Madras High Court
M/S.Srinivasan Medical College And ... vs Union Of India on 24 December, 2024
2025:MHC:1183
W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 10.01.2025
Delivered On : 28.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.P.(MD)Nos.126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135,
447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455 and 456 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.114, 117, 128, 132, 133, 134, 122, 125, 127, 120,
123, 126, 115, 116, 118, 119, 121, 124, 129, 130, 131, 136, 137,
139, 135, 138, 140, 141, 142, 143, 291, 292, 296, 293, 294, 298,
303, 305, 307, 295, 297, 299, 328, 329, 331, 300, 301, 304, 306,
309, 311, 313, 315, 320, 308, 310, 312 of 2025
W.P.(MD)No.126 of 2025:-
M/s.Srinivasan Medical College and Hospital,
(Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan University)
NH-45, Trichy Chennai Trunk Road
(Near Samaypuram Toll Plaza),
Samayapuram,
Tiruchirapalli. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Union of India,
(Through its Deputy Secretary)
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Nirmanbhawan,
New Delhi.
2.National Medical Commission
Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB),
Through its Secretary,
Pocket-14, Sector -8
Dwarka, Phase-1,
New Delhi-77.
1/87
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm )
W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025
3.The Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB),
Rep by its Member / President,
National Medical Commission,
Pocket-14, Sector -8,
Dwarka, Phase-1,
New Delhi-77.
4.State of Tamil Nadu,
Through Principal Secretary,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai.
5.The Secretary,
Selection Committee,
Kilpauk,
Chennai. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in
his proceedings No.V.11013/361/2024-ME-I dated 24.12.2024 and quash
the same as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently
directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to issue letter of approval with
respect to the petitioner application seeking intake of 10 PG seat in
discipline of MS-Orthopaedics for the academic year 2024-2025 and
further directing the 4th and 5th respondents to include the name of the
petitioner college in the state counselling for allotment of students to fill
up 10 PG seats in 10 seats in MS-Orthopaedics for the academic year
2024-2025 in order to ensure that al the 10 seats in the petitioner college
are filled up by allocation of students for the academic year 2024-2025 by
the competent authority.
2/87
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm )
W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.Manider Singh, Senior Advocate
For B.Saravanan Associates
For 1st Respondent : Mr.AR.L.Sunderesan
Additional Solicitor General of India
Assisted by Mr.K.Govindarajan
Deputy Solicitor General of India
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Ms.Subharanjini Anandh
For Respondents 4 & 5 : Mr.T.Amjad Khan,
Government Advocate
COMMON ORDER
Factual Matrix:-
These cases are with respect to the order passed by the first respondent in the second appeal filed under Section 28(6) of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, (herein after to be mentioned as NMC Act) by the writ petitioner Medical College regarding starting of new PG courses for 21 disciplines of broad and super speciality Post Graduate medical education, rejecting the second appeal, thereby confirming the decision of the first appeal Committee, that is, the second respondent dated 05.08.2024, which upheld the decision of the third respondent, that is, the Medical Assessment and Rating Board (herein after to be mentioned as MARB) dated 13.06.2024.
2.The writ petitioner College was established during the academic year 2021 - 2022 with an intake of 150 seats in the MBBS course. On 16.08.2023, the third respondent issued a public notice, inviting applications for starting New Courses/Increase of seats in Post Graduate 3/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 courses, for the academic year 2024 - 2025. Pursuant to such notice, the petitioner college submitted applications for 21 disciplines of broad and super speciality Post Graduate medical education. Final order regarding the application of the petitioner College for starting new PG courses was passed by the third respondent on 13.06.2024, by issuing a letter of disapproval. The said letter of disapproval was issued on the basis of the review of the standard assessment form submitted by the petitioner College conducted by the third respondent Board along with the group of experts and review committee, on the basis of MARB Regulations, 2023, published on 2nd June 2023, PG - Medical Education Regulation, 2000, issued on 22nd August, 2000. Such letter of disapproval for the application of the petitioner College for the academic year 2024 - 2025 was issued as per Section 28(3) proviso of the NMC Act, 2019, for not complying attendance, as per the AEBAS attendance per unit and for non- availability of Essentiality Certificate.
3.Following which, a show cause notice dated 28.03.2024, came to be issued by the third respondent with respect to the application of the petitioner college for 21 disciplines of broad and super speciality Post Graduate medical education for the academic year 2024 – 2025, directing the petitioner college to perform self assessment of its application as mentioned in Post Graduate Medical Education Regulation, 2000, and submit the report and also a compliance report on the 4/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 deficiencies/inadequacies pointed out in the letter of disapproval along with duly filled and signed affidavit within 10 days from the date of issuance of the said show cause notice.
4.However, the petitioner college preferred first appeal before the second respondent on 04.07.2024, in this regard. The second respondent by E-mail dated 05.08.2024, communicated the petitioner college that the first appeal Committee after hearing the college authority and re- verifying the documents and records and pointing out the fact that the petitioner college do not have Essentiality Certificate upheld the decision of the third respondent/MARB. Hence, the petitioner College preferred second appeal before the first respondent on 12.09.2024. The first respondent by order dated 24.12.2024 and 08.01.2025 respectively, rejected the second appeal by the petitioner College for starting various disciplines of broad and super speciality Post Graduate medical education by separate rejection orders on the same day.
5.Challenging the rejection of these second appeals, the petitioner College has filed these Writ Petitions and as far as the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.452 of 2025, the petitioner college has sought for a direction to the respondents to permit them to commence MD community medicine.
5/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025
6.Heard the resounding submission of the learned Senior Counsels Mr.Maninder Singh and Mr.B.Saravanan, for the petitioner College, the learned counsel for the second and third respondents, Ms.Subbaranjini, and the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, Mr.A.R.L.Sunderesan, for the first respondent, the learned Government Advocate, Mr.Amjad Khan for the fourth and fifth respondents at length.
7.This case is primarily concerned with the question whether the first respondent is justified in passing the order dated 24.12.2024 and 08.01.2025 respectively, rejecting the second appeal, more particularly with respect to the applications for 21 disciplines of broad and super speciality Post Graduate medical education submitted by the petitioner College.
