HC reprieve for medical aspirant who was denied MBBS seat

The Bombay High Court ordered Terna Medical College to admit a 22-year-old medical aspirant denied entry despite paying required fees under institutional quota.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court has ordered Terna Medical College and Hospital in Nerul to admit a 22-year-old medical aspirant who was denied admission despite being provisionally selected under the institutional quota.

HC reprieve for medical aspirant who was denied MBBS seat

The petitioner, Prasad Mashalkar, a resident of Osmanabad, had secured a seat in the college’s MBBS programme for the academic year 2024-25 under the institutional quota. As per the guidelines issued by Maharashtra’s Fee Regulating Authority (FRA), he was required to pay three times the regular fees for a seat under the quota. Accordingly, he prepared demand drafts totalling ₹26,94,000 for tuition fees, along with additional amounts for hostel and mess fees, and approached the college on October 31.

However, Mashalkar claimed that the college refused him admission, allegedly demanding five times the regular fees, in violation of the FRA regulations. When his grievances to the FRA and other authorities went unresolved, Mashalkar filed a writ petition in the high court, seeking justice.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that despite being provisionally selected and paying the required fees as prescribed by the FRA, Terna Medical College denied him admission and demanded fees beyond the permitted limit. The college’s counsel responded saying it did not deliberately deny Mashalkar admission. The college alleged that the petitioner failed to complete the required formalities and did not return to finalise the admission process before the cutoff date, resulting in all seats being filled.

A division bench of justice AS Chandurkar and justice Rajesh S Patil found that Mashalkar had promptly acted by raising his complaint with the FRA and filing the writ petition before the cutoff date of November 5, 2024. Observing that the denial of admission was not his fault, the court invoked the principle of restitutive justice and directed the creation of a supernumerary seat to ensure the petitioner’s admission.

The judgment emphasised that the college’s actions were in violation of section 14(5) of the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2015, which prohibits institutions from collecting fees for more than one academic year at a time. The FRA, which had already initiated inquiries against the college, was permitted to continue its proceedings.