Sido Kanhu Medical College And Hospital vs Union Of India And Ors on 9 December, 2025

[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Sido Kanhu Medical College And Hospital vs Union Of India And Ors on 9 December, 2025

1. This writ petition is filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to Respondent No. 2/Medical Assessment and Rating Board ('MARB') to issue Letter of Permission ('LoP') in favour of Petitioner College for starting a new College with intake of 150 seats for academic year 2025-2026 as also for quashing the impugned order dated 17.11.2025 passed by Respondent No.1.

2. To the extent relevant, case of the Petitioner is that on 02.06.2023, MARB, National Medical Commission ('NMC') published the Establishment of Medical Institutions, Assessment & Rating Regulations, W.P.(C) 16639/2025 Page 1 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2025 at 20:36:46 2023 ('2023 Regulations'). On 26.10.2024, Sido Kanhu Murmu University granted in-principle permission to the Petitioner to start a medical college. NMC invited applications for establishing new medical colleges for academic year 2025-2026, pursuant to which Petitioner submitted application dated 18.01.2025 along with requisite documents such as audit reports, functional program and technical details and Departmental Instruments & Equipment list as also the Essentiality Certificate ('EC') dated 14.10.2024. Show cause notice dated 14.06.2025 was issued by MARB to the Petitioner pointing out certain deficiencies which included the absence of Clause 4 in the EC.

3. It is stated that on 21.06.2025, Petitioner responded to the notice and submitted requisite documents. Some more time was sought to submit the revised EC. On 07.07.2025, Petitioner sought 10 days to submit the requisite EC as the same was to be issued by the State of Jharkhand. On 15.07.2025, State of Jharkhand issued revised EC for 150 MBBS seats with requisite Clause 4 certifying that in case fresh admission in any course is stopped by NMC, the State Government shall take over the responsibility of the students already admitted in the college. Hence, as on 15.07.2025 all deficiencies stood cured. Despite this, Respondent No. 2 issued Letter of Disapproval ('LoD') dated 29.09.2025 overlooking that fresh EC dated 14.07.2025 had been submitted and there was no deficiency.

4. It is stated that being aggrieved, Petitioner preferred First Appeal on 30.09.2025 before NMC under Section 28(5) of National Medical Council Act, 2019 ('NMC Act'). After 15 days of filing the appeal, NMC sent an e-mail on 15.10.2025 at 08:28 A.M., stating that the Appeal Committee will inspect the college virtually before 09:00 A.M. The inspection was carried W.P.(C) 16639/2025 Page 2 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2025 at 20:36:46 out at 09:00 A.M. with a window of 15 minutes. Relying solely on the virtual inspection, the Committee dismissed the First Appeal on the same day and that too for a frivolous and wrong reason that during inspection, the faculty members attempted to misrepresent by producing wrong identity cards etc. Against order dated 15.10.2025, Petitioner preferred Second Appeal under Section 28(6) of NMC Act before the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare ('MoHFW'), however, since there was urgency the writ was filed without awaiting its outcome.

5. Mr. Amit Sibal, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner fairly submits that though the counselling rounds for academic year 2025-2026 are over, however, Petitioner has one chance to participate in the counselling, owing to a Notification dated 05.12.2025, issued by Government of Jharkhand, notifying special round of online counselling for academic year 2025-2026 for admission to All India seats in MBBS, BDS and BHMS on 10.12.2025 and therefore, if the Court directs NMC to grant LoP at this stage, the current academic session will be saved.

6. It is urged that perusal of show cause notice dated 14.06.2025 shows that 6 deficiencies were pointed out in the application of the Petitioner, which included the absence of some clauses in the EC. Petitioner responded to the show cause notice on 21.06.2025 and enclosed all requisite documents which were stated to be deficient, save and except, a revised EC with clause 4 which was to be issued by the Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner sought 15 days to submit revised EC and submitted the revised EC dated 14.07.2025 with Clause 4 on 15.07.2025. Even after receipt of EC, LoD was issued on 29.09.2025 inter alia on the ground that valid EC was not submitted and some clauses were missing, overlooking the fact that on the W.P.(C) 16639/2025 Page 3 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2025 at 20:36:46 said date a valid EC was available with the competent authority. This shows complete non-application of mind and demonstrates the mala fides of the Respondents.