Submissions:-
8.The learned Senior Counsel Mr.Maninder Singh who appeared for the petitioner college submitted that Clause 11.1 of the 2000 Regulations stipulates a requirement of 1 Professor, 1 Associate Professor, 1 Assistant Professor, 1 Senior Resident and 2 Junior Residents to constitute one (1) unit in a board speciality course. In case there are multiple units, the associate professor can be the unit chief along with two assistant professors. 1 unit comprises of 30 beds.6/87
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025
9.Clause 12(1) of the 2000 Regulations stipulates that the Professor : Student ratio shall be 1:2 whereas; for other cadres (Associate Professor), the ratio stands at 1:1. He drew the attention of this Court to the relevant provision, which is extracted as follows:-
“.......The ratio of recognised postgraduate teacher to the number of students to be admitted for the degree course where diploma is not prescribed shall be 1:2 for a Professor and 1:1 for other cadre covered by a general note following this rule in each unit per year subject to a maximum of 5 PG seats for the degree per unit per academic year provided a complement of 10 teaching beads is added to the prescribed bed strength of 30 for the unit for broad specialities.....”
10.Further, for the courses of Anesthesiology, Forensic Medicine and Psychiatry [pre and para-clinical subjects], the ratio of Professor :
Student stands at 1:3 and for other cadres (Associate Professor), the ratio stands at 1:1. He categorically submitted that, for para and pre-clinical subjects such as Anesthesiology, Forensic Medicine and Psychiatry, the requirements of units and beds do not apply as per Clause 12(3) of the 2000 Regulations. To substantiate the same, he drew my attention to the relevant portion which is extracted as follows:-
“....The requirement of units and beds shall not apply in the case of Postgraduate degree or diploma courses in Basic and para-clinical departments...” 7/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025
11.To demonstrate that the petitioner College is entitled to be sanctioned with the applied PG seats, he explained the following facts:- 8/87
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 9/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 10/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 11/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 12/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 13/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 14/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 15/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 16/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 17/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025
12.The learned Senior Counsel, Mr.B.Saravanan, submitted that the letter of disapproval dated 13.06.2024, on considering the application made by the petitioner College came to be issued on two grounds, namely, lack of attendance of the faculty as per AEBAS attendance and non-availability of Essentiality Certificate. A show cause notice dated 28.03.2024, was also issued in this regard. Following which, when the petitioner College preferred first appeal before the second respondent on 04.07.2024, the decision of the second respondent was communicated to the petitioner College by the email dated 05.08.2024, in which only the absence of Essentiality Certificate was cited as a reason for rejection. Against which, when the second appeal was preferred before the first respondent vide impugned orders dated 24.12.2024 and 08.01.2025 respectively, the first respondent has once again gone into the aspect of non-availability of attendance of faculty as per AEBAS attendance and the non-availability of Essentiality Certificate.
13.The second respondent having dispensed with the non- availability of faculties in their order, the first respondent ought not to have gone into the same in their order. He also insisted that non- availability of Essentiality Certificate can never ever be fatal for the application made by the petitioner College for the sole reason that on 21.11.2024, the second respondent had informed the first respondent 18/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 vide file No:M-19011/36/2024/NMC/PGMARB, that it has been decided by NMC to keep in abeyance the requirement of Essentiality Certificate for starting of new medical PG courses for the academic year 2024-2025. In view of the said communication, the first respondent ought not to have passed the order of rejection of second appeal on the reason of non- availability of Essentiality Certificate while the aspect of attendance has not been gone into by the second respondent in its first appeal and on that basis, pressed for allowing the Writ Petitions.
14.The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India submitted that, since the applicant College did not possess attendance of the faculty as per AEBAS attendance and due to the non-availability of Essentiality Certificate, on consideration of the submissions and documents made by the petitioner College and after due examination, the Central Government decided to reject the second appeal by the petitioner College for commencing 21 disciplines of broad and super speciality Post Graduate medical education and there is no irrelevance or illegality in the same, the same is in order and pressed for dismissal of Writ Petitions.
15.The learned counsel appearing for the second and third respondent, Ms.Subbaranjani, submitted that, dispensation of Essentiality Certificate, which was made available to those applicants for new medical PG courses for the academic year 2024-2025 by 19/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 communication of the second respondent dated 21.11.2024, is available only for those institutions who possess available clinical material and faculties as per regulation and norms of the National Medical Commission. However, in the instant case, the letter of disapproval itself came to be issued by the third respondent only on the ground of lack of appropriate faculties as per regulations and norms of NMC. Hence, the writ petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the communication issued by the second respondent to the first respondent dated 21.11.2024, for not possessing Essentiality Certificate.
16.Further she reiterated that starting or commencing or running a medical college is not a fundamental right, but education is a fundamental right as such, though the policy of the Government is towards actively increasing the number of medical colleges, the primordial aspect which would be taken up for consideration by the third respondent while scrutiny of applications for commencing new PG courses would be to ensure, whether necessary knowledge, skill and qualitative medical education could be imparted by the institutions by appointing appropriate number of faculty and establishing proper infrastructure as per regulations and norms of the National Medical Commission. Only a properly trained student could effectively cater to the health needs of the people in a Country with a large population like India.
20/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025
17.More particularly, the dispensation of Essentiality Certificate could be considered only in cases of Colleges, which has been established and been running for several years and as far as the instant case is concerned, the petitioner College is a new College, which was commenced only in the year 2021-2022. She further categorically contended that the rejection of the application made by the petitioner College came to be made only after appropriate assessment of the standard assessment form submitted by the petitioner College by the third respondent with a group of experts and review committee. Only because of the fact that the petitioner College failed to fulfill the expectations and mandates of MARB Regulations, 2023 and PG - Medical Education Regulation, 2000, the applications came to be rejected and the same is in order and pressed for dismissal of the Writ Petitions. Analysis:-
18.For maintaining highest standards in imparting medical education by Medical Colleges/Institutions in the Country, the Medical Council of India was constituted under the provisions of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, (herein after to be mentioned as IMC Act). It had been the statutory duty of the Medical Council of India to take all such steps, which is required to be taken for ensuring the maintenance of highest standards in medical education in the Country. Now, the Medical Council 21/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 of India has been dissolved and the National Medical Commission has stepped into the shoes of Medical Council of India. The National Medical Commission/the third respondent has been established to replace the Medical Council of India.
19.The National Medical Commission has been established under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, (herein after to be mentioned as NMC Act, 2019). Though the IMC Act, 1956, has been repealed vide Government of India notification dated 25.09.2020 and NMC Act, 2019, has been enforced, however, Section 61 of the NMC Act, 1956, provides that notwithstanding the repeal of the IMC Act, 1956, the educational standards, requirements and other provisions of IMC Act, 1956 and the Regulations framed thereunder, shall continue to be enforced until new standards or requirements are specified under NMC Act, 2019. The relevant portion of the NMC Act, 2019, is extracted hereunder:-
“........
