Chattisgarh High Court
Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Institute Of … vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 July, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:30327
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 1137 of 2026
Digitally
VISHAKHA signed by
BEOHAR VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
Order Reserved on 30.06.2026
Order Delivered on 17.07.2026
1 - Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Institute Of Medical Sciences And
Research Established Under Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Lok Kalyan
Trust, Regd. Under Indian Trust Act On 29th March 2000, Situated
At Village Pacheda, P.O Kurru, Tehsil Abhanpur, Nawa Raipur,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh Through Its Director Vishal Garg
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Health And Family Welfare And Medical Education, Swasthya
Bhawan, State Govt. Office, Sector 19, Kotara Bhantha, Atal
Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2
2 - Commissioner/ Director Directorate Of Medical Education,
North Block, Swasthya Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Sector 19, Atal Nagar,
Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Memorial Health Science And Ayush
University Sector 40, Uparwara, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar,
Chhattisgarh Through Its Registrar
4 - National Medical Commission Of India, Pocket-14, Sector 8
Dwarka Phase I, New Delhi, 110077, Through Its Secretary
... Respondent(s)
(Cause Title is taken from CIS System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate
along with Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Mr.
Rahul Ambast, Ms. Ananya Pandey,
Advocates
For State : Mr. R.K. Gupta, Addl. A.G.
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate
For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. J.N. Nande along with Mr. Aniruddhh
Shrivastava, Advocates
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
CAV Order
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner, Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Institute of
Medical Sciences and Research, seeks urgent intervention
of this Hon’ble Court against the arbitrary and erroneous
action of the Department of Medical Education (DME),
3
Government of Chhattisgarh, whereby the petitioner’s
application for enhancement of undergraduate MBBS seats
from 100 to 250 for the Academic Year 2026-27 has been
partially disallowed. The respondent authority, vide
impugned Essentiality Certificate dated 03.02.2026, has
granted approval for enhancement of only 50 seats, instead
of the 150 seats applied for. Consequently, the Consent of
Affiliation dated 03.02.2026 issued by Pt. Deendayal
Upadhyay Memorial Health Sciences and Ayush University,
Raipur, has also been restricted to a total intake of 150
seats, which is also under challenge in the present petition.
2. Subject matter in brief is that the petitioner, Shri Rawatpura
Sarkar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, is a
private (unaided) medical institution imparting
undergraduate medical education under the aegis of Shri
Rawatpura Sarkar Lok Kalyan Trust, a non-profit
organization engaged in the field of education, healthcare
and social welfare. The Respondent No.02, namely the
Director, Medical Education, State of Chhattisgarh, is the
competent authority vested with the power to assess the
infrastructure, faculty, clinical material and other requisite
facilities of a medical institution for the purpose of issuance
of Essentiality Certificate in FORM-2. The Respondent
4
No.03, Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Memorial Health Sciences
and Ayush University, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, is the statutory
authority empowered to grant Consent of Affiliation in
FORM-3 on the basis of the Essentiality Certificate so
issued. In the present case, the Respondent No.02 has
issued the impugned Essentiality Certificate dated
03.02.2026 in an arbitrary and erroneous manner by
partially disallowing the petitioner’s application for
enhancement of MBBS (UG) seats for the Academic Year
2026-27, without properly appreciating the existing
infrastructure, faculty strength, and clinical material available
with the petitioner institution. Consequently, the Respondent
No.03 has mechanically issued the Consent of Affiliation
dated 03.02.2026 restricting the intake capacity, solely on
the basis of the impugned Essentiality Certificate. It is
submitted that the petitioner institution fulfills all the requisite
norms and standards for enhancement of seats, as evident
from its application and supporting documents. However, the
respondent authorities have failed to consider the same in
its proper perspective and have also ignored the earlier
Essentiality Certificate and Consent of Affiliation granted in
the year 2025. The impugned actions have been taken
without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
5
and are in clear violation of the principles of natural justice.
Hence, the present writ petition.
3. The chronological events relevant for adjudication of the
present writ petition are that Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Lok
Kalyan Trust (SRLKT) was established on 29.03.2000 as a
non-profit welfare organization dedicated to the upliftment of
underprivileged sections of society. Thereafter, in the year
2024, the petitioner institute was established as a self-
financing (unaided) medical institution under the aegis of the
said Trust. On 16.01.2025, the Directorate of Medical
Education, Chhattisgarh issued an Essentiality Certificate
granting approval for 100 MBBS seats for the Academic
Year 2025-26, which was made valid for a period of three
years. Subsequently, on 17.01.2025, Pt. Deendayal
Upadhyay Memorial Health Sciences and Ayush University,
Chhattisgarh, Raipur issued the corresponding Consent of
Affiliation for 100 MBBS seats. Thereafter, the petitioner
submitted an application before the competent authority
seeking issuance of an Essentiality Certificate for
enhancement of intake from 100 to 250 MBBS seats for the
Academic Year 2026-27. An inspection of the petitioner
institute was conducted on 16.01.2026, and thereafter, on
24.01.2026, Respondent No.02 issued a communication
6
alleging certain deficiencies on the basis of the said
inspection. However, the inspection report was never
furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner, vide
communication dated 29.01.2026, submitted its reply
clarifying that all the alleged deficiencies had been duly
rectified and requested the authorities to conduct a re-
inspection. Pursuant thereto, a re-inspection was carried
out; however, the report of such re-inspection has not been
supplied to the petitioner till date. Thereafter, on 03.02.2026,
Respondent No.02 issued the impugned Essentiality
Certificate granting enhancement of only 50 additional
MBBS seats, allegedly without considering the petitioner’s
reply or the outcome of the re-inspection. Consequently, on
the same date, i.e., 03.02.2026, Respondent No.03
University issued the Consent of Affiliation restricted to the
intake sanctioned under the impugned Essentiality
Certificate.
4. Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:-
“10.1 That, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may kindly be pleased to call for the entire
records concerning the case of the petitioner
from the possession of the respondents for its
kind perusal.
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
7pleased to issue appropriate writ quashing
and setting aside the impugned Essentiality
Certificate dated 03.02.2026 (Annexure P/1)
as well as Consent of Affiliation dated
03.02.2026 (Annexure P/2) issued by the
Respondents No. 02 & 03 respectively,
declaring the same to be illegal and
inoperative in law.
10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue appropriate writ commanding
the Respondents to issue fresh EC and COA
to the petitioner for 250 seats for UG-MBBS
Courses for AY 2026-27.
10.4 Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon’ble
Court may think fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case, with cost of the
petition may also please be granted to the
petitioners.”
5. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a private
unaided medical college imparting graduate medical
education under the aegis of Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Lok
Kalyan Trust, a registered trust established on 29.03.2000,
and functioning as a self-financing institution at Raipur
(Chhattisgarh). The present petition has been filed seeking
enforcement of the petitioner’s fundamental rights under
Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and for
8
issuance of appropriate writ directing the respondents to
grant revised Essentiality Certificate (EC) and Consent of
Affiliation (COA) for enhancement of 150 MBBS (UG) seats
for the Academic Year 2026-27. The petitioner had applied
for the said enhancement vide application dated 05.01.2026;
however, Respondent No.02 issued a letter dated
24.01.2026 alleging certain deficiencies based on an
inspection report dated 16.01.2026, which was never
supplied to the petitioner, and many of such deficiencies
were either rectified on the spot or were within permissible
limits. The petitioner thereafter sought re-inspection vide
letter dated 29.01.2026, pursuant to which re-inspection was
conducted on 02.02.2026, but the report thereof has also
not been furnished. Despite this, Respondent No.02, without
affording any opportunity of hearing and without supplying
inspection reports, arbitrarily issued the impugned EC dated
03.02.2026 partially disallowing the enhancement of seats.
Consequently, Respondent No.03 University issued the
impugned COA dated 03.02.2026 solely based on the
defective EC, without independent application of mind and in
violation of Section 39(3) of the Act of 2008. The petitioner
institution fulfills all requisite norms relating to infrastructure,
faculty and clinical material, and had earlier been granted
9
EC and COA in 2025, which have been ignored by the
respondents. The petitioner also submitted a representation
dated 27.02.2026 highlighting these irregularities; however,
no relief has been granted. The actions of the respondents
are arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice,
and contrary to statutory regulations including the
Establishment of New Medical Institutions, Assessment and
Rating Regulations, 2023 and the scheme of the National
Medical Commission Act, 2019, leaving the petitioner with
no efficacious alternative remedy except to approach this
Court.
6. Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate appears
along with Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Mr. Rahul Ambast, Ms.
Ananya Pandey, Counsel for the petitioner submit that the
present writ petition raises substantial questions of law
relating to arbitrariness in administrative action, violation of
principles of natural justice, and non-compliance with
statutory mandates governing medical education in India.
The impugned Essentiality Certificate dated 03.02.2026
issued by Respondent No.02 and the consequential
Consent of Affiliation dated 03.02.2026 issued by
Respondent No.03 are ex facie illegal, arbitrary, and
unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the entire action of
10
the respondents is vitiated on account of gross violation of
the principles of natural justice. The foundation of the
impugned action rests upon inspection reports dated
16.01.2026 and re-inspection dated 02.02.2026; however,
neither of these reports were ever supplied to the petitioner
nor any opportunity of hearing was granted. It is a settled
proposition of law that any authority taking adverse action
must disclose the material relied upon so as to enable the
affected party to respond effectively. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in T. Takano v. SEBI (2022) 8 SCC 162 and Amit
Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2023) 20 SCC 486 has
categorically held that non-supply of material relied upon
vitiates the entire decision-making process. In the present
case, the petitioner was deprived of any meaningful
opportunity to rebut the alleged deficiencies. It is further
submitted that even assuming, without admitting, that
certain deficiencies existed, the petitioner had specifically
responded vide letter dated 29.01.2026 stating that such
deficiencies stood rectified and had requested re-inspection.
Though a re-inspection was conducted on 02.02.2026, the
report thereof was never communicated. Shockingly, the
impugned EC came to be issued on the very next day i.e.,
03.02.2026, without granting any opportunity to the
11
petitioner to address the findings of the re-inspection. Such
undue haste clearly reflects a pre-determined and arbitrary
exercise of power, rendering the impugned action liable to
be quashed.
