Nezamia Unani Medical College and Hospital (NUMCH) vs The Union of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.635 of 2026
======================================================
1. Nezamia Unani Medical College and Hospital (NUMCH) Through its
Authorized Representative, Dr. Khwaja Salman Sharique, aged about 48
years- male, Associate Professor, S/o Md. Salik, Office- Dumri, Via
Buniyadganj, P.O. Kasulpur, P.S. Chakand, District Gaya, Bihar- 823003.
2. Dr. Khwaja Salman Sharique, S/o Md. Satik, Office- Dumri, Via
Buniyadganj, P.O. Rasulpur, Dist. Gaya, Bihar 823003, Authorized
Representative and Associate Professor Nezamia Unani Medical College and
Hospital (NUMCH) Associate Professor and Authorized Representative-
Nezamia Unani Medical College and Hospital (NUMCH).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India Though the Secretary, Ministry of Ayush, Government of
India, Ayush Bhawan, B Block, GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi 110023.
2. The National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NCISM),
Through its Ld. Chairman/ Secretary, Office at T-19, 1st and 2nd Floor,
Block- IV, Dhanwantri Bhawan, Road No.- 66, Punjabi Bagh (West), New
Delhi-110026.
3. The Union of India, The Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB).
4. The Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (BCECEB),
Through its Officer on Special Duty/Controller of Examination, I.A.S.
Association Building, Near Patna Airport, Patna-14.
5. The State of Bihar, Through the Secretary, Main Secretariat, Patna- 800015.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shafiuddin Ahmad, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha, SC 26
Mr. Tripurari Nath Amastha, AC to SC 26
For the BCECEB : Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv.
For the Res. Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Dipak Kumar, Adv.
=======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL 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.

Patna High Court CWJC No.635 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
2/6
Prabhat Kumar, learned Advocate appears for the Bihar
Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board. The State
is represented through Mr. Tripurari Nath Ambastha, learned
Advocate.
2. 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.

Patna High Court CWJC No.635 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
3/6
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Mr. Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the National

Patna High Court CWJC No.635 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
4/6
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.
6. 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

Patna High Court CWJC No.635 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
5/6
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.
7. 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.
8. 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

Patna High Court CWJC No.635 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
6/6
petitioners’ institution in accordance with the mandate of
NCISM Act, 2020 and take further appropriate decision.
9. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ
petition stands closed.

(Harish Kumar, J)
Anjani/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 02.09.2026
Transmission Date