Case: Annaii Medical College &amp; Hospital &amp; Another Vs. Union of India &amp; Another

Occupancy on the day of assessment was only 51.6%. It was also noticed that the Hospital, with so many indoor patients, had not utilized any blood unit after 30th July, 2016. Indeed, the petitioners have asserted that the concerned staff who was maintaining the Blood Bank Register was not available and the “up-to-date register” was kept by him in his locker. This explanation did not find favour with the authorities. The other critical deficiency noticed in the Assessment Report was that only 76 paramedical & non-teaching staff were available as against requirement of 100. The statutory scheme provides for a minimum ratio of staff and Beds to be maintained. The OC, however, brushed aside these deficiencies by observing that there was no minimum standard requirement MSR in that regard.10. Considering the above, it is not possible to countenance the argument of the petitioners that the view taken by the Competent Authority is unjust, manifestly wrong or suffers from the vice of extraneous consideration. The impugned decision dated 10th August, 2017 refers to all the relevant materials pointing towards the deficiencies in the college which still persisted, notwithstanding the undertaking given by the college to remove the same. That undertaking was the basis for issuing conditional LOP for the academic session 2016-2017.11. Be that as it may, it is also not possible to sustain the argument of the petitioners that the impugned decision is a mechanical order passed by the Competent Authority. Similar argument has been considered and rejected in the case of Royal Medical Trust (supra). The dictum in paragraph 52 of the said decision will apply on all fours. The same reads thus:-“52. What Dr. Dhawan submits basically is that as the order passed by the Central Government after the order passed by the High Court of Kerala does not really reflect any reason, this Court should axe the same treating it as arbitrary and grant the LOP and that would be within the power of judicial review. The order passed by the Central Government has to be appreciated in its entirety. We repeat at the cost of repetition that neither the Central Government nor the Hearing Committee is expected to pass a judgment as a Judge is expected to do. The order must reflect application of mind and should indicate reasons. We may reiterate that the order dated 31st May, 2017, was bereft of reason, but the order impugned, that is the order dated 14th August, 2017, cannot be said to be sans reason. Learned senior counsel would contend with all the vigour at his command that it is not a reasoned one and for the same 23 (2004) 2 SCC 150 50 our attention has been drawn to the penultimate paragraph of the order.”12. Notably, this Court in the aforementioned case of Royal Medical Trust (supra), has ordained that no relief can be granted to such institutions to admit students for the academic session 2017-2018, since, the cut-off date for the admission to the MBBS course is over and the academic session has commenced. Resultantly, we may mould the relief as done in the case of Varunarjun Trust and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (Writ Petition (C) No. 787 of 2017, decided on 12.09.2017)wherein it is observed thus:-“18. Be that as it may, the opinion of the Hearing Committee, which is the basis for passing the impugned decision, is founded on the performance of the college on the day of inspection dated 18th – 19th November, 2016. The question is: whether absence of faculty members and residents on the given day, assuming it to be substantial in number, per se, could be the basis for determining the efficiency and performance of the college for the rest of the academic session while considering the proposal for grant of permission? There is nothing in the opinion of the Hearing Committee or the decision of the Competent Authority that requisite number of faculty members and residents was not employed in the petitioner college or that the claim of the petitioner college in that behalf was bogus. The noting is about the absence of such large number of faculty and residents on the day of inspection and during the duty hours. Assuming that the college could not secure the presence of those persons at the time of inspection, it does not follow that those faculty members and residents were not on the pay roll and in the employment of the petitioner college. This aspect certainly requires proper verification and consideration by the concerned authority.19. A priori, we may adopt the course as in the case of World College of Medical Sciences & Research Vs. Union of India (Writ Petition (C) No. 514 of 2017, decided on 05.09.2017), by directing the respondents to allow the students already admitted in the petitioner college on the basis of conditional LOP for the academic session 2016-17, to continue their studies. The MCI shall send its Inspection Team within a period of three months to submit an assessment report regarding the overall performance and efficiency of the petitioner college and deficiencies, if any, and give time to the petitioner college to remove those deficiencies within the time specified in that regard. The petitioner medical college shall then report its compliance and communicate the removal of deficiencies to MCI, whereafter it will be open to the MCI to verify the position and then submit its recommendation to the Central Government. The Ministry shall take a final decision within one month of the receipt of the recommendation from the MCI. Until such decision is taken and communicated to the petitioners, the Bank Guarantee offered by the petitioners in the sum of Rs. Two Crore shall not be encashed by the MCI but the petitioners shall keep the same alive. In the event the final decision of the Competent Authority of the Central Government is adverse to the petitioners, it will be open to them to take recourse to such remedies as may be available in law.”

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

Explanation:
1[ds]8. On a bare perusal of the impugned decision dated 10th August, 2017, it is manifest that the Competent Authority inter alia noticed asAbsence of large number of faculty members and residents beyond the permissible limit on the day of inspection.(ii) Explanation offered by the petitioners about the absence of faculty members and residents due to leave granted to them and also because the inspection was done just after Dewali festival, was unsatisfactory.(iii) Explanation regarding one faculty was not accepted as he was present during the Government college inspection in September.(iv) No compliance was provided in respect of other deficiencies.As regards the deficiencies of faculty members and residents, it was contended before the Hearing Committee that the absence of such large number of medical staff was mainly attributable to Diwali festival. The Hearing Committee has dealt with that contention and noted that Diwali was on 29th October, 2016, whereas the inspection was conducted on 3rd & 4th November, 2016. That was obviously beyond two days from Diwali festival and was permissible in terms of Clause 8 (3)(1)(d) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999. A similar argument has been considered and rejected by this Court in the case of Shri Venkateshwara University Vs. Union of India (Writ Petition (C) No. 445 of 2017, decided on 01.09.2017)and in Royal Medical Trust & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr. (Writ Petition (C) No. 747 of 2017, decided on 12.09.2017)Hence, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Competent Authority. The Hearing Committee also considered the explanation given by the petitioners regarding one faculty whose presence was noticed during the inspection of the Government College in September, 2016. The Hearing Committee then observed that the college could not provide compliance in respect of other deficiencies. The other deficiencies noticed in the Assessment Report dated 3rd & 4th November, 2016, which remained unexplained, were very significant and cannot be overlooked. It is seen that the Bed Occupancy on the day of assessment was only 51.6%. It was also noticed that the Hospital, with so many indoor patients, had not utilized any blood unit after 30th July, 2016. Indeed, the petitioners have asserted that the concerned staff who was maintaining the Blood Bank Register was not available and theas kept by him in his locker. This explanation did not find favour with the authorities. The other critical deficiency noticed in the Assessment Report was that only 76 paramedical &Be that as it may, it is also not possible to sustain the argument of the petitioners that the impugned decision is a mechanical order passed by the Competent Authority. Similar argument has been considered and rejected in the case of Royal Medical Trust (supra).Notably, this Court in the aforementioned case of Royal Medical Trust (supra), has ordained that no relief can be granted to such institutions to admit students for the academic sessionoff date for the admission to the MBBS course is over and the academic session has commenced. Resultantly, we may mould the relief as done in the case of Varunarjun Trust and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (Writ Petition (C) No. 787 of 2017, decided on 12.09.2017)