7. It is also pertinent to submit that the alleged deficiencies, as
reflected in the communication dated 24.01.2026, are
vague, general, and largely informational in nature. In fact,
the petitioner institution fulfills all the prescribed norms
relating to infrastructure, faculty strength, and clinical
material for enhancement to 250 MBBS seats, as per the
National Medical Commission Act, 2019 and the applicable
Regulations of 2023. The respondents have failed to
consider the detailed material placed on record by the
petitioner demonstrating full compliance. Another significant
aspect which has been completely overlooked by the
respondents is that the petitioner institution had already
been granted an Essentiality Certificate dated 16.01.2025
and Consent of Affiliation dated 17.01.2025 for 100 seats,
which continue to remain valid for a period of three years.
The respondents have failed to appreciate that the
petitioner’s infrastructure has only improved thereafter,
including enhancement of hospital capacity and facilities.
Thus, the impugned decision is not only arbitrary but also
12
contrary to the record and past conduct of the respondents
themselves.
8. It is submitted that the issuance of an Essentiality Certificate
by the State Government is a quasi-judicial function, which
must be exercised in a fair, transparent, and reasoned
manner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chintapurni
Medical College and Hospital v. State of Punjab (2018)
15 SCC 1 and Sukh Sagar Medical College v. State of
Madhya Pradesh (2021) 13 SCC 587 has clearly held that
the State cannot act arbitrarily while granting, modifying, or
revoking an Essentiality Certificate and must base its
decision on objective criteria. In the present case, the
respondents have acted in complete disregard of these
settled principles. It is further submitted that the action of
Respondent No.02 is also in violation of the statutory
scheme under the Establishment of New Medical
Institutions, Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023.
Regulation 30 specifically contemplates grant of reasonable
opportunity to rectify deficiencies before any adverse
decision is taken. The denial of such opportunity in the
present case renders the impugned action illegal and void.
Additionally, the Respondent No.03 University has acted
mechanically in issuing the impugned Consent of Affiliation
13
solely on the basis of the defective Essentiality Certificate,
without independent application of mind and in violation of
Section 39(3) of the Ayush and Health Sciences University
of Chhattisgarh Act, 2008. The University was duty-bound to
assess compliance independently, which has not been
done.
9. It is also submitted that the respondents have failed to
adhere to procedural timelines and fairness as emphasized
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mridula Dhar v. Union of
India (2005) 2 SCC 65. The impugned action has far-
reaching consequences. The petitioner institution has
invested substantial resources in infrastructure, faculty, and
facilities based on legitimate expectations arising from prior
approvals. The arbitrary restriction of seats not only results
in severe financial loss but also causes irreparable injury to
the reputation and goodwill of the institution. Such harm
cannot be compensated in monetary terms. It also infringes
the petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to
carry on occupation, as the restriction imposed is neither
reasonable nor in accordance with law. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
1 SCC 248 has held that any administrative action affecting
rights must be fair, just, and reasonable, which is clearly not
14
the case here. In view of the aforesaid facts and settled
legal position, it is most respectfully submitted that the
impugned Essentiality Certificate dated 03.02.2026 and
Consent of Affiliation dated 03.02.2026 are liable to be
quashed and set aside. It is, therefore, prayed that this
Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to issue a
fresh Essentiality Certificate and Consent of Affiliation
permitting enhancement of MBBS seats up to 250 for the
Academic Year 2026-27, in the interest of justice, equity,
and good conscience.
10. Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned Addl. A.G. appearing for the State/
respondents No.1 & 2 submits that the present writ petition
is misconceived, premature, and devoid of any merit, and is
liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It is submitted that
the impugned Essentiality Certificate dated 03.02.2026 and
the consequential Consent of Affiliation issued by the
University are merely preliminary steps in the statutory
scheme under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019
and the Establishment of New Medical Institutions,
Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023. The final
authority to grant or refuse permission for increase of MBBS
seats vests exclusively with the National Medical
Commission (NMC) and thereafter with the Central
15
Government under Regulations 32 and 33. The petitioner
has an efficacious and adequate alternative statutory
remedy, which it has deliberately bypassed. It is a settled
principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 ought not to
be invoked when such alternative remedy exists. It is further
submitted that the petitioner has not approached this Court
with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. The
petitioner institution has a chequered history of compliance,
including reduction of seats by the NMC in previous
academic sessions due to persistent deficiencies. The
present petition attempts to create a misleading narrative by
ignoring these material aspects. It is submitted that the
entire process undertaken by the State Government is fair,
transparent, and based on expert assessment. The
inspection and re-inspection were conducted by a duly
constituted Expert Committee comprising senior
academicians and medical professionals. The findings of the
Committee revealed a substantial deficiency of
approximately 22% in teaching faculty, which is a critical
requirement under the Minimum Standard Requirements
(MSR) prescribed by the NMC Regulations, 2023. The
adequacy of teaching faculty is foundational to maintaining
the quality of medical education, and any compromise in this
16
regard would directly affect students and public health at
large. He submits that the petitioner’s contention regarding
violation of principles of natural justice is wholly
misconceived. The petitioner was duly issued a deficiency
letter dated 24.01.2026, clearly indicating the shortcomings.
Upon the petitioner’s own request, a re-inspection was
promptly conducted on 02.02.2026. The findings of the re-
inspection reaffirmed that the resources were insufficient for
the requested increase in seats. It is submitted that the
requirement of natural justice does not extend to granting
repeated or indefinite opportunities, particularly where the
deficiencies are fundamental in nature. A shortage of 22% in
teaching faculty cannot be rectified overnight and does not
fall within the category of minor or curable deficiencies.
