Case: BOARD OF GOVERNORS IN SUPERSESSION OF MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA Vs. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH

years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 only. He further submitted that any ambiguity in the interpretation of the note attached to the notification dated 07.06.2017 was also cleared by the non-applicability of the note to the aforementioned courses. He submitted that the First Respondent had indulged in forum shopping by approaching the Rajasthan High Court as the earlier Writ Petitions were filed by the First Respondent in the Delhi High Court. He submitted that the High Court was not right in holding that the recommendations made by the Appellant were not accepted by the Second Respondent. He stated that the decision taken by the Committee constituted under Section 20 of the Act had become final as it was accepted by the Appellant Council. He further urged that there would be no surprise element in the inspection which was directed to be conducted by the High Court within a period of one week. 7. It was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the First Respondent that there is no complaint of lack of infrastructure and other facilities in respect of the College which has been running Under Graduate courses from the year 2004. Permission was granted to start Post Graduate courses and seats were enhanced for M.S. (Ophthalmology) and M.D. (General Medicine). It was submitted that from 2014 onwards, the First Respondent-Institute was being harassed by the Appellant by not accepting the compliance reports submitted by the First Respondent regarding the deficiencies pointed out. Mr. Kaul submitted that admissions made to the PG courses after the year 2014 were being regularly intimated to the Appellant. He submitted that the recommendation made by the Appellant Council to restrain the First Respondent from making admissions for five years by the proceedings dated 14.04.2017 was not accepted by the Second Respondent. The notification dated 07.06.2017 dealt with recognition of the qualifications in respect of the students who were admitted for the academic years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 and trained in the First Respondent- Institute on or after 2014. He submitted that the words on or after 2014 are significant and such of those students who were trained after the year 2014 were also entitled for a recognized medical qualification. He relied upon a note to the notification dated 07.06.2017 to argue that the recognition granted to the Post Graduate courses shall be for a maximum period of five years after which it shall have to be renewed. In response to the allegation of forum shopping, he submitted that the First Respondent is situated in Jaipur and there was no bar on filing a Writ Petition in the Rajasthan High Court. Mr. Kaul urged that the First Respondent cannot be accused of forum shopping for approaching Rajasthan High Court merely because the earlier two Writ Petitions were filed at the Delhi High Court. 8. Mr. Ranjit Kumar submitted that there is no shortage of the requisite facilities and the First Respondent-Institute fulfils the minimum requirements which is evident from the fact that the Appellant conducted inspections for the other P .G. courses. He stated that the application filed for enhancement of seats on 06.04.2018 has not been considered by the Appellant and having no other alternative, the First Respondent approached the High Court as the last date for grant of permission was 28.02.2019. The learned Senior Counsel urged that the interim order passed by the High Court does not warrant interference. 9. The interim order passed by the High Court on 21.02.2019 is on the basis that the recommendation made on 14.04.2017 by the Appellant to bar admissions for five years to M.S. (Orthopedics) and M.D. (Radio Diagnosis) courses has not been accepted by the Second Respondent. Consequently, the High Court was of the opinion that the Appellant was obliged to conduct an inspection. The High Court failed to examine the notification dated 07.06.2017 and the corrigendum dated 09.04.2018 before passing the impugned order. No notice was issued to the Appellant before the interim order was passed by the High Court. The direction to conduct an inspection within a period of one week ought not to have been passed by the High Court as the surprise element of the inspection would not be there. In Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India (2013) 10 SCC 60 , Para 23 , this Court observed: Surprise inspection naturally contemplates no notice, if the notice is given in advance, it would not be a surprise inspection and will give room for the College to hoodwink the assessors by springing a surprise, by making perfect what was imperfect. The Three Judge Bench in Royal Medical Trust v. Union of India (2015) 10 SCC 19 , Para 31 while laying down guidelines regarding medical college admissions emphasized that there must be a surprise element in the inspection conducted by the MCI. 10. Having challenged the corrigendum dated 09.04.2018 before the Delhi High Court, any further direction in connection with the enhancement of seats to the PG courses should have been sought by the First Respondent only in the Delhi High Court. We are refraining ourselves from entering into the merits of the matter pertaining to the interpretation of the proceedings dated 14.04.2017, (B) the notification dated 07.06.2017, and the corrigendum dated 09.04.2018 as it is the subject matter of a Writ Petition pending in the Delhi High Court. The High Court ought to have given an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant before passing the impugned order. Prima facie satisfaction of the High Court in favour of the First Respondent is without appreciation of the entire material pertaining to the dispute. Moreover, no useful purpose will be served by an inspection before the adjudication of the dispute relating to the bar imposed on the First Respondent from making admissions to the M.S. (Orthopedics) and M.D. (Radio Diagnosis) courses. In any event, the inspection which was directed to be conducted within a period of one week will not show the correct picture pertaining to the infrastructure and other facilities.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]9. The interim order passed by the High Court on 21.02.2019 is on the basis that the recommendation made on 14.04.2017 by the Appellant to bar admissions for five years to M.S. (Orthopedics) and M.D. (Radio Diagnosis) courses has not been accepted by the Second Respondent. Consequently, the High Court was of the opinion that the Appellant was obliged to conduct an inspection. The High Court failed to examine the notification dated 07.06.2017 and the corrigendum dated 09.04.2018 before passing the impugned order. No notice was issued to the Appellant before the interim order was passed by the High Court. The direction to conduct an inspection within a period of one week ought not to have been passed by the High Court as the surprise element of the inspection would not be there10. Having challenged the corrigendum dated 09.04.2018 before the Delhi High Court, any further direction in connection with the enhancement of seats to the PG courses should have been sought by the First Respondent only in the Delhi High Court. We are refraining ourselves from entering into the merits of the matter pertaining to the interpretation of the proceedings dated 14.04.2017,(B) the notification dated 07.06.2017, and the corrigendum dated 09.04.2018 as it is the subject matter of a Writ Petition pending in the Delhi High Court. The High Court ought to have given an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant before passing the impugned order. Prima facie satisfaction of the High Court in favour of the First Respondent is without appreciation of the entire material pertaining to the dispute. Moreover, no useful purpose will be served by an inspection before the adjudication of the dispute relating to the bar imposed on the First Respondent from making admissions to the M.S. (Orthopedics) and M.D. (Radio Diagnosis) courses. In any event, the inspection which was directed to be conducted within a period of one week will not show the correct picture pertaining to the infrastructure and other facilities.