Ayurveda College Regains 20 Seats as Gujarat HC Says NCISM’s Intake Cut Came Too Late Under 60-Day Rule

In brief

The question

Whether the orders reducing the petitioners’ intake were invalid because they were issued beyond the period prescribed by Regulation 55(8)

The court held

The Court held that the reduction orders were unsustainable under Regulation 55(8), allowed the petition, and quashed the Board’s order dated 20 August 2026 and NCISM’s consequential order dated 21 October 2026

It also directed

Respondent No. 3 was directed to permit the petitioners to participate in the admission process with their original intake capacity of 100 seats and to allot students in accordance with the applicable admission procedure

01Facts

The petitioners challenged the Medical Assessment and Rating Board’s order dated 20 August 2026, which reduced their intake from 100 to 80 seats, and NCISM’s order dated 21 October 2026 confirming that reduction

pp. 2, 5–6

They contended that Regulation 55(8) of the 2024 Regulations required the authority to communicate its decision at least 60 days before the first round of common counselling.

pp. 3–4

The first round commenced on 25 August 2026, and the Board’s order was issued on 20 August 2026

pp. 3–4

Respondents 1 and 2 did not dispute that the order was made beyond the period prescribed by Regulation 55(8)

p. 4

02Issues

i.Whether the orders reducing the petitioners’ intake were invalid because they were issued beyond the period prescribed by Regulation 55(8)

pp. 2–4, 6

ii.Whether, upon the authority’s failure to communicate its decision within that period, the petitioners were entitled under Regulation 55(8) to participate in admissions with their original sanctioned intake of 100 seats

pp. 4–5

03Law Applied

Regulation 55(8) of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (Minimum Essential Standards, Assessment and Rating for Undergraduate Ayurveda Colleges and Attached Teaching Hospitals) Regulations, 2024, requires the competent authority to communicate its decision within the stipulated period of 60 days before commencement of All India Counselling.

pp. 4–5

As the Court construed it, where an institute granted Extended Permission receives no communication within that period, the Regulation’s deeming provision entitles the institute to participate in the admission process with its original sanctioned intake.

pp. 4–5

An adverse decision issued after the prescribed period cannot defeat that entitlement

pp. 4–5

04Reasoning

The Court treated the timing of the Board’s order as undisputed and applied Regulation 55(8)’s express deeming consequence.

pp. 4–6

Because the authority had not communicated its decision within the prescribed period, the statutory consequence had already taken effect.

pp. 4–6

Allowing the later reduction order to override that consequence would render the deeming provision nugatory and defeat the entitlement arising by operation of law.

pp. 4–6

The Board’s order was therefore contrary to the Regulation, and the consequential NCISM order could not stand

pp. 4–6