11. It is further submitted that the reliance placed by the
petitioner on the earlier Essentiality Certificate dated
16.01.2025 is entirely misplaced. As per Explanation 1 to
Regulation 9 of the NMC Regulations, 2023, an Essentiality
Certificate is valid only for the specific proposal for which it
is granted. The present application pertains to a fresh
academic year and a distinct proposal, thereby necessitating
an independent assessment. The State Government is well
within its jurisdiction to conduct a fresh inspection to verify
17
current compliance, especially in light of past deficiencies. It
is also pertinent to submit that there exists no vested or
fundamental right in favour of the petitioner to claim
automatic enhancement of MBBS seats. Such permission is
a statutory privilege subject to strict adherence to regulatory
norms. The right under Article 19(1)(g) is subject to
reasonable restrictions in the interest of maintaining
standards of education under Article 19(6). The Hon’ble
Supreme Court has consistently held that standards in
medical education cannot be compromised. The decision of
the State Government is based on objective criteria, expert
evaluation, and relevant material on record. It cannot be
said to be arbitrary, perverse, or mala fide. It is a settled
proposition that courts, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, do not
sit in appeal over decisions of expert bodies, particularly in
highly technical fields such as medical education, unless
there is manifest illegality, which is absent in the present
case.
12. It is further submitted that the University (Respondent No.3)
has acted strictly in accordance with Section 39(3) of the
Ayush and Health Sciences University Act, 2008, which
mandates issuance of Consent of Affiliation only on the
basis of a valid Essentiality Certificate issued by the State
18
Government. The University has no independent authority to
override or disregard the decision of the State in this regard.
The timeline followed by the respondents is also justified
and necessary to ensure adherence to the schedule
prescribed for submission of applications before the NMC.
There has been no undue haste or arbitrariness; rather, the
respondents acted promptly to facilitate the petitioner’s
participation in the statutory process. It is also relevant to
highlight that as per the governing guidelines and statutory
framework, assessment of an application is carried out
strictly with reference to the number of seats applied for. If
the institution does not meet the requirements for the
requested number of seats, the application cannot be
partially allowed beyond permissible limits unless supported
by adequate compliance. In the present case, while the
petitioner sought a higher increase, the expert committee,
based on objective assessment, found the institution
suitable only for a limited increase, which has already been
granted. Thus, the respondents have acted reasonably and
in the interest of maintaining academic standards.
13. Learned State counsel places emphasis on the fact that,
under the applicable Rules, an institution is entitled to apply
for enhancement of seats only up to a maximum of 100
19
seats at a time. In the present case, the petitioner institution,
whose existing sanctioned intake was 100 seats, sought
enhancement of more than 100 seats in a single application.
It is, therefore, submitted that the very application for
enhancement of seats was not in conformity with the
relevant Rules and was liable to be rejected on that ground
alone. It is further submitted that, notwithstanding the
aforesaid inherent defect in the petitioner’s application, the
competent authority granted enhancement of only 50
additional seats, thereby increasing the sanctioned intake
from 100 to 150 seats. However, the petitioner institution is
presently claiming entitlement to an intake of 250 seats,
which is wholly dehors the applicable Rules and
Regulations. Accordingly, it is contended that the petitioner
is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in the present
petition.
14. In view of the aforesaid facts and legal position, it is most
respectfully submitted that the petitioner has failed to make
out any case for interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The impugned actions are legal,
justified, and based on expert findings. Granting the relief as
sought by the petitioner would amount to compelling the
authorities to compromise statutory standards, which is
20
impermissible in law. Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to dismiss the present writ petition.
15. Mr. Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.3 submits that the writ petition, insofar as it
concerns the answering respondent, is misconceived and
liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the role of the
University is purely statutory and consequential in nature.
Under Section 39(3) of the Ayush and Health Sciences
University of Chhattisgarh Act, 2008, the University is
required to issue the Consent of Affiliation only on the basis
of the Essentiality Certificate issued by the State
Government and has no authority to independently assess
or alter the number of seats. Accordingly, the Consent of
Affiliation dated 03.02.2026 was issued strictly in terms of
the Essentiality Certificate granted by Respondent No.2. It is
further submitted that the assessment of infrastructure,
faculty, and other requirements falls within the domain of the
State Government and the National Medical Commission,
and the University has no role in such evaluation. The
petitioner cannot claim enhancement of MBBS seats as a
matter of right, as the same is subject to fulfillment of the
prescribed statutory norms. It is also contended that the
petitioner institution was found deficient, particularly with
21
regard to teaching faculty, and therefore the decision to
grant enhancement of only 50 seats is justified. The
allegation of violation of principles of natural justice is also
denied, as no independent hearing is contemplated at the
stage of issuance of the Consent of Affiliation. It is,
therefore, prayed that the writ petition, insofar as it relates to
Respondent No.3, deserves to be dismissed.
16. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 – National
Medical Commission submits that the writ petition, insofar as
it relates to the answering respondent, is misconceived and
liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the National
Medical Commission is a statutory regulatory authority
constituted under the National Medical Commission Act,
2019, and its role in granting permission for establishment of
new medical colleges or enhancement of MBBS seats
arises only upon submission of a complete application
accompanied by a valid Essentiality Certificate issued by the
State Government and a valid Consent of Affiliation issued
by the concerned University, as required under the
applicable Regulations. It is further submitted that the
grievance of the petitioner pertains to the Essentiality
Certificate issued by Respondent No.2 and the Consent of
Affiliation issued by Respondent No.3, in which the
22
answering respondent has no role. It is also contended that
the petitioner institution was found to have deficiencies
during inspections conducted by the competent authorities,
particularly with regard to faculty and other infrastructural
requirements, and therefore enhancement of seats cannot
be claimed as a matter of right. The answering respondent
has acted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the
National Medical Commission Act, 2019 and the applicable
Regulations, and no ground is made out for interference by
this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition,
insofar as it relates to Respondent No.4, deserves to be
dismissed.
17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
18. From the perusal of the record and for deciding the present
petition, it would be appropriate to consider the provisions of
the “Establishment of New Medical Institutions, Starting of
New Medical Courses, Increase of Seats for Existing
Courses and Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023”
(hereinafter referred to as the “Establishment of Medical
Institutions, Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023”).
The relevant provisions, which are material for adjudication
of the present case, are extracted below:
23
2. Definition – (c) MARB shall mean the Medical
Assessment and Rating Board duly constituted under
Section 16 of the National Medical Commission Act,
2019.
(f) “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.
(g) Medical Institution” shall mean a medical
institution as defined in sub-section (i) of Section 2 of
the National Medical Commission Act, 2019; and
shall also include a medical college in its commonly
understood form.
(h) “Inspection” the expression or activity of
‘inspection’ shall include virtual and/or physical
inspection and/or evaluation of actual and/or digital
records or information.
11. MARB evaluating the application – keeping in
mind the objective of the Act, without prejudice to
anything mard elsewhere in the Regulations, the
MARB shall evaluate the applications received from
the eligible entity under ction 9 above, based on all of
the following broad criteria viz…
a. The desirability and feasibility of setting up the
medical institution at the proposed location.
b. Assess whether the eligible entity fulfils the
required conditions prescribed by the corresponding
MSRs in vogue, which shall include physical
24
infrastructure, qualified faculty, and adequate clinical
material in terms of hospital, laboratory, patients,
clinical procedures and others as specified in the
corresponding MSR/s.
c. Assess whether the scheme submitted by the
applicant shows that, once established the medical
institution will reasonably sustain itself.
CHAPTER-III
SCHEME FOR INCREASE OF SEATS FOR THE
EXISTING COURSES IN A MEDICAL INSTITUTION
17. No medical institution shall increase the seats of
any of the ongoing courses without prior permission
of the MARB.
Provided no grant of permission for an increase in
seats will be given by the MARB if the medical
institution has not admitted earlier sanctioned seats.
18. Without prejudice to anything stated in section 17
above, the application for an increase in the seats
shall be accompanied with-
(a) Consent of affiliation from the recognized
university concerned for the proposed number of
seats in the specified courses in writing; and
(b). Such prescribed application fees and bank
guarantees as determined by the MARB from time to
time by way of Notification; and
(c) Any other documents as may be prescribed while
inviting applications.
19. Once the application for an increase of seats is
25
received from the medical institution, the MARB shall
what the same on its merit before granting approval.
Provided the same criteria indicated in Chapter 11 of
these Regulations shall apply mutatis mutandis for
such evaluation.
CHAPTER-IV
ASSESSMENT AND RATING
20. Assessment by the MARB for the purpose of
rating a medical institution – The MARB shall conduct
an sessment and rating of all medical institutions and
shall be vested with all such authority in discharging
its functions under the Act.
Provided, without prejudice to anything stated in
these Regulations, the MARB may appoint one or
more independent third-party agency or agencies to
conduct an assessment and rating of medical
institutions, and on its behalf.
Provided further the MARB may prepare detailed
guidelines in appointing independent third-party
agency or agencies to carry on the work of
assessment and rating of medical institutions.
Provided further that, if appointed the independent
third-party agency or agencies shall have such power
as indicated in their appointment letter issued by the
MARB.”
19. It would be apposite to refer to the recent public
notice/instructions dated 22.12.2025 issued by the National
26
Medical Commission, through the Medical Assessment and
Rating Board (MARB), inviting online applications for the
establishment of new medical colleges intending to
commence various undergraduate medical courses. The
aforesaid notice also prescribes important instructions
governing the submission and processing of applications. It
sets out the eligibility conditions, procedural requirements,
timelines, and the manner in which applications are required
to be submitted through the online portal. The application
process, as delineated in the said notice, is reproduced
hereunder:
" IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS
1. Application process
Application process may be inferred from the quiding
document as annexed herewith as Annexure A. (See
annexure A – Guidelines for UG applications)
2. Scheme as per section 28(2) of NMC Act, 2019
An accepted application with all mandatory relevant
documents and containing such particulars,
accompanied by such fee and in such manner as
may be specified by relevant regulations shall form a
valid scheme for the purpose of section 28(2) of the
Act. An incomplete application shall not be
considered as a valid scheme.
3. Assessment will be done as per the MSR for
requested number of seats. If facilities are not
27
sufficient for the requested number of seats,
allotment of lesser number of seats will not be
considered. (For example, if an applicant has applied
to establish a new college for 150 seats, the
assessment will be done as per MSR for 150 seats
and accordingly decision will be taken with regard to
sanction to the college. If the requirements are not
adequate for 150 seats, the application will be
rejected and will not be considered for establishment
of the institution with lesser number of seats like 50
or 100 even though available facilities may be
adequate for such lesser number of seats) .No
further communication with regard to this shall be
entertained at any time and at any level.
