If Institution Imparting Education Is Prejudiced By Erroneous Approach Of Authorities, Such Decision-Making Process Can Be Corrected By Issuing Writ: Delhi HC

While allowing an appeal of Dev Bhoomi College of Medical Science & Hospital against an order whereby its application for the issuance of LOI to establish an Ayurveda Medical College was denied, the Delhi High Court held that if an institution imparting education is prejudiced by the erroneous approach of the authorities, there is no bar on entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to correct the decision-making process.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav stated that “the decision-making process adopted by the MARB and the other appellate authorities has been found to be arbitrary and de hors the provisions of the NCISM Act, 2020 and the applicable regulations. The very fact that the authorities, at all levels, applied the regulations differently to decide the application of the petitioner-college, without taking note of the marked distinction, thereby completely altering the parameters upon which the application was to be decided constitutes sufficient ground to merit interference by this court”.

Advocate Siddharth R. Gupta appeared for the Petitioner, whereas CGSC Rahul Sharma appeared for the Respondent.

In a brief background, the Petitioner-college was aggrieved by the order whereby its application for the issuance of Letter of Intent (LOI) to establish an Ayurveda Medical College with 60 seats of UG Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery Course (BAMS Course) was denied by the Medical Assessment and Rating Board for Indian System of Medicine (MARB) of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NCISM). The order of affirmation in the first appeal passed by the NCISM and the second order of affirmation by the second Appellate Authority- Government of India, Ministry of Ayush was also challenged by the Petitioner. As per the directions of the MARB, the visitation report and other related documents were assessed & certain shortcomings were noted. After the Petitioner-college presented its case through its Principal and made the submissions through virtual mode against the shortcomings, the MARB decided not to issue the LOI to the Petitioner-college.

After considering the submission, the Bench noted that the present case fell in the category of sub-Regulation 1 of Regulation 4 of the Establishment of New Medical College, Opening of New or Higher Course of Study or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity by a Medical College Regulations, 2019 as the Petitioner-college is a person intending to establish a medical college.

As per the Bench, once the LOI is issued, only then is the institution required to fulfill the requirements of the Minimum Standard Regulations, 2016.

The High Court found that Regulation 7 requires that a fair assessment is required to be made before the LOI is issued and thereafter, a rigorous inspection is conducted, and the institution can only be expected to be complying with the Minimum Standard Regulations, 2016 once the same is in possession of LOI.

“Since the entire understanding of the NCISM, while denying the petitioner-college an LOI, is found to be in ignorance of the scheme of Regulation 7 of the Establishment Regulations, 2019 therefore, the order in original dated 23.09.2022 itself suffers with material illegality and the same deserves to be set aside”, added the Court.

The High Court also held that the inspection report had neither been provided to the Petitioner-college, nor the Petitioner-college was provided with a physical hearing, when it had specifically requested for one.

Moreover, when the Petitioner-college had made a request emphasizing that the voluminous documents relied upon to explain its deficiencies could not be properly explained in a virtual hearing, the High Court stated that the Respondents should have provided them a personal physical hearing.

Therefore, observing that any direction for consideration of the case of the Petitioner-college for the present Academic Year 2023-24 for the issuance of LOI will not violate the time schedule applicable to the Respondent, the Bench restored the application of the Petitioner-college for the issuance of LOI and directed the Respondents to consider the same in accordance with Regulation 7 of the Establishment Regulations, 2019 within 10 days.

Cause Title: DEV BHOOMI COLLEGE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND HOSPITAL v. UNION OF INDIA and ORS. [Neutral Citation: 2023: DHC: 4022]

Click here to read/download Judgment