhi 938
- Santosh Trust v. National Medical Commission, 2022 SCC OnLine Delhi 749
Judgments Relied Upon by the Court
- Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, (2016) 11 SCC 530
- Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7 SCC 353
Case Title
Radha Devi Jageshwari Memorial Medical College & Hospital v. National Medical Commission & Ors.
Case Numbers
CWJC Nos. 7058, 8548, 7426, 8358, and 11946 of 2022
Citation(s)
2023 (1) PLJR 434
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Names of Advocates and Their Representation
- For Petitioner College: Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sanket, Mr. Varun Singh, Mr. Abhay Kumar
- For Students: Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vikash Kumar, Ms. Nitu Jha, Mr. Kumar Ravish
- For State of Bihar: Mr. Ramadhar Singh (GP-25) and others
- For NMC/MARB: Mr. Kumar Priyaranjan, Mr. Ankur Apurv Singh
- For AKU: Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, Mr. Ashok Kumar Karna
- For BCECEB: Mr. Prasoon Sinha
Link to Judgment
MTUjNzA1OCMyMDIyIzEjTg==-5JwNhDXsk5s=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