4. An applicant can apply for increase in intake of
maximum of 100 seats at a time.
5. Assessment
• (Assessment will be carried out for the accepted
application which shall be considered as forming a
valid scheme to open a Medical Institution.
Incomplete Application will be rejected and no further
communication will be entertained. The assessment
process includes the assessment of the faculty,
infrastructure, Institution through and clinical load of
the Institution through physical/virtual/hybrid mode.
• Notwithstanding anything stated elsewhere, the
MARB determines the appropriate method of
assessment and/or inspection, before granting
permission to the applicant to establish a medical
institution or increase in the intake of seats. Provided
28
such methods shall include, but not be limited to
scrutiny of documents in digital or another form,
NMC AEBAS attendance, verification of Live Video
Feed, Photographs, Hospital Management
Information System (HMIS) data or physical/virtual
assessment on any day at any time etc.
• The MARB will assess the accepted applications for
establishment of a medical college through a team of
assessors. MARB reserves the right to assess
through either physical or virtual/hybrid mode. The
assessment process for UG applications may be
conducted over two days, if not completed in one
day.
• The assessors will conduct the assessment to
examine the infrastructure, quality of medical
education, faculty, AEBAS data, clinical material &
other clinical indicators, and financial status of the
college to ensure compliance with latest NMC
guidelines. They may also conduct interactions with
staff & students during the assessment.
• For applications with respect to establishment of new
MBBS College, all Faculty as per MSR shall be
registered in the AEBAS of NMC and shall be
physically present in the institution within 15 days
from the last date of submission of applications. If
any college has applied for increase in intake of
seats, it should have mandatorily maintained the
faculties and staff as per the MSR for the existing
seats for the previous academic years. They shall
have the additional faculties required for the
29
requested number of increase in the intake of seats
and such faculties shall be registered in AEBAS and
physically present in the institution within 15 days
from the last date of submission of application. If
they have failed to maintain the required faculty
position as mandated above, the application for the
increase in the intake of seats shall not be
considered. And they shall be liable for the penalty to
be decided by MARB. On the day of Inspection,
faculty and staff registered in AEBAS and physically
present before 10 AM will only be considered for
assessment.
• THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK DOES NOT
CONTEMPLATE A "WORK-IN-PROGRESS"
STATUS AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION:
RATHER, IT OBLIGATES READINESS AND
DEMONSTRABLE COMPLIANCE AB INITIO.
THEREFORE, ANY PLEA OF BEING IN
THEPROCESS OF COMPLETING
INFRASTRUCTURE OR REQUESTING
ADDITIONAL TIME DEFEATS THE VERY OBJECT
OF THE SCHEME UNDER THE ACT AND
REGULATIONS AND IS WHOLLY
IMPERMISSIBLE. FURTHER, REFUSAL / NON
COOPERATION IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS
SHALL ALSO BE LIABLE FOR REJECTION OF
APPLICATION."
20. So far as the Essentiality Certificate is concerned, the
30
aforesaid notice prescribes the format in which the
certificate is required to be issued and also stipulates the
requisite conditions that are required to be fulfilled. The
relevant format of the Essentiality Certificate, along with the
conditions prescribed therein, is reproduced hereinbelow:
“ESSENTIALITY CERTIFICATE
(To be provided by the respective State Government/UT)
FileNo.
Date
Name of issuing authority/Department
Name of the State Government/UT Government
Herewith, Essentiality Certificate (EC) as per requirement
in NMC regulation is accorded to_(name of the proposed medical college), for
establishment of new Undergraduate Medical
College/Institution at …….. (complete address of the
proposed Institution).
1. This Essentiality Certificate shall be valid and
applicable to all the new Post- Graduate courses to
be started by this Medical College/Institution in
future & for increase in intake of seats for both
Under-Graduate & Post-Graduate Courses.
2. The government has confirmed the desirability and
feasibility of establishing this Institution based on
the current need of the Doctors in this area.
31
3. It is further certified that in case fresh admissions in
UG or PG courses are stopped by the NMC for any
reason, the State/UT Government shall take over
the responsibility of the students already admitted in
the College with the direction of the NMC.
4. Relevant information to justify essentiality is as below-
i. No. of UG medical college/institutions already existing
in the respective state/UT.
ii. No. of PG stand alone medical college/institutions
already existing in the respective state/UT.
iii. Number of UG admissions in the medical colleges in
the respective State/UT.
iv. Number of PG admissions of the applied specialties in
the medical colleges of the respective State/UT.
v. Total population of the respective State/UT.
vi. Total number of allopathic doctor population registered
with the State Medical Council of the respective
State/UT.
vii. Doctor population ratio in the respective State/UT.”