7. It is further argued that LoD was predicated on two grounds i.e., absence of Clause 4 in EC and deficiency in basic infrastructure, both of which were unfounded. Absence of Clause 4 does not per se invalidate the EC and assuming it does, revised and valid EC was submitted on 15.07.2025. MARB ought to have condoned the delay and accepted the EC as was done in many cases in the past. Illustratively, reference was made to institutions such as: (a) Raniganj Institute of Medical Sciences (AY 2025-

26); (b) East West Medical College (LoP 04.11.2024); (c) Zakir Hossain Medical College (LoP 08.11.2024); and (d) Lord Buddha College (LoP 05.11.2024), where LoPs were issued after accepting ECs given much after submission of the applications. More specifically referring to the case of Takshashila Medical College, Ongur, Tindivanam, Tamil Nadu, it is urged that in the said case it was during the Second Appeal under Section 35(7) of NMC Act, that the Second Appellate Committee condoned the delay in submitting the EC terming it as 'slight delay' and directed NMC to issue LoP for 100 seats. This evidences that Respondents themselves carve out exceptions to the Regulations in deserving cases and there is no reason why benefit should not be given to the Petitioner on parity. EC was to be issued by the State Government and it was not within the control of the Petitioner to regulate the format and/or the time frame for issuance of the certificate. Nonetheless, once the deficiency was pointed out by MARB, Petitioner actively pursued with the State Government to remove the defect and fresh EC issued on 14.07.2025 was submitted on 15.07.2025. It is not W.P.(C) 16639/2025 Page 4 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.

8. The second ground in the LoD for rejecting the grant of LoP is infrastructural deficiencies. Albeit Clause 2(e) of LoD is completely vague and fails to disclose the exact nature of infrastrustural deficiencies, however, in reply to the show cause notice, Petitioner had brought forth that all deficiencies pointed out in the notice were cured and had appended all requisite documents. Moreover, during the pendency of this writ petition and on direction by the Court, physical inspection has been carried out on 28.11.2025 and the detailed inspection report by the Assessors clearly reveals that the college has adequate infrastructure and the deficiencies are minor and within the permissible limit.

9. Mr. Sibal also questions the findings of First Appellate Committee. It is submitted that the findings of the Committee that there is shortage of faculty/attendance and an attempt was made by employees to misrepresent by showing wrong ID cards are erroneous and based purely on the virtual inspection conducted in a window of 15 minutes at 9 A.M. Firstly, no such deficiency was pointed out in the show cause notice. Secondly, most of the faculty was not carrying ID cards since they are registering attendance using the biometric attendance system. Committee did not grant any opportunity to the Petitioner to controvert the allegations and immediately passed the order after the inspection in a haste. Petitioner has placed on record the ID cards which shows that there was no attempt to mislead and all faculty members have genuine ID cards. Moreover, Committee did not even consider the AEBAS data from 01.04.2025 to 13.10.2025, which corroborates the stand of the Petitioner that there is no shortage of faculty/attendance and the W.P.(C) 16639/2025 Page 5 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2025 at 20:36:46 attendance is over 75% in the last three months. AEBAS data is maintained at the server of the Respondents with live access to them and cannot be tampered. Most importantly, the detailed report of physical inspection conducted on 28.11.2025 during the pendency of this writ petition leaves no doubt that College has adequate faculty and infrastructure and there is no shortage of attendance.

10. Second Appellate Committee's order is assailed on the ground that it is non-speaking and unreasoned. The points raised by the Petitioner in the appeal are not considered and the order is based entirely on the findings of the First Appellate Committee as also on an erroneous presumption that no extension of time can be granted to remove deficiencies, which is contrary to earlier orders of MoHFW, whereby belated ECs have been accepted and directions have been passed to issue LoPs. It is strenuously urged that the college is compliant with 2023 Regulations and ready to commence classes for academic session 2025-2026 and if LoP is not issued, 150 MBBS seats will go waste. State of Jharkhand has only two private medical colleges and Petitioner's College is set to cater to the needs of the Paharia Tribal Community, which is a depleting primitive Tribal group.

