Reserved for orders on : 03.09.2026 Pronounced on : 18.09.2026 Date of uploading : 18.09.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether full judgment is pronounced : FULL. APHC010240192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 12426 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:- 13 [3584] Andhra Pradesh Private Medical and Dental Colleges Management Association and anr. ...Petitioner(s) Vs. Union of India and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE :18TH September 2026 Present: Advocate for Petitioners: SRI N.SUBBA RAO, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR MR.VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI. Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA (FOR R-1); GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH,& FW (FOR R-2); AND MR.VIVEK CHANDRA SEKHAR S, (FOR R-3) *** 2 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.12426 of 2025 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) By present writ petition, Andhra Pradesh Private Medical and Dental College Managements Association and its member seek to challenge Guideline No.9 of the Minimum Standard of Requirements for Post Graduate Courses, 2024 (“PGMSR-2024”), dated 23.08.2024, as notified by 3rd respondent – National Medical Commission (“Commission”), whereby the intake capacity for Post Graduate courses for the private medical and dental colleges has been capped to four seats and without any such limitation being made applicable to Government run medical colleges, as being discriminative, arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the Establishment of New Medical Institutions, Starting of New Medical Courses, Increase of Seats for Existing Courses & Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023, (“2023 Regulations”) and the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (for short, “the NMC Act”), besides violative of Articles 14, 15 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 2. Brief facts are set out as under: (a) 1st petitioner is an Association formed by Private Medical and Dental Colleges operating in the State of Andhra Pradesh and 2nd petitioner is one of its members. The member colleges stated to be running medical and dental colleges in the stream of both Under- 3 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.12426 of 2025 Graduation i.e., MBBS, as well as Post-Graduation in various disciplines of the courses. They are governed by the NMC Act and various Regulations made thereunder. In terms of the NMC Act, Medical Assessment and Rating Board (“MARB”) constituted under Section 16 of the NMC Act, has been bestowed with powers and functions, inter alia, to determine the procedure for assessing and rating medical institutions for their compliance with standards laid down by the Under- Graduate Medical Education Board (“UGMEB”) or Post-Graduate Medical Education Board (“PGMEB”), grant permission for establishment of a new medical institutions or start any post-graduate course or to increase number of seats and also to carry out inspections of medical institutions for assessing and rating such institutions. (b) The Commission, constituted under Section 3 of the NMC Act, which is Apex Body, was assigned the functions of laying down policies for maintaining high quality and high standards in medical education, policies for regulating medical institutions, medical researchers and medical professionals, and such other functions as envisaged and in furtherance thereof to frame appropriate regulations in exercise of powers conferred under Section 57 of the NMC Act. (c) In exercise of powers conferred under Section 57(2) r/w. Sections 26, 28 and 29 of the NMC Act, the Commission framed the 4 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.12426 of 2025 2023 Regulations prescribing the procedure, method, and manner in which medical institutions are to be established or new medical courses or increase in intake of seats to be permitted. In furtherance to the said 2023 Regulations, the Commission issued Notification No.N- PO16(11)/1/2023-PGMEB-NMC, dated 23.08.2024, specifying PGMSR- 2024. Under the said guidelines, the minimum requirements for conducting undergraduate and post-graduate training, as prescribed by the UGMEB and PGMEB were specified in detail, so that the institution seeking permission for either establishment of a college or increase in intake of seats shall adhere the same. (d) Specific details of clinical material/investigation workload, ratio of eligible post-graduate faculty to the number of students and number of minimum and maximum beds in a Unit, faculty and senior resident requirements for number of post-graduate seats in different specialities were clearly set out in Annexure-I, Annexure-II and Annexure-III, respectively. Guideline No.9 of the PGMSR-2024 envisages that while considering fresh cases for starting a new post-graduate course and for increase of annual intake, a maximum of four seats will be permitted in a non-government medical college/institution. Aggrieved by the said condition, the private medical and dental colleges through their association have come up with present writ petition. 5 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.12426 of 2025 3. 3rd respondent, Commission, filed counter-affidavit as well as additional counter-affidavit, justifying impugned Guideline No.9 of PGMSR-2024. 