21. Though learned counsel for the petitioner institution has
submitted that adequate opportunity was not afforded to it
and that the relevant enquiry report and other documents
were not supplied, thereby depriving the institution of an
opportunity to rectify the deficiencies, the said submission
does not merit acceptance. It has been contended that, had
32
the enquiry report and the deficiencies noticed by the
inspecting authorities been communicated to the petitioner
institution, the same could have been rectified before the
impugned decision was taken. According to the petitioner,
the non-supply of the relevant material has resulted in
violation of the principles of natural justice. The aforesaid
contention, however, does not appear to be in accordance
with law. The record reveals that the enquiry for issuance of
the Essentiality Certificate as well as the enquiry relating to
the proposal for enhancement of intake capacity of the
medical college were conducted in the premises of the
petitioner institution itself. The inspection was carried out
with the knowledge and participation of the officers and
representatives of the petitioner institution, who assisted the
enquiry team during the inspection. The deficiencies, if any,
were those existing in the infrastructure and facilities of the
institution, which were within the exclusive knowledge of the
petitioner institution. In such circumstances, the submission
that the petitioner institution was unaware of the deficiencies
or was deprived of an opportunity to rectify the same merely
because a copy of the enquiry report was not supplied does
not inspire confidence. The deficiencies recorded during the
inspection pertained to matters existing within the institution
33
and were observed during the inspection conducted in the
presence of its officials. Therefore, the plea that the
petitioner institution had no knowledge of such deficiencies
cannot be accepted.
22. Secondly, the record further reveals that, upon the request
made by the petitioner institution, a re-inspection was also
conducted. The first inspection was carried out on
05.01.2026. Thereafter, a notice dated 24.01.2026 was
issued, pursuant to which a re-inspection was conducted on
02.02.2026. Even during the re-inspection, the deficiencies
noticed during the earlier inspection were found to be
subsisting and remained unrectified. Thereafter, upon due
consideration of the assessment report submitted by the
Committee, the competent authority issued the Essentiality
Certificate on 03.02.2026 after taking into consideration all
relevant aspects of the matter. The principal deficiency
noticed by the inspecting team pertained to the shortage of
teaching faculty. Such deficiency cannot be treated as a
minor or technical irregularity capable of being cured merely
by grant of additional time. Adequate teaching faculty
constitutes the very foundation for imparting quality medical
education and is one of the essential requirements for grant
of an Essentiality Certificate as well as for consideration of
34
any proposal seeking enhancement of intake capacity. The
deficiency in faculty strength was found to exist not only
during the initial inspection but also during the re-inspection
conducted after affording sufficient opportunity to the
petitioner institution to rectify the shortcomings. In such
circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner institution
was denied a reasonable opportunity to comply with the
prescribed norms.
23. Apart from the aforesaid deficiencies, the application
submitted by the petitioner institution itself suffers from an
inherent infirmity. As per the applicable Regulations and
Guidelines governing enhancement of intake capacity, an
existing medical institution is permitted to apply for
enhancement of seats only up to a maximum of 100 seats at
a time. However, from the pleadings as well as the
application submitted by the petitioner institution, it is
evident that the petitioner sought enhancement of intake
capacity by 150 seats in a single application, which is ex
facie contrary to the governing Regulations. Thus, the very
application seeking enhancement of intake capacity was not
maintainable, being in violation of the prescribed eligibility
conditions. The assessment process prescribed under the
applicable Regulations contemplates evaluation of the
35
institution with regard to faculty strength, infrastructure,
clinical material and other statutory requirements through
physical, virtual or hybrid modes, as may be determined by
the Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB). In the
present case, the assessment was carried out through
physical inspection. The MARB is empowered to determine
the appropriate mode of assessment, which may include
scrutiny of documents in digital or any other form,
verification through the National Medical Commission
AEBAS attendance system, examination of live video feeds,
photographs, Hospital Management Information System
(HMIS) data, and physical or virtual assessment at any time.
24. The applicable Regulations further mandate that every
institution seeking enhancement of intake capacity must
have maintained the requisite faculty and staff strength
prescribed under the Minimum Standard Requirements
(MSR) for its existing intake during the preceding academic
years. In addition thereto, the institution must possess the
additional faculty required for the proposed increase in
seats, and such faculty members must be duly registered in
the AEBAS system and be physically present in the
institution within fifteen days from the last date prescribed
for submission of the application. The Regulations further
36
provide that where an institution fails to maintain the
prescribed faculty strength in the manner stipulated, its
application for enhancement of intake capacity shall not be
considered and it shall also be liable for such penalty as
may be imposed by the Medical Assessment and Rating
Board (MARB). In the present case, the petitioner institution
admittedly failed to satisfy the mandatory requirement
relating to faculty strength. Consequently, the competent
authority committed no illegality in declining to grant the
benefit sought by the petitioner institution.
25. From a perusal of the aforesaid Guidelines and the
pleadings of the parties, it is evident that the petitioner
institution has failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements
prescribed for enhancement of intake capacity. Firstly, the
petitioner institution submitted an application seeking
enhancement of intake capacity by more than 100 seats at a
time, which is ex facie contrary to the applicable Regulations
and Guidelines. The Regulations clearly contemplate that an
institution may seek enhancement only up to a maximum of
100 seats in a single application. Therefore, the application
itself was not in conformity with the prescribed statutory
framework. Secondly, the inspection reports reveal that
there was a substantial deficiency in the strength of teaching
37
faculty. The inspections were conducted on two separate
occasions, yet the requisite number of faculty members was
not found to be available during either inspection. The
applicable Guidelines specifically mandate that an institution
applying for enhancement of intake capacity must not only
maintain the prescribed faculty strength for its existing intake
but must also have the additional faculty required for the
proposed increase in seats. Such faculty members are
required to be duly registered in the AEBAS system and be
physically present in the institution within fifteen days from
the last date prescribed for submission of the application.