61. Transitory provisions.— (1)The Commission shall be the successor in interest to the Medical Council of India including its subsidiaries or owned trusts and all the assets and liabilities of the Medical Council of India shall be deemed to have been transferred to the Commission.
(2)Notwithstanding the repeal of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the educational standards, requirements and other provisions of the Indian Medical Council 22/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 Act, 1956, and the rules and regulations made thereunder, shall continue to be in force and operate till new standards or requirements are specified under this Act or the rules and regulations made there under:
Provided that anything done or any action taken as regards the educational standards and requirements under the enactment under repeal and the rules and regulations made thereunder shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act and shall continue in force accordingly unless and until superseded by anything done or by any action taken under this Act.
.............”
20.The NMC is a statutory body constituted under Section 3 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, which came into force with effect from 08.08.2019. The National Medical Commission Act, 2019, provides for a medical education system that improves access to quality and affordable medical education, ensures availability of adequate and high quality medical professionals in all parts of the Country; that promotes equitable and universal health care that encourages community health perspective and makes services of medical professionals accessible to all the citizens; that promotes national health goals; that encourages medical professionals to adopt latest medical research in their work and to contribute to research; that has an objective periodic and transparent assessment of medical institutions and facilitates maintenance of a medical register for India and enforces high ethical 23/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 standards in all aspects of medical services; that is flexible to adapt to the changing needs and has an effective grievance redressal mechanism and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
21.The NMC is empowered to lay down policies for maintaining high quality and high standards in medical education and make necessary regulations in this behalf; lay down policies for regulating medical institutions, medical researchers and medical professionals and make necessary regulations in this behalf; access the requirements in health care, including human resources for health and health care infrastructure and develop a road map for meeting such requirements; promote, coordinate and frame guidelines and lay down policies by making necessary regulations for the proper functioning of the commission, the Autonomous Boards and the State Medical Councils; ensure coordination among the autonomous boards; take such measures as may be necessary, to ensure compliance by the State Medical Councils of the guidelines framed and regulations made under this Act for their effective functioning under this Act; exercise appellate jurisdiction with respect to the decisions of the autonomous boards; lay down policies and codes to ensure observance of professional ethics in medical profession and to promote ethical conduct during the provision of care by medical practitioners; frame guidelines for determination of fees and all other charges in respect of 50 percent of fees in private medical institutions 24/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 and deemed to be universities which are governed under the provisions of the NMC Act; and exercise such other powers and perform such other functions as may be prescribed by the NMC Act, 2019.
22.The third respondent, that is, the Medical Assessment and Rating Board, is an autonomous board constituted under Section 16 of the NMC Act, 2019. The third respondent board is empowered to determine the procedure for assessing and rating the medical institutions for their compliance with standards laid down by the undergraduate medical education board or the postgraduate medical education board, as the case may be, in accordance with the regulations made under the NMC Act, 2019; grant permission for establishment of a new medical institution, or to start any Post Graduate course or to increase number of seats, in accordance with the provisions of Section 28; carry out inspections of medical institutions for assessing and rating such institutions in accordance with the regulations made under this Act; provided conduct, or where it deems necessary, empanel independent rating agencies to conduct, assess and rate, all medical institutions, within such period of their opening and every year thereafter, at such time, and in such manner, as may be specified by the regulations; make available on its website or in public domain the assessment and ratings of medical institutions at regular intervals in accordance with the Regulations made under the NMC Act, 2019; take such measures, 25/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 including issuing warning, imposition of monetary penalty, reducing intake or stoppage of admissions and recommending to the commission for withdrawal of recognition, against any medical institution for failure to maintain the minimum essential standards specified by the Under Graduate medical education board or the Post Graduate medical education board, as the case may be, in accordance with the Regulations made under the NMC Act, 2016.
23.The third respondent may, if it deems necessary, hire and authorize any other third party agency or persons for carrying out inspections of medical institutions for assessing and rating such institutions. Where inspection of medical institutions is carried out by such third party agency or persons authorized by the third respondent, it shall be obligatory on such institutions to provide access to such agency or persons. The third respondent in discharge office function make such recommendations to and seek such directions from the NMC, as it deems necessary. In short, NMC is a statutory body constituted for the purpose of discharging the duty of maintenance of the highest standards of medical education throughout the Country.
24.Section 28 of the NMC Act, 2019, is extracted hereunder for the purpose of this case:-
“ 28. Permission for establishment of new medical college.26/87
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 (1)No person shall establish a new medical college or start any post graduate course or increase number of seats without obtaining prior permission of the Medical Assessment and Rating Board.
..........
(5)Where a scheme is disapproved under sub-section (3), or where no decision is taken within six months of submitting a scheme under sub-section (1), the person concerned may prefer an appeal to the Commission for approval of the scheme within fifteen days of such disapproval or, as the case may be, lapse of six months, in such manner as may be specified by the regulations.
(6)The Commission shall decide the appeal received under sub-section (5) within a period of forty-five days from the date of receipt of the appeal and in case the Commission approves the scheme, such approval shall be the permission under sub-
section (1) to establish a new medical college and in case the Commission disapproves the scheme, or fails to give its decision within the specified period, the person concerned may prefer a second appeal to the Central Government within thirty days of communication of such disapproval or, as the case may be lapse of specified period.
(7)The Medical Assessment and Rating Board may conduct evaluation and assessment of any medical institution at any time, either directly or through any other expert having integrity and experience of medical profession and without any prior notice and assess and evaluate the performance, standards and benchmarks of such medical institution. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, the term "person" includes a University, trust or any other association of persons or body of individuals, but does not include the Central Government.” 27/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025
25.More particularly, under Sections 10(g) and 22(3) of the NMC Act, 2019, any person aggrieved by the decision of the third respondent, may prefer an appeal to the second respondent. That apart, Section 9(6) of the NMC Act, 2019, provides that a person aggrieved by the decision of the National Medical Commission may prefer an appeal, within 30 days to the Government of India, that is, the first respondent.
26.In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of the Section 57 r/w. Sections 26, 28 and 29 of the NMC Act, 2019 (Act 30 of 2019); the NMC framed, “The Establishment of New Medical Institutions, Starting of New Medical Courses, Increase of Seats for Existing Courses and Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023”, in short, “Establishment of Medical Institutions, Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023” (hereinafter to be referred as the Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023).
