AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 01-09-2026 Heard Mr. Shaifuddin Ahmad, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh, learned Senior Advocate representing the respondent nos. 2 and 3, whereas Mr. Prabhat Kumar, learned Advocate appears for the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board. The State is represented through Mr. Tripurari Nath Ambastha, learned Advocate.
The petitioners, Nezamia Unani Medical College & Hospital, represented through its authorized representative, have preferred the present writ petition seeking quashing of the order dated 20.11.2025 passed in Second Appeal No. F.No. O-14014/5/2025-EP-I, filed by the petitioners before the Union of India, the Secretary, Ministry of Ayush, Government of India, by which the Ministry of Ayush rejected the petitioner's second appeal and continued with the reduced 30% seats originally imposed by the Medical Assessment and Ratings Board (MARB) vide Ref. No. 11-06/2025/MARB/(UNANI) dated 29.08.2025 and mechanically affirmed the First Appeal No. Ref. No.51-59/2025-26/ COMM. APPEAL/ COLLEGE (UNANI), dated 16.10.2025 filed before the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NCISM). The petitioners further pray for restoring the earlier approved admission intake capacity of 40 seats allotted to the petitioners for admission in Bachelor of Unani Medicine and Surgery (BUMS) for the academic year 2025-26.
Various submissions have been made by the learned Advocate for the petitioners while assailing the impugned order, besides challenging the authority of Medical Assessment and Ratings Board to reduce the number of seats for the academic session 2025-26, especially in view of the fact the State had recommended an intake capacity of 60 seats in favour of the petitioners’ institution.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that before passing the impugned order, the petitioners were not afforded any opportunity to rectify the deficiencies. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance has also been placed on the decision rendered in the case of Royal Medical Trust v. Union of India, [(2017) 16 SCC 605]. Adverting to the impugned orders, it is further urged that the petitioners have not even been provided proper opportunity of hearing in first appeal and the same has been passed mechanically without considering the materials brought on record in the memo of appeal. No hearing has also been afforded to the petitioners even before disposing of the second appeal, is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (in short ‘NCISM’) at this juncture interjected and submitted that the impugned decision reducing the seats of the petitioners’ institution from the capacity of 40 to 28 has been taken in terms of Section 28(1) (f) of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020. It is further contended that the action has been taken after due notice and affording an opportunity of hearing, as well as after verification of compliance with the applicable rules. Moreover, the said orders have been passed taking into consideration several deficiencies noted in the petitioners’ institution. The deficiencies found at the time of inspection have also been duly recorded in the deficiency report, and the same has also been recorded in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Based upon such deficiency, the impugned order came to be passed. Referring thereto, however it is further contended that the reduction in the intake of seats is only for the academic session 2025–26, as is evident from the materials available on record.
In the aforesaid premise, learned Senior Advocate further argued that the period for admission of the students for Session 2025-26 was extended upto 31.01.2026 and now more than 8 months have been elapsed and, therefore, in no circumstances, any relief can be granted to the petitioners. Moreover, before the next academic session, the institution shall be further inspected and fresh decision shall be taken upon being satisfied with the mandatory standard to be maintained by the institution, in terms with the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020.
Having considered the rival submissions and taking note of the admitted position that the impugned order of reduction of the seating capacity is only confined to academic session 2025-26, and now the scheduled period for admission has already come to an end long back in January, 2026 itself, besides the impugned order has been passed after proper deliberation and in the light of the inspection report where deficiencies have been shown while running out the institution, as also the answering respondents noticed that the institution failed to implement the Aadhar Enabled Biometric Attendance System for the Academic Year 2025-26, this Court does not find any cogent reason or occasion to interfere in the impugned orders.
However, before parting with the case, it would be pertinent to observe for the ends of justice that before the next session, the NCISM shall ensure a fresh inspection of the petitioners’ institution in accordance with the mandate of NCISM Act, 2020 and take further appropriate decision.
With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition stands closed.