11. Mr. Kirtiman Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondents No.2 and 3 submits that this petition is rendered infructuous since the counselling stands completed on 14.11.2025, which includes the stray round of counselling and last date for candidates to report to allotted institutions was 20.11.2025 as per the schedule issued by Medical Counselling Committee ('MCC') of DGHS. On this very ground, this Court disposed of W.P.(C) No. 17405/2025 titled Sudha Medical College and Hospital v. Union of India & Ors., observing that all rounds of counselling W.P.(C) 16639/2025 Page 6 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2025 at 20:36:46 for admission to MBBS course for academic year 2025-2026 were over. It is urged that cut-off dates for counselling and/or starting professional courses, especially medical courses is sacrosanct and cannot be extended/altered at the instance of any individual medical college. In support of this plea, reliance is placed on the following judgments:-

(i) Educare Charitable Trust v. Union of India and Another, (2013) 16 SCC 474;

(ii) D.Y. Patil Medical College v. Medical Council of India and Another, (2015) 10 SCC 51;

(iii) Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of UP and Others, (2001) 8 SCC 355;

(iv) Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2013) 2 SCC 617;

(v) Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Another v. Union of India and Others, (2005) 2 SCC 65;

(vi) Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, (2012) 7 SCC 433; and

(vii) Sri Satya Sai University of Technology and Medical Sciences Sehore v. Union of India, through Joint Director Medical Education-I Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Department of Health and Family Welfare and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4920.

12. It is argued that LoD has been rightly issued since the college is not entirely compliant with the 2023 Regulations. As a matter of record, Petitioner did not enclose a valid and subsisting EC along with the W.P.(C) 16639/2025 Page 7 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2025 at 20:36:46 application dated 18.01.2025. Regulation 9(a) provides that no application submitted by eligible entity shall be entertained unless it is inter alia accompanied with EC issued by the concerned State Government or Union Territory or appropriate authority, as the case may be. Petitioner submitted a valid EC with clause 4 only on 15.07.2025. Petitioner also failed to provide copy of a valid and subsisting EC within the time prescribed for rectification of defects in the show cause notice dated 14.06.2025 issued by MARB. It is settled that all requisite documents have to be submitted along with the application seeking approval and EC being an important document cannot be accepted later as this will violate Regulation 9(a) of 2023 Regulations. Reliance is placed on the following judgments:-

                                    (i)       Medical Council of India v. Akash Education and
                                    Development Trust and Others, (2015) 10 SCC 78;
                                    (ii)      Medical Council of India v. V.N. Public Health and
                                    Educational Trust and Others, (2016) 11 SCC 216;
                                    (iii)     D.Y. Patil Medical College (supra);
                                    (iv)      Royal Medical Trust (Registered) and Another v. Union of
                                    India and Another, (2015) 10 SCC 19;
                                    (v)       Medical Council of India v. Chettinad Hospital & Research
                                    Institute and Another, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9895; and
                                    (vi)      Malabar Medical College & Research Centre & Another. v.

Kerala University of Health Sciences Medical College & Others, WA No. 2463/2025, decided on 29.10.2025 by High Court of Kerala.

13. It is further argued that the Petitioner College suffers from gross deficiencies, which were revealed during virtual inspection on 15.10.2025. It W.P.(C) 16639/2025 Page 8 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2025 at 20:36:46 is not open to any college to contend that the inspection must be physical or that enough time and notice must be given in advance for inspection. It is now judicially recognized that inspection can be carried out virtually and there is no requirement in law to give advance notice for inspection. If there is no surprise element, the purpose of inspection is lost. Members of the First Appellate Committee carried out the virtual inspection on 15.10.2025 to satisfy themselves if the college was compliant with the 2023 Regulations and had the required faculty as also threshold attendance of 75%. During the inspection it was found that maximum faculty members had the same photograph on their ID cards and most of the ID cards were not legible. Clearly an attempt was made to misguide the Committee members. Verification of ongoing clinical workload was carried out and was found to be unsatisfactory.