27.The third respondent by a public notice dated 16.08.2023, bearing No.NMC/MARB/2024-2025/047842, invited applications for Post Graduation courses - broad and super speciality courses; for new courses/increase of MD/MS, DM/M.Ch seats for the academic year 2024 - 2025. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner medical college made applications on 15.09.2023, for grant of approval/letter of permission for 21 PG medical disciplines and for starting admissions in all those PG 28/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 medical courses for the academic year 2024 - 2025. On receipt of the said applications for various PG courses after initial scrutiny, certain deficiencies were identified by the third respondent. Hence, separate show cause notice dated 28.03.2024, came to be issued by the third respondent to the petitioner medical college pointing out the inadequacies in every application.
28.The non-availability of Essentiality Certificate and the lack of AEBAS attendance with respect to the faculty was considered for the period from 01.01.2024 to 29.02.2024, directing the petitioner college to perform self-assessment of its application as mentioned in PG Medical Education Regulation, 2000, and submit a report within 10 days from the date of issuance of the said show cause notice; to submit the compliance report on the deficiencies/inadequacies and to submit the duly filled and signed affidavit within 10 days from the date of issuance of the aforesaid show cause notice. However, the petitioner College did not submit the self-assessment report, compliance report on the deficiencies/inadequacies and signed affidavit in the format attached in the aforesaid show cause notice within 10 days from the date of receipt of the show cause notice dated 28.03.2024.
29.Due to the failure of the petitioner College to respond to the said show cause notice, the third respondent considered the AEBAS data and 29/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 thereafter, forwarded the applications made by the petitioner College to the expert group for scrutiny and evaluation and on receipt of the report from the expert group, after final scrutiny, issued the letter of disapproval in each of the 21 applications on 13.06.2024. The main inadequacy pointed out in the letter of disapproval is also the non- availability of Essentiality Certificate and the inadequacy in the number of faculties as per AEBAS attendance. On receipt of the letter of disapproval issued by the third respondent, the petitioner College woke up suddenly and preferred a first appeal before the second respondent on 04.07.2024.
30.Even in the first appeal in the compliance report given by the petitioner Medical College, it has been stated that Essentiality Certificate is not available and that as per their request letter dated 30.03.2024 to the Principal Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare and Directorate of Medical Education, Tamil Nadu, the Directorate appointed a scrutiny team for verification for issuing the Essentiality Certificate to start PG courses and the inspection has been completed and that the College is awaiting for Essentiality Certificate from the government of Tamil Nadu. As far as the faculty position is concerned, the explanation submitted in the appeal is that during the month of January 2024 and February 2024, there had been a lot of festival holidays like pongal etc, because of the same AEBAS attendance percentage was less than 75 30/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 percentage for most of the faculties and that due to biometric issues and resignation of some of the faculties, there had been a lack in AEBAS attendance for the period 1st January 2024 to 29th January 2024 and as new faculties were appointed in the place of relieved faculties AEBAS attendance is as per NMC norms for the period 1st May 2024 to 30th June 2024 and the same has been attached. However, the said appeal was conspicuously silent as to the faculty position and their AEBAS attendance for the period between 1st March and 30th April 2024.
31.The appeal dated 04.07.2024, submitted by the petitioner College was duly considered by the second respondent and the mail communication on 05.08.2024, was made by the second respondent to the petitioner College, communicating the decision of the first appeal committee that the appeal Committee heard the college authority and re- verified the documents and records and due to the acceptance of the college authorities that they do not have the Essentiality Certificate (EC), the committee had upheld the decision of the third respondent.
32.Against which, a second appeal was preferred by the petitioner College on 12.09.2024, before the first respondent, explaining that the petitioner College has had applied to the Principal Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Tamil Nadu, and the Directorate of Medical Education, Tamil Nadu, for obtaining the 31/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 Essentiality Certificate to their institution for starting the starting the new Post Graduate courses during the academic year 2024-2025 and the same has been duly received from the State Government for 21 departments, for which they have already made applications and the same may be taken into consideration and permit the college to start the Post Graduate courses in the institution during the academic year 2024-2025. The Essentiality Certificate dated 10.09.2024 was also enclosed by the petitioner College along with the second appeal. However, without considering the same, the Central Government after examination, rejected the second appeal by the petitioner College by the impugned order dated 24.12.2024 and 08.01.2025 respectively.
33.The learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioner Medical College categorically relying upon the case of the National Medical Commission versus the Principal, K.M.C.T. Medical College and Others1 submitted that making a party run from Court to Court to seek permission, specifically when the institute concerned is not a new institute and has been running for the past several years is only an attempt to harass the institution and the petitioner institution is not a new institution and categorically submitted that having not considered the factum of faculty position in the first appeal later in the second appeal, the first respondent ought not to have rejected the second appeal 1SLP(C) No.-020091-020092 - 2024 32/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 on the grounds of faculty position and absence of Essentiality Certificate. Both the learned Senior Counsels heavily relied upon the official communication dated 21.11.2024, between the second respondent and the first respondent in which it has been intimated to the first respondent that the NMC has decided to keep in abeyance the requirement of the Essentiality Certificate for starting of new medical PG courses for the academic year 2024-2025.
34.Thus, the two issues arising for consideration in the instant lis is as follows:-
“(1)Whether the petitioner can claim benefit of the exemption letter dated 21.11.2024, in respect of Essentiality Certificate ?
(2)Whether the faculty strength of the petitioner College met the requirements of the NMC regulations ?”
35.The notice inviting application for the commencement of PG medical courses for the academic year 2024-2025 was issued on 16.08.2023. On 15.09.2023, the applications for 21 PG courses was submitted by the College separately. After initial scrutiny on identifying certain deficiencies, the show cause notice was issued by the third respondent to the petitioner College on 28.03.2024. The show cause notice in serial no.2 specified that the Essentiality Certificate is inadequate and in serial no.5 specifically mentioned that data for AEBAS 33/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 is liable to be considered for the period 01.01.2024 to 29.02.2024 and for such period, the attendance of the faculty should be at least 75 percentage and in paragraph no.2 of the show cause notice it is specified that the compliance report is to be submitted by the College within 10 days of the show cause notice.
36.It is only after this on 30.03.2024, the petitioner College applied seeking Essentiality Certificate to the State Government and that makes it clear that only after 6 months from the date of submission of the application form, the petitioner medical College had applied for an Essentiality Certificate to the Tamil Nadu State Government. In such request letter, it is admitted by the petitioner medical College in paragraph no.2 that during the academic year 2021- 2023, their Essentiality Certificate had expired and they further confirmed that the Essentiality Certificate is required for submission to the second respondent because the petitioner had applied for the various Post Graduate departments.
