Sri Satya Sai University Of Technology And Medical Sciences Sehore vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Satya Sai University of Technology and Medical Sciences, sought to establish a new medical college for the academic year 2023-24. They attempted to apply online for recognition via the Medical Assessment & Rating Board (MARB) public notice dated 18.07.2022. The petitioner deposited the fee of Rs. 8,26,000/-. As the online application status remained 'in-progress' and no update was received, the petitioner submitted a hardcopy of the application on the last date, 10.08.2022. MARB, by order dated 08.05.2023, stated that no online application was received on the portal, hence no permission could be granted. The petitioner's first appeal to the NMC and second appeal to the Union of India (UoI) were dismissed, affirming MARB's decision. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's arguments were without merit. The Court found that the petitioner had sufficient time to complete the online submission process but failed to do so, offering no explanation for this failure. Instead, a hardcopy was submitted, which was held to be not acceptable. The Court distinguished the case from situations involving technical glitches, noting that the petitioner did not complain immediately upon encountering any such issue. The Court also rejected the reliance on Royal Medical Trust, stating that while the outer time limit for admission is binding, internal stages within the schedule must be strictly adhered to. The Court emphasized that the schedule set by apex bodies for professional courses like MBBS is designed to account for the time needed for each step, including crucial stages like inspection. Allowing tampering with internal timelines for inspection would negatively impact the quality of medical education. Therefore, the time schedule and its sanctity for medical courses were unequivocally held to be mandatory and binding, with no dilution permissible under Article 226 without justifiable reason. The petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for establishing a new medical college for the academic year 2023-24, solely on the ground of non-submission of an online application, is illegal and improper, considering the petitioner submitted a hardcopy application within the stipulated time and paid the requisite fee? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 and relevant regulations). Petitioner's Arguments: - The respondents erred by not considering the hardcopy application submitted within time (10.08.2022). - If the hardcopy was not acceptable, immediate communication should have been made to allow the petitioner to take recourse. - Technical reasons should not lead to the rejection of the intention to set up a medical college. - Parity with the case of Soban Singh Jeena Government Institute of Medical Science and Research, Almora, where a similar matter was remitted for de novo consideration. - The Medical Council of India (Establishment of Medical College) Regulations, 1999, and Establishment of New Medical Institutions, Starting of New Medical Courses, Increase of Seats for Existing Courses & Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023, do not mandate online-only applications. - Applications can be submitted or accepted in physical mode. - Relied on Royal Medical Trust v. Union of India and Rambha College of Education v. National Council for Teacher Education regarding the flexibility of timelines and acceptance of documents at a later stage. Respondent's Arguments: - The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondents, but their consistent stance throughout the appeals was that no online application was received, which is a mandatory requirement.