14. It is urged that inspection revealed that Petitioner College is deficient in the required faculty strength and attendance and the appeal was thus rightly rejected. Paragraph 3.2 of Undergraduate Minimum Standards Requirements, 2023 provides that a medical college should have at least 75% attendance of the total working days, excluding vacations, for all faculty and resident doctors. Regulation 2(h) of 2023 Regulations defines 'inspection' to include evaluation of digital records and Regulation 14 authorizes MARB to conduct assessment through AEBAS, CCTV feed, HMIS data or physical inspection and therefore, AEBAS is a primary and binding methodology for assessing available faculty. AEBAS data of the Petitioner college from April to September, 2025 reveals significant deficiencies in physical presence and working hours of faculty members across multiple departments. Data demonstrates that many faculty recorded W.P.(C) 16639/2025 Page 9 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2025 at 20:36:46 less than 50% presence, irregular reporting times and substantial gaps in daily working hours. Through Public Notices dated 15.12.2024 and 19.12.2024, while inviting applications for academic year 2025-2026, it was clearly informed to all applicants that NMC shall verify AEBAS data for the entire academic period while evaluating proposals for new colleges or increase in UG seats and that attendance will be assessed on the basis of continuous, year-long biometric records and not on the basis of faculty strength on any particular day of inspection. The very purpose of mandating AEBAS is to ensure that medical institutions have real, functional and regularly present faculty throughout the academic year. For the proposition that if any institution fails to demonstrate full and consistent AEBAS compliance, it cannot be considered eligible for establishment of a new medical college, reliance is placed on the following judgments:-

(i) Dr. B S Kushwah Institute of Medical Sciences v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 14821/2025, decided on 08.11.2025 by this Court;

(ii) Shrinivas G Educational and Research Institute of Medical Sciences & Anr. v. National Medical Commission & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 14939/2025, decided on 06.11.2025 by this Court; and

(iii) Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 15292/2025, decided on 06.11.2025 by this Court.

15. Heard learned Senior Counsels for the parties and examined their contentions limited to grant of interim order to permit the Petitioner to W.P.(C) 16639/2025 Page 10 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.

16. It is not in dispute that the stray round of counselling for All India seats got over on 12.11.2025 and for State Quota seats on 14.11.2025. When this writ petition was filed, the Second Appeal filed by the Petitioner under Section 28(6) of NMC Act was pending and vide order dated 14.11.2025, Court directed Respondent No. 1 to decide the appeal and pass an order on or before 21.11.2025. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition was listed for final hearing on 29.11.2025. Second Appeal was rejected vide order dated 17.11.2025.

17. The genesis of this writ petition lies in Public Notice issued by NMC on 19.12.2024 inviting applications for establishing new medical colleges for academic year 2025-2026, pursuant to which Petitioner submitted the application on 18.01.2025 for setting up a new medical college at Dumka, Jharkhand under affiliation of Respondent No. 3. Show cause notice was issued by Respondent No. 2 on 14.06.2025 pointing out 6 deficiencies in regard to Solvency Certificate, proof of land ownership/lease, college litigation details, EC, basic infrastructure and financial capacity and calling upon the Petitioner to submit compliance report addressing deficiencies within 7 days, making it clear that submission of the documents was a part of assessment/inspection process and not a final decision of approval or disapproval.

18. Petitioner gave a reply to the show cause notice on 21.06.2025 and reported compliance by enclosing all relevant documents such as Solvency Certificate, certified copies of land documents, duly signed by Department of Revenue and Land, Dumka as also audited balance sheets and annual W.P.(C) 16639/2025 Page 11 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2025 at 20:36:46 report for past three financial years. Petitioner also enclosed documents to show that it was compliant with basic infrastructural facility, site characteristics etc. In answer to the question of pending litigation, Petitioner clarified that being a new college, it had no litigation. As far as EC was concerned, Petitioner brought forth that it had submitted a requisition letter to the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare to issue the revised EC as per NMC format to include Clause 4 in the certificate. Clause 4 is an undertaking by the State Governments/UTs, as the case may be, to take over responsibility of the students already admitted in the college in case any course is stopped by NMC. Revised EC with clause 4 was issued on 14.07.2025 and was submitted by the Petitioner on 15.07.2025. To this extent, there is no dispute between the parties.