37.In the meanwhile, the letter of disapproval dated 13.06.2024, issued by the third respondent pointed out the same deficiencies cited in the show cause notice and the petitioner College without raising any demur or protest preferred a first appeal on 04.07.2024 before the second respondent. More particularly, with respect to the remark of the 34/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 experts regarding non-availability of Essentiality Certificate, the writ petitioner College had duly responded that the Essentiality Certificate was awaited and that they had applied for it, without raising any protest or question regarding the requirement to produce the Essentiality Certificate.
38.Since it was admitted by the writ petitioner College itself that there is no Essentiality Certificate and the same is awaited and since the writ petitioner College was not able to provide any probable explanation for the inadequate faculties during the period 1st January 2024 to 29th February 2024, left with no other option the first appellate authority, that is, the second respondent confirmed the order of the third respondent, by rejecting the first appeal on 05.08.2024. In the meanwhile, on 10.09.2024, the petitioner College managed to obtain Essentiality Certificate.
39.Though the second appeal was preferred by the petitioner College enclosing the Essentiality Certificate on 12.09.2024, since no attempt was made by the petitioner College to satisfy the second appellate authority, that is, the first respondent with respect to the faculty deficiency, on 04.11.2024, vide letter bearing No.V. 11013/14/2019-ME-1 (FTS 8290596), the first respondent invited a Powerpoint Presentation for submission from the petitioner College to 35/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 present the case of the said College vis-a-vis the disapproval letter of the NMC, that is, the second respondent, along with the requisite information on 07.11.2024 at 10.30 a.m. However, the AEBAS data submitted by the petitioner College was for a period of their own choice and not for the relevant period of 1st January 2024 to 29th February 2024.
40.In the meanwhile on 21.11.2024, a letter from the second respondent to the Central Government, that is, the first respondent clarified that the requirement to submit an Essentiality Certificate has been kept in abeyance for the academic year 2024-2025 subject to the availability of clinical material and faculty. Claiming the benefit of the aforesaid letter, the entire narration and argument of the petitioner College has been put forth by the learned Senior Counsels before me. Section 2 (f) of the Establishment of Medical Institutions, Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023, define the term “Essentiality Certificate” as follows:-
“Essentiality Certificate”(in its abbreviated form EC) shall mean written permission from the central or concerned state government or the Union Territory administration as the case may be for the establishment of a new medical institution.”
41.Further Section 9(a) of the aforesaid Regulations, 2023, makes it clear that no application submitted by the eligible entity shall be entertained unless it is accompanied with Essentiality Certificate issued 36/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 by the concerned State Government or Union Territory administration or the appropriate authority as the case may be unless otherwise specified and that the Essentiality Certificate shall be valid at the time of application.
42.However, it is the admitted case of the petitioner Medical College herein that at the time of making application they did not possess a valid Essentiality Certificate. It is the categorical contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner medical college that the second respondent NMC had stood satisfied with the attendance/availability of the requisite faculty and had restricted the disapproval on the imaginary and unavailable illegal ground of non- submission of Essentiality Certificate and that the petitioner College had become entitled for grant of letter of permission for the various PG medical disciplines at the stage of the first appeal itself.
43.However, I am of the considered view that the communication made by the second respondent NMC to the first respondent vide file dated 21.11.2024, is with respect to the decision to keep in abeyance the requirement of the Essentiality Certificate for starting of new PG medical courses for the academic year 2024 – 2025, subject to the availability of clinical material and faculties as per regulations and norms of NMC. However, in the instant case, the show cause notice issued by the third 37/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 respondent dated 28.03.2024, itself had made clear that the data for AEBAS attendance for the period 01.01.2024 to 29.02.2024 with respect to the attendance of faculty should be at least 75 percent, which would precisely indicate the non-availability of faculty.
44.Without proceeding to submit the compliance report in terms of the aforesaid show cause notice dated 28.03.2024, within 10 days of the show cause notice, the writ petitioner College proceeded to prefer a first appeal after the issuance of letter of disapproval by the third respondent on 13.06.2024. It is only on 04.07.2024, the first appeal was preferred by the petitioner College before the second respondent, that too, without complying the deficiencies pointed out in the show cause notice by submitting the relevant attendance data for the period from 01.01.2024 to 29.02.2024, but by submitting for a period of their own choice. For better clarity, the relevant period of the choice of the petitioner college for seeking grant of letter of approval as submitted in their affidavit and the impugned orders in all the 20 cases are extracted herein:- 38/87
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 W.P.(MD)No.126 of 2025:-
Table in the affidavit Impugned order 39/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 W.P.(MD)No.127 of 2025:-
Table in the affidavit Impugned order 40/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 W.P.(MD)No.128 of 2025:-
Table in the affidavit Impugned order W.P.(MD)No.129 of 2025:-41/87
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 Table in the affidavit Impugned order W.P.(MD)No.130 of 2025:-42/87
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 Table in the affidavit 43/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 Impugned order W.P.(MD)No.131 of 2025:-
Table in the affidavit 44/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 Impugned order W.P.(MD)No.132 of 2025:-
Table in the affidavit 45/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 Impugned order W.P.(MD)No.133 of 2025:-
Table in the affidavit 46/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 Impugned order W.P.(MD)No.134 of 2025:-
Table in the affidavit 47/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 Impugned order W.P.(MD)No.135 of 2025:-
Table in the affidavit 48/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 Impugned order W.P.(MD)No.447 of 2025:-
Table in the affidavit 49/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 Impugned order W.P.(MD)No.448 of 2025:-
Table in the affidavit 50/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 Impugned order W.P.(MD)No.449 of 2025:-
Table in the affidavit 51/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 Impugned order W.P.(MD)No.450 of 2025:-
Table in the affidavit 52/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 Impugned order 53/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 W.P.(MD)No.451 of 2025:-
Table in the affidavit Impugned order 54/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 W.P.(MD)No.452 of 2025:-
Table in the affidavit W.P.(MD)No.453 of 2025:-
Table in the affidavit 55/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 Impugned order 56/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 W.P.(MD)No.454 of 2025:-
Table in the affidavit Impugned order 57/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 W.P.(MD)No.455 of 2025:-
Table in the affidavit Impugned order 58/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 W.P.(MD)No.456 of 2025:-
Table in the affidavit Impugned order 59/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025
45.A careful perusal of the extracted details itself would show that, even if the details sought for, by the issuance of show cause notice dated 28.03.2024, was with respect to the period from 1 st January 2024 to 29th February 2024 and the period relied upon by the writ petitioner College is from 01.04.2024 to 30.12.2024 without disclosing the details from 01.03.2024 to 31.03.2024, since the same will not fulfill the faculty requirements as per PG Medical Education Regulations, 2000, and UG Medical Education Regulations. As far as the dispensation of the production of Essentiality Certificate as claimed by the petitioner College, the relevant communication dated 21.11.2024, issued by the second respondent to the first respondent is extracted as follows:- 60/87
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 61/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025
46.A careful perusal of the same would make it clear that dispensation of Essentiality Certificate for starting of new medical PG courses for the academic year 2024-2025 would be available for those institutions which possess proper clinical material and faculties as per the regulations and norms of NMC. However, in the instant case in the absence of faculties as per the regulations and norms of NMC, the dispensation of Essentiality Certificate could not be claimed by the petitioner College as a matter of right. That apart, the third respondent on receipt of applications for the post graduation courses - broad and super speciality courses for the academic year 2024-2025, in response to its public notice dated 16.08.2023, could process the same only as mandated by the Regulations of NMC. For better appreciation, the application process flow chart is derived as follows:-62/87
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 63/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025
47.In the instant case, on receipt of application form from the petitioner college after initial scrutiny on identifying the deficiencies, a show cause notice dated 28.03.2024 was issued to the petitioner College requiring to submit a compliance report in terms of the show cause notice within 10 days from the date of show cause notice. Had the petitioner college duly filed a compliance report within 10 days as required in the first show cause notice with a self assessment form the issues would have been properly resolved at that stage itself. However, since a compliance report was not submitted by the petitioner College, the third respondent was left with no other option rather to proceed forward to consider the AEBAS data for attendance of the faculty and thereafter on the basis of the scrutinization and evaluation report received from the expert group in this regard, a final scrutiny was also made and on the basis of which, a letter of disapproval was issued by the third respondent on 13.06.2024.
48.Though the second appeal was filed by the petitioner College on 12.09.2024, enclosing the incumbent certificate, no attempt to satisfy the second appellate authority with respect to faculty deficiency was diligently taken by the petitioner College. The concept of AEBAS is Aadhaar Enabled Biometric Attendance System. It is a real-time attendance monitoring system developed by the Indian government to improve the productivity of Government employees. AEBAS uses the 64/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 Aadhaar number, which is used by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), to authenticate the attendance of employees. It offers two modes of authentication through fingerprint and through Aadhaar. That was in 2022 that it was mandated for recording faculty attendance in all medical colleges throughout India using AEBAS. Such e-tracking system was introduced to weed out malpractices by Colleges, shortcomings in the earlier physical inspection system and for greater coordinated monitoring by the regulator.
49.By this, the shortfall in attendance is duly noted by the second respondent and inadequacy of faculty come to light. Admittedly, at the relevant time for which the data had to be submitted by the petitioner College along with their application form that is during the period from 1st January 2024 to 29th February 2024, there was a shortfall. Such shortfall is claimed to have been cured only from April 2024, leaving out the month of March 2024. However, the same is also found incorrect from the admitted data filed by the petitioner College before this Court as extracted supra in paragraph no.42. The shortfall of faculty has been consistent.
50.The reason put forth by the Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioner College for the lack of attendance is on account of the Pongal holidays. As for the lack of attendance being allegedly on account of 65/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 Pongal holidays, such a plea is unacceptable because the AEBAS system itself automatically adjusts and recalibrates, based on actual working days and 75 percentage attendance is reckoned in relation to the actual working days only. The computation in the system automatically excludes holidays and therefore, holidays have no bearing on attendance. In any event, Pongal holidays in the month of January 2024 was only for three days.
51.Admittedly, the compliance data submitted by the petitioner College is only from April 2024, while submitting the first appeal and there is no explanation for the period from February 2024 to April 2024.
For this reason also, the lack of faculty in the petitioner College is an important reason for disapproval of permission. The complete data regarding the application status of the petitioner College as on the date of filing this petition is placed before me by the respondents 2 and 3 and the same is extracted as follows:-
Sl.N W.P. Discipline No. of Faculty Faculty as per o. (MD)No. Seats Deficiency as AEBAS data sought per MARB as on submitted by Date of College for the Disapproval period (13.06.2025) 01.04.2024 – 30.12.2024 Min Attendance required - 75%
1. 126 of 2025 MD (Orthopedics) 10 Professor – Not Still show 1 available Professor with 37% attendance and 1 SR with 54% 66/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025
2. 127 of 2025 MD (Ophthalmology) 5 Associate Still shows Professor – Not Associate available Professor with only 57% Attendance.
3. 128 of 2025 MD (Forensics) 3 Associate Still shows No Professor – Not Associate available Professor Asst Professor – Still shows Not Available Asst. Professor with only 12% Attendance.
4. 129 of 2025 MD (Physiology) 4 Associate Still shows Professor – Not shortfall of 1 in available each.
Asst Professor – Still shows 4/8 Not Available SR with (1 shortfall attendance each) shortfall @ 58%, 54%, 42%, 21%.
5. 130 of 2025 MD (General 25 Associate Still shows no Medicine) Professor – Not Associate available Professor.
Asst Professor –
Not Available Asst Professor
(shortfall 2) 1 still shows
attendance
shortfall @12%
Still shows 3/6
SR with
attendance
shortfall
@22%, 42%
and 38%.
6. 131 of 2025 MD/MS (Anatomy) 4 Associate Continues to
Professor – Not remain 0.
available (2
reqd) SR -required 8.
Asst Professor – 5 Attendance
Not Available (3 shortfall @
reqd) 37%, 3%, 45%,
40%, 29%.
67/87
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm )
W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025
7. 132 of 2025 MD (Bio Chemistry) 4 Professor – Not Complied
available Professor
requirement.
SR shows
attendance
shortfall : @
42%, 47%,
57%, 44% and
58%,
8. 133 of 2025 MD (Paediatrics) 15 Professor – Not 2/4 Professor :
available lack of
attendance @
Associate 37% and 5%.
Professor – Not
available Asst
Professor : 2
Asst Professor - still show
attendance
shortfall @
14% and 35%.
SR 1 still
shows
attendance @
6%.
9. 134 of 2025 Anesthesiology 18 Professor – 1 Still shows 1
available Professor
requirement – 5 attendance
shortfall @
Associate 15%
Professor – Not Asst Professor
available – 1 still shows
Asst Professor – attendance
Not available shortfall @
Requirement – 37%
3 each. Sr – 3
attendance
shortfall @ 9%,
35%, 14%
Requirement –
5.
