Case: Indian Centre for Advancement of Research & Education Haldia (ICARE) & Another Vs. Union of India & Another


Decision:
1[ds]As is evincible, the aforesaid Regulations deal with various stages and the requirements under Sectionand Section 11 (2) of the Act.31. The aforesaid Regulations, as we perceive, deal with the compliance verification. In the instant case, after the College submitted that it had complied with deficiencies pointed out by the team of assessors, the MCI thought it necessary to have an inspection. It is not in dispute that the said inspection was a surprise inspection and further it was, as the MCI perceived, required to be done to verify whether the institution was really compliant or not. In the verification report dated 24.04.2017, as the assessors have pointed out, there are number of deficiencies.32.The stand of the petitioners is that such verification is impermissible and grossly mala fide. In IQ City Foundation (supra), the, after referring to the authority in Royal Medical Trust (supra) has held that the emphasis on the compliant institutions that can really educate doctors by imparting quality education so that they will have inherent as well as the cultivated attributes of excellence. There can be no scintilla of doubt that an institution that imparts medical education has to remain ever compliant.The aforesaid passage lays stress how the educational institutions are to be compliant to have the requirements as per the Act and the Regulations and not to take shelter under a subterfuge or lean upon a contrived situation to exhibit justification. Thus analysed, the grievance agitated pertaining to surprise inspection with keen acumen does not commend acceptance. The attack on the compliance report on asseverations of mala fide, if we allow ourselves to say so, does not deserve acceptance. Whether there is mala fide or not, depends upon the facts and circumstances of theallegation of mala fide does not vitiate an enquiry or proceeding. As we see, in the instant case, the allegations have been made against the assessors who are experts in the field and we find no reason to attribute any kind of malice or mala fide to them. In the absence of any kind of material brought on record, the mere allegations that there was a surprise inspection, within a fortnight, would not make the inspection a tainted one.As noted earlier, an institution has to remain compliant and necessity for remaining compliant becomes more important as the institution enters the renewal year and thereafter for grant of approval and recognition under Section 11(2) of the Act. At the time of consideration of recognition, the compliance is viewed and scrutinized with great rigour and strictness. What may be treated as a minor deficiency at the initial stage may not remain so when the institution/college proceeds from year to year. In the instant case, we have already held that surprise inspection in law is permissible and the said inspection is not tainted with mala fide, as alleged. Once we arrive at such irresistible conclusion, the order passed by the Central Government with the assistance of the Hearing Committee cannot be flawed.