19. The bone of contention is that a valid and subsisting EC ought to have been furnished along with the application on 18.01.2025. NMC contends that Regulation 9(a) mandates the furnishing of EC with the application, while Petitioner contends that in many cases in the past, ECs have been accepted even when furnished months later. While it is true that Regulation 9(a) mandates furnishing of EC with the application, it is equally true that in the past in several cases ECs have been accepted even when submitted later. This is substantially demonstrated by the Petitioner by citing examples of several institutions where LoPs were granted even though ECs were not furnished with the applications and illustratively, I may refer to: (a) Raniganj Institute of Medical Sciences (AY 2025-26); (b) East West Medical College (LoP 04.11.2024); (c) Zakir Hossain Medical College (LoP 08.11.2024); and

(d) Lord Buddha College (LoP 05.11.2024). This position is not controverted by the Respondents. In case of Takshashila Medical College in W.P.(C) 16639/2025 Page 12 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2025 at 20:36:46 Tamil Nadu, Central Government passed an order on 16.10.2025 wherein it accepted the EC of the college furnished belatedly terming it as 'slight delay' and directed NMC to issue LoP for 100 seats, in a Second Appeal under Section 35(7) of NMC Act regarding establishment of new medical college with annual intake capacity of 150 MBBS seats for academic year 2025-2026. These illustrations demonstrate that Respondents have not been adhering to Regulation 9(a) and thus the argument that EC given by the Petitioner cannot be accepted only because it was not furnished with the application, prima facie merits rejection. What flows from this is that if NMC/Appeal Committees have been condoning delays in accepting ECs for justified reasons in the past, the same yardstick ought to have been applied in Petitioner's case to examine if there was a just cause for submitting the revised EC on 15.07.2025. The argument that the requirement of submitting the EC along with the application is cast in stone is also dented by the sheer fact that vide show cause notice dated 14.06.2025, MARB had called upon the Petitioner to rectify the deficiencies and submit documents within 7 days and this included a valid EC. If the understanding of NMC is that in no case EC can be accepted if not furnished with the application, then there was no occasion to call upon the Petitioner to submit the EC within 7 days and the natural corollary is that if a valid EC was submitted later, it could not be outrightly ignored on ground that it was not furnished with the application.

20. There is prima facie another glaring irregularity in the procedure adopted by the Respondents. In the show cause notice dated 14.06.2025, 6 deficiencies were earmarked. Save and except, the issue of EC, as per the Petitioner, all other deficiencies were cured by the Petitioner and requisite documents were enclosed with reply dated 21.06.2025. It can be seen from W.P.(C) 16639/2025 Page 13 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2025 at 20:36:46 the LoD that the deficiency with respect to EC was that some mandatory clauses were missing. It transpires during the hearing that only clause 4 was missing which is an undertaking by the State Government to take over admissions if NMC stops any course after admitting students. Petitioner submitted a revised and valid EC with Clause 4 on 15.07.2025, a fact which NMC does not dispute even today. Despite this, LoD was issued on 29.09.2025 on the ground that EC had missing clauses, overlooking that as on date EC was complete and valid. This only demonstrates non-application of mind.

21. The First Appellate Committee followed a procedure, which is unknown to any Regulation on record. Two members of the Committee took upon themselves to conduct a surprise virtual inspection on 15.10.2025 at 09:00 A.M. and the inspection lasted for less than 15 minutes. Faculty was asked to produce ID cards and after rendering a finding that attempt was made to misrepresent, the Committee rejected the appeal on the same day, without calling upon the Petitioner to explain and purge the allegations, moreso when the there was no allegation of shortage of faculty/attendance in the show cause notice. Petitioner explains and rightly so, that since the virtual inspection was conducted suddenly at 09:00 A.M. in the morning, most of the faculty members were not carrying their ID cards. Post installation of AEBAS, faculty was registering attendance through biometric system. Had the First Appellate Committee given an opportunity, Petitioner could have produced the ID cards, which were available and have been appended to the petition. Petitioner is prima facie right that findings of the First Appellate Committee are belied by the report of physical inspection carried out on 28.11.2025, which reflects that deficiency of teaching faculty W.P.(C) 16639/2025 Page 14 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2025 at 20:36:46 was only 1.8%. In fact this report also reveals that other parameters such as college infrastructure, availability of equipment in each Department, hostel facility, AEBAS etc., are adequate and meet the required norms.

22. Challenge to the order passed in the Second Appeal during the pendency of this writ petition is also justified. Order of the Central Government shows complete non-application of mind. Substantial part of order dated 17.11.2025 contains a narrative of dates and events from the stage of issuance of show cause notice to the order of the First Appellate Committee. Committee though records the submissions of the Petitioner with regard to non-compliance with principles of natural justice pertaining to the virtual inspection in a 15-minutes window as also that the institution is fully compliant in respect of infrastructure norms, faculty appointments etc., does not deal with them. The decision is based solely on the findings of the First Appellate Committee and the perception that Second Appeal is not a platform for seeking additional time or extension to rectify deficiencies, as recorded in the order. No reason has been given why the points raised by the Petitioner did not appeal to the Second Appellate Committee. The objective of providing a second appeal is to test the legality of order passed in the first appeal, whereas in the present case, Committee has proceeded as if the narrative in the order of First Appellate Committee under challenge was the gospel truth. The observation in the order passed in the Second Appeal that no additional time or extension to rectify deficiencies can be granted at the Second Appeal stage, is belied by the fact that in case of Takshashila Medical College, it was the Second Appellate Committee which accepted the EC after condoning the delay and directed NMC to issue LoP for 100 W.P.(C) 16639/2025 Page 15 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2025 at 20:36:46 seats for academic year 2025-2026. Therefore, in my prima facie view, the order of the Second Appellate Committee suffers from palpable errors.

23. Having so held, the next question that arises for consideration is whether at this stage Petitioner can be permitted to participate in the counselling as an interim measure. Mr. Sibal urges that direction be passed to issue LoP and Petitioner be allowed to participate in the special round of counselling on 10.12.2025. Admittedly, all counselling rounds, including stray counselling are over. Special counselling is notified by the State of Jharkhand vide notification dated 05.12.2025. This document is handed over during the course of hearing and is not a part of any pleading and in fact there is no application on record for interim relief to participate in the counselling. Since the notification is handed over in Court during the course of hearing, Mr. Kirtiman, learned Senior Counsel on oral instructions submits that this notification pertains to a special round of online counselling for admission to two colleges mentioned therein and is not a general notification. Petitioner argues otherwise and submits that if Government of Jharkhand has opened up the special counselling for All India seats, there is no reason why Petitioner cannot be permitted to participate in the counselling scheduled on 10.12.2025. On a plain reading of notification dated 05.12.2025, this Court finds substance in the submission of Mr. Kirtiman that the notification is restricted to a special round of online counselling to the institutions mentioned therein. Therefore, Petitioner cannot seek any benefit of this notification. All rounds of counselling are over and it is not within the powers of this Court exercising jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India W.P.(C) 16639/2025 Page 16 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.

24. The Supreme Court has time and again held and reiterated that all colleges running professional courses, including Government, both State and Central, MCI/DCI, new or old, Boards, Universities etc., are required to strictly adhere to the time schedules wherever provided for. In Mridul Dhar (supra), the Supreme Court held that adherence to time schedule by everyone was a paramount concern and took pains to declare the need for adherence to the schedule for receipt of applications for establishment of new medical colleges etc. and the process of review and recommendation by the Central Government and MCI, now NMC. In Priya Gupta (supra), the Supreme Court held that schedules prescribed have the force of law inasmuch as they form part of the judgments of the Supreme Court, which are the declared law of the land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution and also form part of the Regulations of MCI. It was observed that it is difficult to comprehend that any authority can have the discretion to alter these schedules to suit a given situation and that Medical and Dental Councils of India, Government and Universities are expected to act in tandem with each other and ensure that recognition for starting medical courses and grant of admission are strictly within the timeframe declared by the Supreme Court and the Regulations. It was also observed that consistent effort of the Supreme Court to direct corrective measures and adherence to law was not only being thwarted by motivated action by the concerned authorities but there has been a manifold increase in arbitrary admissions. The Supreme Court referred to the judgment in Arvind Kumar Kankane (supra), wherein it was held that process of counselling cannot go on W.P.(C) 16639/2025 Page 17 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.

25. In light of these decisions holding that time schedules of admissions to professional colleges must be scrupulously adhered to, grant of interim order to participate in the counselling for academic year 2025-2026 will amount to extending the date of counselling for one institute, which will be in the teeth of the binding dictum of the Supreme Court. Hence, this Court declines the interim relief sought. Be it noted that Petitioner has not filed any interim application for participation in the counselling and the relief of a direction to issue LoP cannot be granted as an interim relief as that would amount to allowing the writ petition.

26. List on 23.01.2026 for final hearing.

27. Written submissions be filed by the parties before the next date.

JYOTI SINGH, J DECEMBER 9, 2025 rw W.P.(C) 16639/2025 Page 18 of 18 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2025 at 20:36:46

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders