1 2025:CGHC:55539-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5989 of 2025 Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Institute Of Medical Science And Research Naya Raipur (C.G.), Through Its Director And Authorized Signatory Vishal Garg, S/o Shri Jagdish Garg, Aged About 39 Years. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department of Health, Family Welfare And Medical Education, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Medical Education Chhattisgarh, Swasthya Bhawan, 2nd Floor North Block, Sector 19, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, (C.G.) 3 - Chairman Counselling Committee, Medical Education, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Union of India Through Its Secretary Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 110011 5 - National Medical Commission Pocket 14 Sector 8 Dwarka Phase I, New Delhi 110077 ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Mr. Ashutosh Shrivastava, Mr. Ishaan Singh Rathore and Ms. Shatabdi Bagchi, Advocates For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Ms. Anmol Sharma, Central Government Counsel For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, Advocate assisted by Mr. Samarth Singh Marhas, Advocate ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.11.14 15:24:56 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 14.11. 2025 1. Heard Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Mr. Ashutosh Shrivastava, Mr. Ishaan Singh Rathore and Ms. Shatabdi Bagchi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 3, Ms. Anmol Sharma, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 as well as Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas assisted by Mr. Samarth Singh Marhas, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “10.1 It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner Company from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the impugned Notice dated 11.11.2025 (Annexure P/1) in respect of the petitioner. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ commanding the respondents to permit and allow the petitioner institution to participate in the counselling program for the admission in the NEET UG program 2025 for the remaining seats. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue 3 an appropriate writ commanding the respondents to conduct separate counselling of the petitioner institution as the petitioner institution was allowed to participate in the counselling program for the first time vide notice dated 09.10.2025 in view of the order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. 10.5 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 petitioner.” 3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that the petitioner Medical College and Research Centre was established at Naya Raipur (C.G.) in the academic year 2022–23 with the objective of imparting MBBS, BDS and other medical education programs to students within and outside the State, in full compliance with the norms prescribed by the erstwhile Medical Council of India and the National Medical Commission (NMC). The Institution was also granted a clinical establishment licence under Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Adhiniyam, 2010 for running a hospital, pathology laboratory and allied medical facilities for a period of five years w.e.f. 22.08.2023 to 21.08.2028. The petitioner Institution was thereafter granted permission by the NMC for conducting various medical programs, including MBBS and BDS. Specifically, the NMC sanctioned an annual intake of 150 MBBS seats for the academic year 2024–25 under Sections 26(1)(A)(B) and 28(1)(2) of the NMC Act, 2019 vide permission letter dated 04.07.2024, upon due fulfillment of all statutory and infrastructural requirements for establishment of a new medical college under Pandit Dindayal Upadhyaya Memorial Health Sciences and Ayush University, Raipur. 4 4. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged by the CBI alleging involvement of the petitioner Institution in matters relating to seat enhancement. The said action was challenged before the High Court of Delhi in WPC No. 13299/2025. The High Court of Delhi, vide order dated 11.09.2025, directed the NMC to obtain a fresh expert committee report and to take a decision regarding permission for intake of students for the academic year 2025–26 by 17.09.2025. It was further directed that if the petitioner Institution was found compliant with statutory norms, admission strictly on merit shall be ensured, and clarified that these directions would not affect the CBI proceedings arising out of the FIR. 5. Pursuant thereto, the NMC, upon reassessment, issued a letter/memo dated 26.09.2025 granting conditional renewal of permission for 100 MBBS seats (reduced from 150) for the academic session 2025–26, subject to removal of identified deficiencies within three months. Meanwhile, as per the counselling schedule notified by the NMC, the first round of NEET UG 2025 counselling (MBBS/BDS) was conducted from 18.08.2025 to 23.08.2025, and the second round was notified on 24.09.2025 by respondent No. 2. However, the petitioner’s name was omitted from both rounds. Only after the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dated 11.09.2025 and after issuance of the NMC memo dated 26.09.2025, respondent No. 2, Commissioner, Medical Education, Chhattisgarh, for the first time, allowed the petitioner Institution to participate in the third round (mop-up) counselling vide notice dated 09.10.2025. Thereafter, in the mop-up round seat matrix issued by the respondents, the petitioner Institution was allotted 100 seats, consisting of 43 Government quota seats, 42 Management 5 quota seats, and 15 NRI quota seats. Subsequently, the mop-up counselling was extended from 16.10.2025 to 23.10.2025 and again vide notice dated 29.10.2025 until further instructions were received from the NMC. 6. The admission process in the State is governed by the Chhattisgarh Medical, Dental and Physiotherapy Undergraduate Admission Rules, 2025 (for short, the Rules of 2025), applicable to Government, Management and NRI quota seats in private medical institutions including the petitioner. However, to the utter shock of the petitioner, respondent No. 2 issued the impugned notice dated 11.11.2025, whereby all NRI quota seats of the petitioner Institution in the stray vacancy round were unilaterally converted into management quota seats, without any notice, opportunity of hearing, or adherence to Rules 13(B) and 13(d) of the Rules of 2025. The impugned action is also contrary to the directions and observations of the High Court of Delhi in WPC No. 13299/2025 and demonstrates a colourable and arbitrary exercise of power, especially when the same authority had only recently permitted the petitioner to participate in counselling for the first time vide notice dated 09.10.2025. 7. Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order/letter dated 11.11.2025 issued by respondent No. 2, Commissioner, Medical Education, Chhattisgarh, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable, and is vitiated by malafides. It is contended that the very same authorities had, pursuant to the order passed by the High Court of Delhi on 11.09.2025, permitted the petitioner institution to participate in the 6 counselling process for the first time vide notice dated 09.10.2025. However, even before such counselling could effectively take place, the respondent authorities, by issuing the impugned notice dated 11.11.2025, unilaterally converted all NRI quota seats of the petitioner institution into management quota seats, which clearly demonstrates a colourable and arbitrary exercise of power. 8. It is further submitted by Mr. Shrivastava that the conversion of the petitioner’s NRI quota seats into management quota seats is not merely arbitrary but also directly contradicts the observations and directions contained in the order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the High Court of Delhi in WPC No. 13299/2025, wherein the NMC was specifically directed to ensure admissions strictly as per the sanctioned seats and statutory norms upon verification of compliance. He argued that the impugned action is in clear breach of Rule 13(B) and Rule 13(d) of the Rules of 2025, which mandates adherence to prescribed procedures before any conversion or reallocation of seats. The respondents, without issuance of any notice or affording an opportunity of hearing, mechanically converted the NRI quota seats, thereby violating mandatory statutory safeguards. 9. It is urged by Mr. Shrivastava that the impugned notice is ex facie contrary to Rule 8 of the Rules of 2025 which provides that conversion of seats in reserved categories or quotas can take place only after the second round of counselling, and only in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2012. In the case of the petitioner institution, only the first round of counselling had taken place; therefore, the respondents had no 7 authority in law to initiate any such conversion in the stray vacancy round. 10. Mr. Shrivastava further submitted that the impugned conversion also violates the permission letter dated 04.07.2024 and the renewal memo dated 26.09.2025, under which the petitioner institution was sanctioned 100 MBBS seats, including a distinct allocation of NRI quota seats. The respondents, without any jurisdiction, altered the seat composition contrary to the statutory permission granted by the NMC. Lastly, it is contended by Mr. Shrivastava that the impugned order/letter dated 11.11.2025 is wholly arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to the statutory rules as well as the binding directions issued by the High Court of Delhi. The respondents have acted in violation of the principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction and in a manner that unfairly prejudices the petitioner institution. The impugned action not only infringes the petitioner’s statutory and constitutional rights but also disrupts the entire admission process in an unjust and discriminatory manner. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3, opposes the submissions advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and submits that, according to Rule 13(B) of the Rules of 2025, which deals with the eligibility and procedural requirements for the Non- Resident Indian (NRI) quota, admissions under the NRI category are strictly governed by the statutory framework. He further places reliance on Rule 4(6) of the Chhattisgarh Non-Resident Indian Quota in Private Professional Colleges Rules, 2017 (for short, the Rules of 2017), 8 notified by the State Government in the Gazette on 03.07.2017. The Rules of 2017 has been framed by the State Government in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.A. Inamdar v. State of Mahrashtra {(205) 6 SCC 537} which mandated to prescribe rules for fixing NRI quota in private professional colleges. Mr. Pandey further submits that Clause 13(B) of the Rules of 2025 is also in light of the judgment of the Apex Court, as aforesaid, which states that out of the 15% NRI quota seats available in every private medical college, 32% seats shall be reserved for Scheduled Tribes, 12% for Scheduled Castes and 14% for Other Backward Classes (except creamy layer) on an institution-wise basis. He also draws attention to Rule 13(d) of the Rules of 2025, which prescribes that the last date for admission under the NRI quota shall be 10 days prior to the overall last date of admission, and that such date shall be treated as the final deadline for completing admissions in the NRI category. 12. Mr. Pandey further submits that, as per the NEET-UG Schedule-2025, the last date prescribed for completion of State counselling under the NRI quota is 10 days prior to the last date of admission which is 20.11.2025. However, in view of the statutory mandate contained in Rule 13(d) of the Rules of 2025, private institutions are required to complete admissions under the NRI quota ten days prior to the last date fixed for the State counselling. It is therefore contended that since the petitioner is a private University, the effective last date for conducting counselling and granting admissions under the NRI category for the petitioner institution would be 10.11.2025. Consequently, the action of converting the remaining NRI seats into management quota seats was undertaken strictly in accordance with 9 the prescribed Rules of 2017, particularly Rule 4(6), and no illegality or arbitrariness can be attributed to the impugned notice dated 11.11.2025. As such, the petition be liable to be dismissed. 13. Ms. Anmol Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4/Union of India as well as Mr. R.S.Marhas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5/NMC submit that the main contesting party in this petition would be the State Government only and that they are formal parties. 14. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and have carefully perused the pleadings, documents, and material available on record. 15. It would be apposite to quote the relevant clauses applicable in this case. Rule 13(B) and 13(d) of the Rules of 2025 reads as under: “13. Eligibility and rules information for Non-Resident Indian Quota. xxx xxx xxx (B) Last date for admission in NRI quota, reservation and fee: According to CG Gazette Netification No. F 21-10/2017/9/55-4 Publication No. 279 dated 03 July 2017, out of 15 percent NRI quota seats in every private college, 32 percent seats will be reserved for scheduled tribes, 12 percent for scheduled castes and 14 percent for other backward classes (except creamy layer), institution-wise. xxx xxx xxx d) Last date of admission in NRI quota Every private professional college shall give admission to candidates in NRI quota 10 days before the last date of admission which will be the last date of admission for NRI quota.” 10 16. Rule 4(6) of the Rules of 2017 reads as under: “4. Special provision for admission in private professional college (PPC) of non-resident Indians.- xxx xxx xxx (6) Each Private Professional College (PPC) shall admit the student in NRI quota before 10 days of the last date of admission, which is closing date for NRI category. After this closing date the seats will be declared empty and shall be converted as open category.” 17. The question which arises for consideration is whether the conversion of the NRI quota seats into management quota seats vide order dated 11.11.2025 (Annexure P/1) suffers from arbitrariness, illegality, or is otherwise contrary to the applicable statutory rules governing admissions to private medical institutions in the State of Chhattisgarh. 18. From the material placed on record, it is clear that the NRI quota in private medical institutions is regulated under the Rules of 2025 read conjointly with the Rules of 2017, particularly those provisions which govern the reservation matrix, timelines, and procedural requirements for admissions in the NRI category. Rule 13(B) of the Rules of 2025 lays down the eligibility, reservation percentages, and procedural safeguards attached to the NRI quota. Rule 13(d) expressly stipulates that admissions under the NRI quota in private professional colleges must be completed at least ten days prior to the last date prescribed for the overall admission process, thereby prescribing a mandatory and non-negotiable timeline. 19. It is an admitted position that under the NEET-UG Schedule-2025, the last date for completion of NRI admissions at the State level stands 11 fixed at 20.11.2025. Applying the mandate of Rule 13(C), the last permissible date for NRI admissions in private institutions, including that of the petitioner, stood automatically curtailed to 10.11.2025, being ten days prior to the final cut-off date. The petitioner does not dispute the existence of this statutory timeline; rather, its grievance is that it was permitted only one round of counselling and therefore could not complete the admission process within time. However, on a careful and conjoint reading of Rule 13(B), Rule 13(d) of the Rules of 2025, and Rule 4(6) of the Rules of 2017, it becomes abundantly clear that the number of counselling rounds is a procedural aspect dependent on administrative exigencies and does not and cannot operate to override the mandatory statutory deadline prescribed for NRI admissions. The NRI admissions must be concluded strictly within the stipulated timeframe, failing which the seats are required to be converted into management quota seats and filled accordingly in the subsequent rounds. 20. The contention of the petitioner that it was granted permission to participate in counselling only recently pursuant to the directions of the High Court of Delhi also does not advance its case. The said order did not in any manner suspend, relax, or extend the statutory timelines prescribed under the Rules of 2025 or the Rules of 2017. The directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi merely enabled the petitioner to participate in the counselling process and did not confer any exemption from compliance with the statutory framework governing NRI quota admissions in the State of Chhattisgarh. The admitted failure of the petitioner institution to complete admissions under the NRI quota by the statutory cut-off date of 10.11.2025 triggered the automatic 12 statutory consequence contemplated under Rule 13(d), namely, the conversion of such unfilled NRI seats into management quota seats. Such conversion, far from being arbitrary or illegal, is expressly mandated by the Rules and is an integral part of the admission regulatory mechanism designed to ensure that seats do not remain vacant due to non-compliance with prescribed timelines. 21. Thus, in the absence of any demonstrable violation of statutory provisions, any departure from established procedure, or any trace of arbitrariness, bias or malafide on the part of the respondents, this Court is unable to find any legal infirmity in the impugned order dated 11.11.2025. The action of the respondents is not only in consonance with the governing Rules but also consistent with the broader regulatory objective of maintaining uniformity, fairness, and discipline in the admission process. 22. In view of the elaborate discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 11.11.2025 converting the unfilled NRI quota seats of the petitioner institution into management quota seats is fully justified, lawful, and in strict conformity with the statutory provisions applicable to the admission process. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 23. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu