Case: Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Union of India &amp; Another

any deficiencies or shortcomings, MCI must, after pointing out the deficiencies, grant to the college concerned sufficient time to report compliance.(D) If compliance is reported and the applicant states that the deficiencies stand removed, MCI must cause compliance verification. It is possible that such compliance could be accepted even without actual physical verification but that assessment be left entirely to the discretion of MCI and the Central Government. In cases where actual physical verification is required, MCI and the Central Government must cause such verification before the deadline.(E) The result of such verification if positive in favour of the medical college concerned, the applicant ought to be given requisite permission/renewal. But if the deficiencies still persist or had not been removed, the applicant will stand disentitled so far as that academic year is concerned."20. As the findings in the inspections conducted by the MCI on 29/30.12.2015, 10.3.2016 and 28/29.12.2016 would reveal several deficiencies including those in faculty, residents, OPD attendance, bed occupancy etc. had been detected. Whereas as per the said reports, the deficiency in faculty had fluctuated from 22.72% to 46.15%, in residents, it ranged from 26.09% to 45.65%. The deficiencies in other areas, as finds mention in the reports, are also not negligible. Even the Oversight Committee in its letter dated 14.5.2017 has recorded deficiency in faculty to the tune of 9.09% and in residents at 21.74%, which exceeds the norms.21. As alluded hereinabove and as recommended by the Central Government, a fresh hearing was afforded to the petitioner/college. An analysis of the findings of the Hearing Committee, on the basis of which the impugned order dated 10.8.2017 has been issued, reveals the following features:a) The college had accepted that seven faculty and eleven residents were deficient on the date of inspection, which however, it claimed was 5% and 2% respectively.b) The college had furnished bank statement of salary payment of 106 faculty/residents.c) The college had informed that bio metric instruments had arrived but not installed.d) There was some shortfall of clinical material, but the college seemed to be making earnest efforts to increase patient load.e) The contention of the college that delivery patients were hard to get in private hospitals due to attractive maternity welfare scheme was acceptable.f) The college had informed that normal functioning of the hospital was disrupted in the aftermath of cyclone Vardah, though it was on 12.12.2016 and the inspection was done on 28.12.2016.g) The disruption factor would also get offset to some extent by the increase in number of patients due to various disease factors, post cyclone.22. In the face of the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI and the part acceptance thereof by the petitioner/college, the decision to debar it from admitting students in the MBBS course for the next two academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and to permit encashment of bank guarantee by the MCI was endorsed.23 True it is that as explicated on umpteen occasions and very recently in Royal Medical Trust (supra) the exercise of power of judicial review and the extent to which it has to be done would vary from case to case and would depend, amongst others on the factual projections. The following observations to this effect in the above decision succinctly adumbrates this postulation:"50.Thus analysed, it is evincible that the exercise of power of judicial review and the extent to which it has to be done will vary from case to case. It is necessary to state with emphasis that it has its own complexity and would depend upon the factual projection. The broad principles have been laid down in Tata Cellular (supra) and other decisions make it absolutely clear that judicial review, by no stretch of imagination, can be equated with the power of appeal, for while exercising the power under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution, the constitutional courts do not exercise such power. The process of adjudication on merit by re-appreciation of the materials brought on record which is the duty of the appellate court is not permissible."24. Thus, in exercise of power of judicial review, re-appreciation of the materials on record, as otherwise warranted by an appellate forum is both inexpedient and uncalled for. In the backdrop of the deficiencies recorded in the successive inspections conducted by the MCI as noted by the Hearing Committee as well as the rival assertions vis-a-vis the same, it is not possible to readily discard the eventual findings recorded by the Hearing Committee and in the impugned order dated 10.8.2017, as bereft of any reason. This is more so, in the face of the statutory obligation cast on the MCI under the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder to sustain and enhance