Retrospective minimum standards cannot justify refusal of permission to existing medical colleges; orders set aside and reconsideration directed.

Permission to existing medical colleges under the governing statutory scheme could not be refused on the basis of unnotified or retrospectively applied minimum standards. The court held that the students' writ petitions were maintainable, as the absence of a challenge by the State did not bar judicial review. It further found the refusal for the academic year 2011-12 unsustainable because the alleged deficiencies were inconsistently stated, substantially rectified, or assessed without proper regard to compliance reports. The impugned orders were set aside, fresh consideration was directed, and the colleges were allowed to continue classes and conduct examinations for the current academic year.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions filed by students challenging the rejection of permission to the colleges were maintainable. (ii) Whether the refusal of permission for the academic year 2011-12, based on newly prescribed minimum standards and alleged deficiencies, was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions filed by students challenging the rejection of permission to the colleges were maintainable.

Analysis: The students' challenge was not opposed to the stand taken by the State Government, which supported continuation of permission. The interim orders only prevented the students from pleading equity and did not extinguish their right to question the Central Government's refusal. The absence of a challenge by the State Government did not bar the students from invoking judicial review.

Conclusion: The challenge by the students was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the refusal of permission for the academic year 2011-12, based on newly prescribed minimum standards and alleged deficiencies, was sustainable.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Sections 13A and 13C of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, read with the 2006 Regulations, regulated permission for existing colleges on the basis of the prescribed eligibility norms. The impugned refusal rested on minimum standards formulated on 18.3.2011, which were not notified and were sought to be applied retrospectively to a prior period. The record also showed that the Government colleges had earlier been granted permission on the basis of the existing regulatory framework, and the alleged deficiencies were either inconsistently stated, substantially rectified, or considered without proper regard to the State's compliance reports. The insistence on retrospective standards and yearly uncertainty was held to be arbitrary and legally unsustainable.

Conclusion: The refusal of permission was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside, fresh consideration was directed, and the colleges were permitted to continue classes and conduct examinations for the current academic year.

Ratio Decidendi: Permission to existing medical colleges under the governing statutory scheme cannot be refused by applying unnotified or retrospectively enforced minimum standards, and a refusal based on arbitrary or inconsistent assessment of compliance is liable to be quashed.

---