NMC approaches the Supreme Court against the provisional order of HC.

Yesterday’s Supreme Court (February 3) issued a notice in a statement by the National Medical Commission against the Order of the Superior Court of Rajasthan that refused to interfere with the increase in medical seats from 50 to 100 in the Jiet Medical College, Jodhpur.

Judge Surya Kant’s bank and Judge NK Singh was listening to the challenge to Order of the Superior Court of Rajasthan Division Bank that he refused to interfere with the interim order of the single judge, which allows an increase in the MBBS seats at a University of Medicine as the admission process began.

The Bank of the Division of the Superior Court of President of the Supreme Court Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Judge Munnuri Laxman He was listening to an appeal presented by the Union of India, the National Medical Commission and the Medical Evaluation and Qualification Board, against the intermediate order of the Single Judge that had allowed the increase in seats in Jiet Medical College of 50-100.

During the hearing, Judge Surya Kant asked if any merit principle has been followed by allowing admissions.

To which the lawyer who represents the National Medical Commission reported that admissions will have to happen only through Neet-Counselling.

“The State will make these admissions” Added.

The court indicated that despite the address of the Bank of the Division of the Superior Court that addressed the Single Bank to decide the case within a month, the same has been pending.

The bank issued a notice in the matter. The matter will now be heard on March 17.

Background

The Bank of the Division of the Superior Court observed that although they were of the opinion that the single judge should not have granted the provisional order, however, given that the admission process in the present case had already ended and the students had paid fees and joined the university, the bank from then on refused to interfere with the order.

“However, although we have argued that the interim order should not have been granted, we find that at the moment, this appeal appeared for the audience even on the first audience date, the admission process and the last admission date also ended. By virtue of the interim order, 50 seats were increased, and those seats were open through the admission through the process. Study. The court said.

Then, the bank referred to a decision of the Supreme Court at the Board of Governors in Supersion of the Medical Council of India versus Trupati Balaji Educational Trust and others in which the interference was rejected, but it was indicated that the final hearing was completed within 3 weeks and the sentence was issued within another 2 weeks so that the students did not remain without certainty.

“In view of the above, although we have argued that the interim order must not have been granted, at this stage, we are not inclined to set aside the intermediate order, but we request the single judge to decide the case. We address the parties to complete their allegations within a period of 10 days today. We request the single judge learned here to the expedited request and decide the same period of a period of a period of a month from the end of the end of the end of the end today.

In response to a public notice, the defendant University had requested the establishment of the university with an intake of 150 students. They were issued a notice of show cause that required some compliance. A compliance report was presented, but when a physical inspection was carried out, the advisor found some deficiencies and the Medical Evaluation and Qualification Board (“The Board”) disapproved the establishment of the university.

The appeal was presented by the respondents that was dismissed. In the second appeal, permission was granted for 50 intakes. Unsatisfied with the same, the respondents presented a request for a court order before the Superior Court in which the single judge approved a provisional order and allowed an increase in intake to 100. Admissions in relation to these 50 seats also took place. Against this appeal was presented.

Case details: National Medical Commission vs. Union of India | SLP (c) No. 005259 – / 2025