the excellence in medical eduction which eventually would cater to the exigencies of public health.25. In Royal Medical Trust (supra) again, this Court while responding to the assailment of the order impugned therein to be bereft of reasons, enunciated that the order passed has to be appreciated in its entirety and neither the Central Government nor the Hearing Committee is expected to pass a judgment as a Judge is expected to do. It was observed that the order must reflect application of mind and should indicate reasons. The plea based on want of reasons was negated.26. In any view of the matter, the respondents are the best judge to assess the findings in the inspection reports cumulatively on the touchstone of the statutory imperatives to ensure the required standard of medical education and achieve the paramount and salutary objective of the desired quality of health facilities in the public sector. In a way, a court is ill equipped for want of judicially manageable parameters to substitute the findings of experts on such issue by its views, which otherwise is inexpedient as well.27. In the overall factual setting and on a consideration of the materials on record in entirety, we do not feel persuaded in the facts and circumstances of the case to interfere with the impugned decision for want of reasons.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]20. As thein the inspectionsby the MCI on29/30.12.2015, 10.3.2016 and 28/29.12.2016 would reveal several deficiencies including those in faculty, residents,, bed occupancy etc. had been detected. Whereas as per the said reports, the deficiency in faculty had fluctuated from 22.72% to 46.15%, in residents, it ranged from 26.09% to 45.65%. The deficiencies in other areas, as finds mention in the reports, are also not negligible. Even the Oversight Committee in its letter dated 14.5.2017 has recorded deficiency in faculty to the tune of 9.09% and in residents at 21.74%, which exceeds the norms.21. As alluded hereinabove and ashe Central Government,a fresh hearing was afforded to the petitioner/college. An analysis of the findings of the Hearing Committee, on the basis of which the impugned order dated 10.8.2017 has been issued, reveals the followingThe college had accepted that seven faculty and elevennt on the date of inspection, which however, it claimed was 5% and 2% respectively.b) The college had furnished bank statement of salary payment of 106 faculty/residents.c) The college had informed that bio metric instruments had arrived but not installed.d) There was some shortfall of clinical material, but the college seemedmaking earnest efforts to increase patient load.e) The contention of the college that deliverye hard to get in privatehospitals due to attractive maternity welfare scheme was acceptable.f) The college had informed that normal functioning of the hospital was disrupted in the aftermath of cyclone Vardah, though it was on 12.12.2016 and the inspection was done on 28.12.2016.g) The disruption factor would also get offset to some extent by the increase ints due to various disease factors, post cyclone.In the face of the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI and the part acceptance thereof by theon to debar it from admittinghe MBBS course for the next two academic years19 and to permit encashment of bank guarantee by the MCI was endorsed.23 True it is that as explicated on umpteen occasions and very recently in Royal Medical Trust (supra) the exercise ofal review and the extent to which it hasne would vary from case to case and would depend, amongst others on the factual projections.Thus, in exercise ofon of the materials on record, as otherwise warranted by an appellate forum is both inexpedient and uncalled for. In the backdrop of the deficiencies recorded in the successive inspectionsby the MCId by theHearing Committee as well as the rival assertionsthe same, it is not possible to readily discard the eventual findingshe Hearing Committeeand in the impugned order dated 10.8.2017, as bereft of any reason. This is more so, in the face of the statutory obligation cast on the MCI under the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder to sustain and enhance the excellence in medical eduction which eventually would cater to the exigencies of public health.In any view of the matter, the respondents are the best judge to assess thein the inspectionreports cumulatively on the touchstone of the statutory imperatives to ensure the required standard of medical education and achieve the paramount and salutary objective of the desired quality of healthlic sector. In a way, a court is ill equipped for want of judicially manageable parameters to substitute the findings of experts on such issue by its views, which otherwise is inexpedient as well.27. In the overall factual setting and on a consideration of the materials on record in entirety, we do not feel persuaded in the facts and circumstances of the case to interfere with the impugned decision for want of reasons.