4. Heard Sri N.Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Mr.Vijay Mathukumilli, learned counsel for petitioners; learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for 1st respondent; learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare, for 2nd respondent; and Mr.S. Vivek Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for 3rd respondent Commission. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners made the following submissions: (i) The impugned Guideline No.9 of PGMSR-2024, issued by 3rd respondent, restricting increase of intake of seats in post-graduation courses to a maximum of four seats qua the private colleges alone, is discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the impugned guideline, being merely an executive instruction, not only is in contravention to the 2023 Regulations and Sections 26, 28 and 29 of the NMC Act, but also cannot override the substantive provisions, thus, is ultra vires. At any rate, 3rd respondent Commission could not have issued the impugned guideline by mere executive instruction, inasmuch 6 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.12426 of 2025 as, any regulation made under the NMC Act in terms of Section 57, necessarily required to be placed before the Parliament under Section 58 for the same to be given effect. It is also contended that neither Section 26(1)(b) nor Section 57(2)(ze) of the NMC Act places any restriction with regard to increase of number of seats qua private colleges, therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, if private medical institution satisfies the criteria of minimum and maximum beds in a Unit, faculty and senior resident requirements for number of post- graduate seats in different specialities, there should not be any artificial restriction in capping the maximum increase in intake of seats. (iii) Further, it is contended that “medical institution” defined in Section 2(i) of the NMC Act, since do not differentiate an institution run by private entity and Government and insofar as all other criteria satisfying PGMSR-2024 being one and the same across all the institutions, there exists no intelligible differentia for imposing numerical restriction exclusively upon private medical colleges. In support of aforesaid submissions, he relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India1. 6. (a) Conversely, Mr. Vivek Chandrasekhar S, learned Standing Counsel for 3rd respondent Commission, submitted that unlike under- 1 (2024) 14 SCC 158 7 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.12426 of 2025 graduation course, post-graduation training predominantly rests on practicals for which clinical material and investigation workload would be decisive, therefore, maintenance of minimum requirements as prescribed by the PGMEB cannot be compromised. Many instances of fake patients and ghost faculty practices were identified across the country, in contrast to the functioning of Government medical colleges, which function within an integrated public health system with organic patient inflow and verifiable clinical material based on data. In this background, it is contended that since there is no specific bar in either Section 26(1)(b) or in the 2023 Regulations imposing cap of maximum of 4 seats as additional intake in private medical colleges would not amount to differentiation or discrimination either. (b) Learned Standing Counsel also pointed out from the additional counter-affidavit that the maximum cap of four seats envisaged under Guideline No.9 would apply only for one particular academic year and it is not a permanent ceiling qua the college. The 2023 Regulations are merely intended to ensure phased and quality orientation, expansion of post-graduate medical education and the total intake capacity of the course may be increased progressively through successive applications made in subsequent academic years, subject to fulfilment of PGMSR- 2024. Thus, the conditions are validly made and do not attract the vice of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that 8 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.12426 of 2025 colleges run by government and private entities are not a homogeneous class, as ownership, funding, control, public accountability, and nature of clinical material vary, thus, there is clear intelligible differentia and rational nexus with the object of maintaining standards in post-graduate medical education. Thus, the Commission was well within its powers in issuing the impugned guidelines, sourcing its power from Regulation 10 of the 2023 Regulations r/w. Section 3.4 of Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh2. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsels for both parties and perused the record. 8. Before we proceed to examine the issue, the relevant provisions of NMC Act and the 2023 Regulations, which are germane, are referred to as under: (1) The NMC Act: (i) “Section 2(i) “medical institution” means any institution within or outside India which grants degrees, diplomas or licences in medicine and include affiliated colleges and deemed to be Universities;” (ii) “Section 26. Powers and functions of Medical Assessment and Rating Board.– (1) The Medical Assessment and Rating Board shall perform the following functions, namely:- (a) …. 