68/87
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm )
W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025
10. 135 of 2025 Psychiatry 5 Professor – Not Associate Prof
available still shows
Requirement – attendance
1 shortfall @
55%.
Associate Only Asst Prof
Professor – 1 still shows
shortfall. attendance
(1 available shortfall @
2 required). 50%.
52.This Court is of the considered view that the first appellate authority was not required to once again go into the question of adequacy of faculty strength because the only issue before the first appellate authority was whether the Essentiality Certificate had to be awaited when lack of faculty had not been satisfactorily complied at all. The compliance form dated 05.04.2024, submitted by the College was admittedly silent on showing compliance in respect of inadequacy of faculty. Such compliance form harped only on Essentiality Certificate. Since compliance/rectification is a one time measure to be effected by the College after receipt of a show cause notice, the third respondent is required only to ascertain whether all deficiencies pointed out have been complied. In the absence of such compliance, rejection is natural.
53.The first appellate authority passed an order dated 05.08.2024 and even by then, the Essentiality Certificate had never been produced by the petitioner medical College. This is without prejudice to the fact that rectification/compliance was an opportunity to be availed within 10 69/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 days of the show cause notice. This left the first appellate authority, that is, the second respondent with no material for reconsideration and it is pertinent to state that the petitioner College itself never questioned the requirement of the respondents 2 and 3 in seeking an Essentiality Certificate.
54.On the other hand, the petitioner College clearly stated that an Essentiality Certificate had been applied for and the same was awaited. There was no demur or protest to the requirement of producing an Essentiality Certificate and this Court has no hesitation to observe that all the contentions of dispensing with the production of Essentiality Certificate put forth by the learned Senior Counsels, who have appeared for the petitioner College are a sheer afterthought. In fact, the petitioner College attached a copy of application made by them to the State Government requesting for issuance of the Essentiality Certificate along with the first appeal. Therefore, all the loud objections made before this Court seeking dispensation of Essentiality Certificate are vexatious and the sheer afterthought cannot be countenanced.
55.The petitioner college has not shown compliance in accordance with law, which alone would entitle the petitioner to receive a letter of permission. Instead the entire Writ Petition is oriented only to cast aspirations on the second and third respondents. The oblique motives in 70/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 attacking the respondents 1, 2 and 3 shows the lack of bona fides of the petitioner College.
56.Section 26(1)(a) of the NMC Act, 2019, confers power on the third respondent/MARB to determine the procedure for assessing and rating medical institutions for their compliance with standards laid down by the Undergraduate Medical Education Board or the Post Graduate Medical Education Board. Further, as per Section 26(1)(b), it is the MARB/third respondent, which has to grant permission for starting new post graduate courses. Section 23(3) proviso states that before disapproving any scheme, “an opportunity to rectify defects shall be given to the persons concerned”. Also Section 29 of the NMC Act, 2019, laid down the criteria for approving/disapproving the scheme submitted by a college for starting a new course/institution. Such criteria includes availability of adequate academic faculty. There is no discretion vested in the NMC to relax academic faculty requirement. Discretionary power itself is vested only with the Central Government in the circumstances set out under Section 29 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.
57.The applications made by the petitioner College is seeking grant of permission for commencement of 21 Post Graduation courses - broad and super specialities courses for the academic year 2024 - 2025. I am of 71/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 the considered view that the faculty position, which is to be considered on such applications are with respect to those months prior to when the college applied for enhancement of seats. However, in the instant case though the application was submitted by the College on 15.09.2023, the show cause notice issued 28.03.2024, made it clear that the data for AEBAS for the period 01.01.2024 to 29.02.2024 would be relevant to be considered for the purpose of attendance of faculty.
58.However, without filing a compliance report before the third respondent, the petitioner College after issuance of letter of disapproval on 13.06.2024 preferred a first appeal before the second respondent on 04.07.2024 by submitting the data of AEBAS for a period of its own choice, that is, from the month of April 2024 to December 2024. Even the said data miserably trails to fulfill the mandates as required for iterating the position of attendance of faculty during that period of time. I am of the considered view that subsequent appointing of faculty/residents could not be of any avail for the purpose of application filed previously.
59.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India and Others2, has held as follows:-
“25. ......... A compliance report is called for only to ascertain whether the deficiencies pointed out were rectified or 2 2013 10 SCC 60 72/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 not. If MCI is not satisfied with the manner of compliance, it can conduct a surprise inspection. After that, no further time or opportunity to rectify the deficiencies is contemplated, no further opportunity of being heard is provided.”
60.Fully fortified by the aforesaid judgment, I am of the considered view that the compliance report dated 05.04.2024, ought to have been submitted by the petitioner medical College with a valid EC and proper faculty who are functional during the period for which AEBAS data was considered, that is, the period from 1st January 2024 to 29th February 2024. However, having not done the same, even in the compliance report, the submission of the petitioner College is that they have applied for Essentiality Certificate to the Government of Tamil Nadu and the same is awaited. Only on receipt of such compliance report, the letter of disapproval dated 13.06.2024 was issued by the third respondent.
61.The pertinent point to be mentioned at this juncture is that, the entire compliance exercise was a one-time opportunity offered by the third respondent and no further time or opportunity to rectify deficiencies was contemplated or required in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court extracted supra as well as in terms of the proviso to Section 28 of the NMC Act, 2019. Needless to state that in the instant case as on the date of scrutiny of the application form, there was a clear deficiency of non-submission of Essentiality Certificate and 73/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 deficiency in proper faculty who were functional during the period for which AEBAS data was considered. In addition to the same, this Court is of the considered view that, as expected by the petitioner, the respondents cannot keep on the scrutiny process by keeping the same in indefinite abeyance so as to facilitate the petitioner College to submit the proper faculty details as well as Essentiality Certificate and the process of consideration of application for commencement of new PG courses is a time bound process.
