Writ jurisdiction over affiliated private colleges and strict compliance with sponsorship requirements in MBBS admissions

Article 226 extends to private bodies performing public duties, so a writ can lie against a private unaided medical college affiliated to a university where its conduct is subject to regulatory control and affects admission to medical education. On the merits, the prospectus required a prescribed sponsorship letter to accompany the application within time, and the candidate failed to submit that document, producing only a commending letter. The candidature was therefore invalid for the reserved seat, and no mandamus could be issued to compel admission to the MBBS course.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a private unaided medical college affiliated to a university. (ii) Whether the petitioner, having failed to produce the prescribed sponsorship letter, was entitled to admission to the MBBS course.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a private unaided medical college affiliated to a university.

Analysis: The jurisdiction under Article 226 is not confined to State instrumentalities. It extends to any person or body performing a public duty. A private medical college affiliated to a university operates under substantial regulatory control of the Medical Council and the university, and, by reason of affiliation and the public function of imparting medical education, is amenable to judicial review when it acts unfairly, arbitrarily, or in violation of constitutional or regulatory obligations.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner, having failed to produce the prescribed sponsorship letter, was entitled to admission to the MBBS course.

Analysis: The prospectus required official sponsorship by the relevant Church or Mission and the sponsorship letter had to accompany the application within the stipulated time. The petitioner did not submit the required sponsorship letter with the application or within the prescribed time, and only produced a commending letter. The respondents were, therefore, justified in treating the candidature as invalid for the reserved seat.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to admission to the MBBS course.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to maintainability failed, but the claim for admission failed on merits, and no mandamus could be issued to compel admission.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 226 empowers the High Court to issue writs against private bodies performing public duties, including affiliated educational institutions, but a candidate cannot claim admission contrary to the prescribed eligibility and sponsorship requirements.

---