Post-facto regulatory approval validates interim admissions, entitling students to professional registration and practice rights.

The petitioner, a Homeopathic Medical College established in 2002-03 with an intake of 100 seats, challenged an order dated September 4, 2018, issued by the Union of India (Respondent No. 1).

This order denied the college permission to admit students for the academic year 2018-19 based on three alleged deficiencies: non-availability of an Ultrasound (USG) machine, the teaching hospital being located 4 km from the college, and the absence of specific modern medicine consultants (Pediatrician, Dentist, Physician).

On October 16, 2018, a coordinate Bench granted interim relief allowing admissions, noting the deficiencies were either curable or not in violation of existing regulations.

While the matter was pending and after an unsuccessful appeal by the authorities in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 1360 of 2018, the Medical Assessment and Rating Board for Homoeopathy issued post-facto sanction for the 2018-19 session via orders dated November 20 and 21, 2025.

1. Whether the deficiencies cited by the Respondent No. 1 (lack of USG, distance of hospital, and lack of permanent modern medicine consultants) were sufficient to deny admission permissions under the applicable regulations.

2. Whether the post-facto sanction issued by the Medical Assessment and Rating Board for Homoeopathy regularizes the status of students admitted under the court's interim order.

Homoeopathy Central Council (Minimum Standard Requirements of Homoeopathic Colleges and attached Hospitals) Regulations, 2013 (HCC (MSR) Regulation, 2013).

Regulation 3(2), which allows colleges to have Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) with nearby super-specialty hospitals for clinical exposure.

Regulation 9(2), which permits the appointment of modern medicine consultants on a contract, part-time, or "on-call" basis rather than requiring full-time staff.

The court found that the initial denial of permission was legally untenable. Regarding the USG machine, the court noted that the petitioner had an MOU with a hospital and had already initiated the registration process for its own machine, making the deficiency minor and curable.

Regarding the hospital distance, the court observed that the 2013 Regulations do not define "attached hospital" as requiring the hospital to be on the same campus, and a 4 km distance with provided transport was sufficient.

Regarding the consultants, the court held that the denial violated Regulation 9(2), which expressly permits "on-call" appointments.

The court reasoned that since the authorities themselves regularized the session via the post-facto sanction granted by Respondent No. 2.2 in 2025, the students—who had already completed their course during the litigation—should not be deprived of their right to practice.

The court directed the respondent authorities to grant all necessary permissions and licenses to the BHMS students of the 2018-19 batch to enable them to practice as Homeopathy Doctors.

The court allowed the petition and made the interim order absolute, specifically confining the relief to the 2018-19 academic session.