2 (2016) 7 SCC 353 9 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.12426 of 2025 (b) grant permission for establishment of a new medical institution, or to start any postgraduate course or to increase number of seats, in accordance with the provisions of Section 28;” Section 28. Permission for establishment of new medical college.— (1) No person shall establish a new medical college or start any postgraduate course or increase number of seats without obtaining prior permission of the Medical Assessment and Rating Board. (2) For the purposes of obtaining permission under sub- section (1), a person may submit a scheme to the Medical Assessment and Rating Board in such form, containing such particulars, accompanied by such fee, and in such manner, as may be specified by the regulations. (3) The Medical Assessment and Rating Board shall, having due regard to the criteria specified in section 29, consider the scheme received under sub-section (2) and either approve or disapprove such scheme within a period of six months from the date of such receipt: Provided that before disapproving such scheme, an opportunity to rectify the defects, if any, shall be given to the person concerned. Section 29. Criteria for approving or disapproving scheme.- While approving or disapproving a scheme under section 28, the Medical Assessment and Rating Board, or the Commission, as the case may be, shall take into consideration the following criteria, namely:— (a) adequacy of financial resources; (b) whether adequate academic faculty and other necessary facilities have been provided to ensure proper functioning of medical college or would be provided within the time-limit specified in the scheme; (c) whether adequate hospital facilities have been provided or would be provided within the time-limit specified in the scheme; (d) such other factors as may be prescribed: Provided that, subject to the previous approval of the Central Government, the criteria may be relaxed for the medical colleges which are set up in such areas as may be specified by the regulations. Section 57. Power to make regulations.-- (1)…. Section 57. Power to make regulations.-- (1)…. “(2) (ze) the form of scheme, the particulars thereof, the fee to be accompanied and the manner of submitting scheme for establishing a new medical college or for starting any postgraduate course or for increasing number of seats under sub-section (2) of section 28;” *** 10 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.12426 of 2025 (2) THE 2023 REGULATIONS: (i) “Regulation 2(i)―“MSR” shall mean the Minimum Standards of Requirements as Notified either by UGMEB or PGMEB as the case may be from time to time, which shall also include, explanatory notes, circulars, advisories etc. issued by the corresponding Boards or the Commission.” CHAPTER-III (ii) “10. Eligibility criteria– a. No medical institution shall be provided permission unless they satisfy the conditions pertaining to but not limited to, physical infrastructure, teaching staff, clinical material and hospital as detailed in the MSRs notified from time to time. b. Without prejudice to anything stated in the sub-section (a) above, the UGMEB or PGMEB as the case may be, shall from time to time publish the MSR with such modifications or amendments required, keeping in mind the overall objectives of the Act. c. Notwithstanding anything stated above in Section 10, all modified or amended MSRs shall have to be implemented. Regulation 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. Regulation 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. Regulation 19. Once the application for an increase of seats is received from the medical institution, the MARB shall evaluate the same on its merit before granting approval. Provided the same criteria indicated in Chapter II of these Regulations shall apply mutatis mutandis for such evaluation. **** 11 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.12426 of 2025 (3) Guideline No.9 of the PGMSR-2024 (i.e., impugned guideline) “9. While considering fresh cases for starting a new PG course and for increase of annual intake, maximum of four seats will be permitted in a non-government medical college/institution.” 9. On a conjoint reading of all aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that MARB is vested with power to grant permission for establishment of new medical institutions or to start any post-graduation course or to increase number of seats in accordance with the provisions of Section 28 of the NMC Act. Section 28(1) envisages that no person shall establish a new medical college or start any postgraduate course or increase number of seats without obtaining prior permission of MARB. Sub-section (2) of Section 28 provides that a person, intending to obtain permission under sub-section (1), may submit a scheme to MARB in the manner as contemplated by Regulations and on submission of such scheme, having regard to the criteria specified in Section 29, MARB shall consider the scheme and either approve or disapprove the same. Section 29 laid down the criteria for the MARB to consider the scheme, and the criteria so envisaged requires to examine adequacy of financial sources, adequacy of academic faculty, and other necessary facilities for proper functioning of the college, adequacy of hospital facilities and such other factors as may be prescribed. Section 57 empowers the Commission to make regulations, and Section 57(2)(ze) specifically deals with the form of scheme, particulars thereof, the fee to be 12 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.12426 of 2025 accompanied and the manner of submitting scheme for establishing a new medical college or for starting any postgraduate course or for increasing number of seats under sub-clause (2) of Section 28. Further, Section 58 envisages that the Regulations framed under Section 57 have to be laid before Parliament. 10. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 57(2), r/w Sections 26, 28 and 29 of the NMC Act, the Commission issued the 2023 Regulations. Regulation 2(i) defined “MSR” to mean the Minimum Standards of Requirements as notified either by UGMEB or PGMEB, which shall also include explanatory notes, circulars, advisories etc., issued by the corresponding Boards or the Commission. Chapter II of these Regulations provides a scheme for establishment of medical institutions, starting of new medical courses (UG/PG), which details the manner of inviting applications by MARB, making applications by eligible institutions, the eligibility criteria and the process of evaluation of applications by MARB and grant of permission thereafter. Likewise, Chapter III deals with scheme for increase of seats for existing courses in a medical institution. Proviso to Regulation 19 clearly specifies that the criteria indicated in Chapter II of these Regulations shall apply mutatis mutandis for each evaluation. The eligibility criteria envisaged under Regulation 10 require the applicant to be in compliance with the conditions pertaining to, but not limited to, physical infrastructure, 13 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.12426 of 2025 teaching staff, clinical materials and hospital as detailed in the MSRs notified from time to time. Further, in clause (c), it also contemplates that all modified or amended MSRs shall have to be implemented. In other words, as can be seen from the definition of MSR in Regulation 2(i), the explanatory notes, circulars, advisories etc., issued by the Commission also constitute to be MSR for the purpose of evaluating the eligibility criteria in terms of Chapter III as well. 11. Though the expression “scheme” has been referred to at various places, such as in Sections 28, 29, 57(2)(ze), the same has not been specifically defined as such in the NMC Act. However, Section 57(2)(ze) empowers the Commission to make regulations providing for the form of scheme for increasing number of seats under sub-section (2) of Section 28 as well. Thus, the scheme as enunciated in Chapter.II and Chapter.III of the 2023 Regulations, in detail, takes care of the requirements one should satisfy for seeking increase in number of seats. The substantive provisions of the NMC Act or the 2023 Regulations neither seal the maximum number of seats an institution be permitted, nor is there any bar or fetter on MARB limiting its powers for granting increase in number of seats. From what has been culled out above, we are of the view that the legislature was conscious in delegating the powers to MARB for the purpose of granting permission 14 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.12426 of 2025 for establishment of new medical institutions or to increase in number of seats, subject to the applicant satisfying the criteria laid down in Section 29. Section 29 and the 2023 Regulations made with regard to standards and norms for maintaining infrastructure, faculty etc., clearly provide guidance to MARB in exercising such powers. Therefore, ultimately, it is for the MARB to decide whether the prospective applicant is in compliance with the scheme of things envisaged, which also includes the maximum number of seats to be permitted in medical institution even if it were to be a private college in the given year. 12. Thus, the Commission now issued the notification, dated 23.08.2024, setting out guidelines, which also included impugned Guideline No.9. These guidelines definitely qualify to be minimum standards of requirements as defined in Regulation 2(i) of the 2023 Regulations, which are validly made and binding on all educational institutions, whoever seek to invoke the 2023 Regulations. 13. Having said that, we shall now examine whether Guideline No.9 is discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The private medical colleges, as a matter of right, are not entitled to seek increase in number of seats. The impugned guideline envisages that the private medical colleges can seek increase of annual intake of maximum 4 seats. The very same notification also quantifies the clinical 15 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.12426 of 2025 material/investigation workload required for post-graduate courses in different specialities and ratio of faculty to number of students and minimum and maximum number of beds in a Unit and faculty required for number of post-graduate seats for the purpose of seeking increase in intake. 14. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners mainly contended that the number of bed requirement for unit, since allowed maximum seats of five in various speciality courses, even if an institution maintains the required bed ratio, still restricting it to four seats and that too only for private medical colleges is sheer discrimination. At first blush, though it appears to be attractive, we are of the view that mere bed ratio alone would not be a decisive factor and criterion for considering the grant of increase in intake of seats. Indeed, it is the clinical material/investigation workload, which would be a predominant factor. Though there is no difference between a private college and a government college qua the medical institution, nevertheless, having regard to factors such as ownership, funding, control, public accountability, and the nature of clinical material, they stand on different footing. The object of establishing a government medical college compared to a private medical college definitely cannot be equated with, as in the latter case it is done either with some profit motive or philanthropic. Therefore, both these institutions do not form a 16 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.12426 of 2025 homogeneous class. At any rate, it is for the Commission, which is the Apex Body in the realm of regulation making in the best interests of the sector, to consider how many number of seats would be prudent for the given set of institutions subject to fulfilling the relevant criteria. As we have already observed that the notification, dated 23.08.2024, being in the nature of MSR, issued in consonance with Regulation 10(c), is valid, has statutory force and binding on all medical institutions. The same is neither discriminatory nor offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 15. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners referred to para.24 of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Omkar Ramchandra Gond1, which in turn, cited the judgment of Union of India v. Babita Puniya3, dealing with the principles of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, while there is no quarrel with the proposition laid down therein, in our respectable view, the same has no application to the facts of the present case. In the passage cited above, Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with an absolute bar imposed on women in seeking criteria or command appointments, while finding that such prescription fell foul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, held that right to equality is a right to rationality and whether a particular candidate should or 3 (2020) 7 SCC 469 17 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.12426 of 2025 should not be granted, could be a matter for competent authority to decide, but a blanket non-consideration of women for criteria or command appointments, absent an individuated justification, was unsustainable in law. Thus, in our considered view, the principle enunciated in aforesaid judgment would have no application in the present case. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the colleges have been permitted increase in intake up to a maximum of 4 seats in a year, therefore, it is not their case that they were completely denied the benefit of increase in intake compared to the Government colleges. 17. In Modern Dental College and Research Centre2, Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with a question whether the reservation in admissions to educational institutions, including private educational institutions, was valid, a thin distinction is made between Government medical colleges and private medical colleges, which is extracted as under: “96. As is evident from the facts mentioned by the State of Madhya Pradesh in its reply filed in IA No. 83 of 2015, the Association of Private Colleges has failed to hold their CETs in a fair, transparent and rational manner. The accountability and transparency in State actions is much higher than in private actions. It is needless to say that the incidents of corruption in the State machinery were brought in the public eye immediately and have been addressed expeditiously. The same could never have been done in case of private actions. 18 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.12426 of 2025 Even on a keel of comparative efficiency, it is more than evident that the State process is far more transparent and fair than one that is devised by the private colleges, which have no mechanism of any checks and balances. The State agencies are subject to the Right to Information Act, Audit, State Legislature, Anti-Corruption agencies, Lokayukta, etc. 97. The very object of setting up institutions for the State is a welfare function, for the purpose of excelling in educational standards. On the other hand, the primary motivation for private parties is profit motive or philanthropy. When the primary motivation for institutions is profit motive, it is natural that many means to achieve the same shall be adopted by the private institutions which leads to a large degree of secrecy and corruption. As such, the mechanism of regulations as envisaged under the impugned laws is legal, constitutional, fair, transparent and uphold the primary criteria of merit. The same does not infringe on the fundamental rights of either the minorities or the non-minorities to establish and administer educational institutions and must as such be upheld as valid.” 18. In view of our foregoing observations, we do not find any merit in the writ petition, and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J cs