The petitioner institution admittedly failed to satisfy this
mandatory requirement. In view of the aforesaid
deficiencies, the application submitted by the petitioner
institution for enhancement of intake capacity was itself
liable to be rejected. Consequently, the petitioner cannot
claim, as a matter of right, issuance of an Essentiality
Certificate for the entire enhancement sought by it. On the
contrary, the record reflects that despite the aforesaid
deficiencies, the respondent-State, after taking into
consideration the inspection reports, the available
infrastructure, clinical load and other relevant parameters,
granted enhancement of 50 seats only and accordingly
38
issued the Essentiality Certificate to that limited extent.
Thus, the respondents adopted a balanced and pragmatic
approach by restricting the enhancement to the extent
justified by the available infrastructure, faculty strength and
clinical material, instead of rejecting the proposal in its
entirety. In such circumstances, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the action of the respondent
authorities neither suffers from arbitrariness nor from any
procedural or legal infirmity warranting interference in
exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
26. In the matter of Medical Council of India v. Vedantaa
Institute of Academic Excellence Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (2018) 7
SCC 225, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where the
deficiencies found during inspection are of the nature
contemplated under Regulation 8(3), the college cannot be
permitted to rectify them in that academic year merely on the
basis of judicial directions. The Hon’ble Court further held that
High Courts should not direct grant of permission or
admissions contrary to the statutory Regulations and that
gross deficiencies disentitle the institution from renewal or
enhancement.
27. In the matter of Subharti Medical College v. Union of India,
39
AIRONLINE 2017 SC 642, wherein the case concerned
enhancement of MBBS intake from 100 to 150 seats and the
inspection disclosed deficiencies relating to faculty, residents,
bed occupancy and clinical material. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court upheld the refusal of permission and held that the
Central Government is entitled to rely upon the inspection
report where deficiencies are substantial. The Hon’ble Court
reiterated that enhancement of seats is not a matter of right
and depends upon strict compliance with the statutory
requirements.
28. In Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical
Sciences (KIMS) & Ors., (2016) 11 SCC 530, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that the standards prescribed by the
Medical Council/NMC are mandatory. If deficiencies are found
during inspection, permission cannot be granted merely on
sympathetic considerations. The Court observed that
maintenance of medical education standards overrides private
or institutional interests.
29. Furthermore, in Royal Medical Trust (Regd.) v. Union of
India, (2015) 10 SCC 19, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid
down principles governing grant of permission to medical
colleges. It held that compliance with minimum standards is
indispensable and deficiencies affecting medical education
40
cannot be ignored. It also held that judicial review is confined
to examining the decision-making process and not substituting
the expert opinion of the regulatory authorities.
30. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case,
aforesaid dictums laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the contention
advanced by the petitioner institution regarding non-supply of
the inspection reports dated 23.01.2026 and 02.02.2026 does
not merit acceptance. The inspections were admittedly
conducted in the presence of the representatives and officers
of the petitioner institution, who actively participated in and
assisted the inspection team. The principal deficiency noticed
during both inspections related to the shortage of teaching
faculty, a fact which was within the exclusive knowledge of the
petitioner institution itself. Significantly, upon a careful perusal
of the pleadings and submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioner institution, this Court finds that nowhere has it been
pleaded or asserted that, as on the relevant date, the
institution possessed the requisite number of teaching faculty
as prescribed under the applicable Regulations. In the
absence of such a specific assertion, the plea that the
deficiencies could have been rectified had the inspection
reports been supplied cannot be accepted. The deficiency
pertaining to faculty strength is not one which could be cured
41
within a short span of time merely upon communication of the
inspection report. Availability of the prescribed number of
qualified faculty members is a substantive and mandatory
condition for grant of an Essentiality Certificate and for
consideration of enhancement of intake capacity.
31. Likewise, the submission regarding denial of an opportunity of
hearing is also liable to be rejected. The inspection itself was
conducted in the presence of the officers and representatives
of the petitioner institution, who had full knowledge of the
inspection process and the deficiencies noticed therein. In
such circumstances, it cannot be contended that the petitioner
institution was deprived of an effective opportunity to present
its case or that the principles of natural justice stood violated.
32. The third contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner
institution, namely, that the Essentiality Certificate or
permission for enhancement of intake capacity could be
refused or reduced only upon proof of fraud or
misrepresentation, is equally misconceived and deserves to
be rejected. The applicable Regulations do not make fraud a
pre-condition for refusal of enhancement of seats. The
competent authority is required to examine whether the
institution satisfies the statutory norms and minimum
standards prescribed under the Regulations. In the present
42
case, apart from the serious deficiency in faculty strength, the
petitioner institution had itself submitted an application seeking
enhancement of 150 seats, whereas the applicable
Regulations permit an application for enhancement of only 100
seats at a time. This constitutes an inherent defect in the very
application submitted by the petitioner institution.
33. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the respondent authorities have rightly taken into
consideration the available infrastructure, clinical material and,
more particularly, the deficiency in the requisite teaching
faculty while issuing the Essentiality Certificate and restricting
the enhancement of intake capacity to 50 seats instead of the
150 seats sought by the petitioner institution. The impugned
decision does not suffer from any arbitrariness, perversity or
illegality warranting interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
34. Accordingly, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same
deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
35. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Vishakha