62.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Medical Council of India versus Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences and others3, has held as follows:-
“21. A perusal of the decision of the High Court clearly indicates that it considered the latest report of the Inspection Team as if it was hearing an appeal against the report. In doing so, the High Court went into great details on issues relating to the number of teaching beds in the hospital, the limitations in the OPD Department, the number of units available in the subjects of General Medicine, Pediatrics etc., bed occupancy, number of Caesarean sections, discrepancy in data of major and minor operations, computerization in the institution, number of patients in the ICU, number of static X-ray machines, deficiency of examination halls, lecture theatres, library, students hostel, interns hostel, playground etc. etc. Surely, this was not within the domain of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3(2016) 11 SCC 530 74/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025
22. The High Court did not appreciate that the inspection was carried out by eminent Professors from reputed medical institutions who were experts in the field and the best persons to give an unbiased report on the facilities in KIMS. The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was certainly not tasked to minutely examine the contents of the inspection report and weigh them against the objections of KIMS in respect of each of its 18 items. In our opinion, the High Court plainly exceeded its jurisdiction in this regard in venturing into seriously disputed factual issues.
23. Learned counsels for KIMS and the students submitted that the High Court was left with no option but to critically examine the report of the Inspection Team since it was factually erroneous and did not deserve to be relied on either for the increase in intake of seats for the academic year 2015-16 or the academic year 2016-17. We see no reason to accept the submission of learned counsels.
24. Medical education must be taken very seriously and when an expert body certifies that the facilities in a medical college are inadequate, the Courts are not equipped to take a different view in the matter except for very cogent jurisdictional reasons such as mala fides of the Inspection Team, ex facie perversity in the inspection report, jurisdictional error on the part of the MCI etc. Under no circumstance should the High Court examine the report as an appellate body – this is simply not the function of the High Court. In the present case there was no ground made out at law for setting aside the report of the 75/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 Inspection Team.
25. The High Court was of opinion that the Inspection Team was required to conduct the inspection with reference to the academic year 2015-16 but the report pertains to the academic year 2016-2017. If that was so, the High Court could have passed an appropriate order in this regard rather than examine and scrutinize the inspection report prepared for the academic year 2016-17 which academic year was not at all the subject matter of consideration or discussion before it. Moreover, invalidation of the inspection report for the academic year 2016-17 would not automatically invalidate the inspection report for the academic year 2015-16. Unfortunately, the High Court spent its energy on adjudicating a non-issue.
26. It appears to us that both the MCI and the Central Government each having twice considered the inspection report submitted by neutral medical Professors, with the Central Government having given a personal hearing to KIMS on the second occasion (and perhaps on the first occasion as well) the matter ought to have been given a quietus by the High Court at least for the academic year 2015-16.
27. That apart, we are of opinion that the High Court ought to have been more circumspect in directing the admission of students by its order dated 25th September 2015. There was no need for the High Court to rush into an area that the MCI feared to tread. Granting admission to students in an educational institution when there is a serious doubt whether admission should at all be granted is not a matter to be taken lightly. First of all the career of 76/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 a student is involved – what would a student do if his admission is found to be illegal or is quashed? Is it not a huge waste of time for him or her? Is it enough to say that the student will not claim any equity in his or her favour? Is it enough for student to be told that his or her admission is subject to the outcome of a pending litigation? These are all questions that arise and for which there is no easy answer. Generally speaking, it is better to err on the side of caution and deny admission to a student rather than have the sword of Damocles hanging over him or her. There would at least be some certainty.”
63.When the writ petitioner College is not able to satisfy the mandates as to the required number of faculties for each and every PG speciality, for which the petitioner College has made application in the backdrop of the letter of the second respondent to the first respondent dated 27.11.2024, the petitioner College cannot claim dispensation of Essentiality Certificate. The petitioner medical College was commenced only during the academic year 2021- 2022. It is pertinent to state that the first batch of students of the petitioner College are yet to complete education and the College itself is of nascent origin only from 2021- 2022. Under such circumstances, this Court cannot sing to the tunes of the writ petitioner College, who are in a rush to get a positive order from this Court for the purpose of directing the respondents herein to dispense with the production of Essentiality Certificate in the absence of adequate faculty strength for the required period for which AEBAS attendance is 77/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 sought for by the respondents, for the purpose of permitting them to commence as many as 21 disciplines of PG medical courses.
64.The letter of permission granted by the second respondent to the petitioner College in respect of MS-Otorhinolaryngology for the academic year 2024-2025 dated 03.01.2025, permitting the petitioner College to start the said course with three students and the order passed by the first respondent in the second appeal filed by the writ petitioner College as far as the application related to the PG course MD community medicine seeking 8 seats in which by order dated 08.01.2025, the petitioner college being granted with the permission to commence the PG course MD community medicine with three seats for the academic year 2024-2025, instead of 8 seats would itself prove the bona-fides of the respondents and for better clarity, the same are extracted here under:- 78/87
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 79/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 80/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 81/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 82/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 83/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025
65.In the said circumstances, the petitioner College cannot succeed in attributing ill will/vindictiveness/malafide towards the respondents and the said exercise itself would stand as a proof that the respondents have duly considered the relevant AEBAS data for the period 01.01.2024 to 29.02.2024 and not the period of 01.04.2024 to 31.12.2024, which was later furnished by the petitioner College as far as the other applications for which the petitioner College has knocked the doors of this Court before me in the instant lis in hand.
66.Accordingly, I have no hesitation to hold that the respondents have duly considered the application made by the petitioner College, seeking permission to commence new Post Graduation courses - broad and super speciality courses for the academic year 2024 - 2025 as far as 23 disciplines are concerned and have granted appropriate permission for two disciplines and has rejected the case of all the other applications, for which the writ petitioner College has come before this Court only for the proper deficiencies, which was not duly rectified by the petitioner College, by availing the one time opportunity offered by the third respondent to rectify the same, by submission of proper compliance report as pointed out by the third respondent and thereafter, filing a first appeal or a second appeal before the second and first respondents respectively by submitting AEBAS attendance records pertaining to 84/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025 another period of their own choice, rather the period for which was sought for by the authorities, would also not rescue the case of the petitioners.
67.Accordingly, the Writ Petitions do not have any merit and the same are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
28.04.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
Mrn
85/87
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm )
W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025
To
1.The Deputy Secretary,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Nirmanbhawan,
New Delhi.
2.The Secretary,
National Medical Commission
Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB),
Pocket-14, Sector -8
Dwarka, Phase-1,
New Delhi-77.
3.The Member / President,
Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB),
National Medical Commission,
Pocket-14, Sector -8,
Dwarka, Phase-1,
New Delhi-77.
4.The Principal Secretary,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai.
5.The Secretary,
Selection Committee,
Kilpauk,
Chennai.
86/87
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm )
W.P.(MD)Nos.126 to 135 and 447 to 456 of 2025
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Mrn
W.P.(MD)Nos.126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455 and 456 of 2025 28.04.2025 87/87 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 04:34:47 pm )