Case: Karpagam Faculty Of Medicl Sciences And Research Vs. Union Of India

by the MCI as well as the Hearing Committee.17. The bed occupancy noticed in the assessment report dated 10th April, 2017 is 62.76% as against the claim made by the college of 78%. The claim of the college was found to be highly inflated. Even in the earlier assessment reports comments have been made regarding the bed occupancy to be tailor made to suit the assessment. Suffice it to observe that the Hearing Committee, during the reconsideration, was not convinced about the deficiency regarding bed occupancy until it was physically verified. It is not for this Court to sit over the satisfaction of the expert body and of the Competent Authority of the Central Government as a Court of appeal.18. The appellant would then contend that it was not permissible for the MCI to carry out successive inspections. Reliance has been placed on the dictum of this Court in Kanachur Islamic Education Trust v. Union of India and Anr., (2017) 10 SCALE 321 , decided on 30th August, 2017. This submission does not commend us. For, in the aforementioned case, this Court found that it was unambiguously clear that the inspection of the concerned college was already conducted on 17th/18th November, 2016 and it did not divulge any substantial deficiency so as to justify disapproval. Further, no reason was assigned for the surprise inspection carried out on 9th/10th December, 2016, in a short span of less than one month. In that backdrop the Court held that the justification for such surprise inspection was not explained by the MCI. In the subsequent decision in the case of Royal Medical Trust & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., W.P.(C) No.747 of 2017, decided on 12th September, 2017, the decision in Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (supra) has been explained and the argument under consideration has been rejected. Be that as it may, in the present case, it is not a case of successive surprise inspections. For, the inspection conducted on 17th February, 2017 was followed by compliance verification assessment on 15th/16th March, 2017 for considering the proposal for confirmation of renewal of LOP for the academic session 2016-17; and the inspection carried out on 10th April, 2017 was for considering the proposal regarding recognition/approval for the college from academic session 2017-18.19. Considering the above, it is not possible to doubt the decision of the Ministry dated 31st May, 2017, as confirmed on 31st August, 2017 after re-consideration. The fact that there are some factual errors committed in paragraph 13 of the impugned decision dated 31st August, 2017, regarding the chart pertaining to the some other inspection has been fairly admitted by the counsel for the respondents as a clerical error. But that would not vitiate the order dated 31st August, 2017. Because, the decision dated 31st May, 2017 is founded on the factual position stated in the recommendation of the MCI vide communications dated 24th March, 2017 and 29th April, 2017, in particular. The latter communication pertains to the proposal for grant of recognition/approval to the appellant college under Section 11(2) of the Act.20. Counsel for the appellant while referring to the communication dated 5th April, 2017 sent by the Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to the appellant college (Annexure-A/9) vehemently contended that the personal hearing before the Ministry was scheduled on 11th April, 2017, but the inspection of the college was conducted one day earlier. The argument, though attractive at first blush, will have to be rejected. In that, the personal hearing scheduled on 11th April, 2017, in terms of the said communication dated 5th April, 2017, was for considering the proposal for confirmation of renewal permission for 5th batch (150 seats) of students in MBBS course for the academic session 2016-17, under Section 10(A) of the Act and not related to the issue of grant of recognition/approval under Section 11(2) of the Act which was for the academic session 2017-18. Whereas, the inspection conducted on 10th April, 2017 was for considering the proposal for grant of recognition under Section 11 of the Act and not pertaining to the proposal for renewal of permission for the academic session 2016-17. Indisputably, the renewal of permission for the academic session 2016-17 has been confirmed by the Central Government vide order dated 31st May, 2017, despite the negative recommendation given by the MCI in that behalf. Suffice it to observe that the argument of the appellant is replete with confusion in reference to the record and proceedings relating to two different proposals, namely, one for confirmation of renewal of LOP for the academic session 2016-17 under Section 10A of the Act and another for grant of recognition/approval from academic session 2017-18 under Section 11 of the Act. The benchmark and the minimum standards for these proposals are bound to be different and we must presume that the expert body, such as MCI and the Hearing Committee in which one member of the OC also participated, were fully aware of the essentialities and pre-conditions for grant of recognition/approval. Since the decision of the Competent Authority of the Central Government is based on such inputs, it is not open for us to sit over that decision as a Court of appeal. Further, as ordained in the decision of Royal Medical Trust (supra), the relief to permit the appellants to admit students for academic session 2017-18 cannot be countenanced. In that decision, in paragraph 52, this Court has also rejected the challenge to the order such as dated 31st August, 2017, being bereft of reasons. That dictum applies on all fours to the present case.21. Accordingly, we find no merit in this appeal. Since we have already examined all the issues raised by the appellant for assailing the correctness of the order dated 31st May, 2017 and confirmation thereof on 31st August, 2017 by the Competent Authority of the Central Government, nothing would survive for consideration in the writ petition filed by the appellant before the High Court of Madras.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]10. Ordinarily, we would have relegated the parties before the High Court where the writ petition is still pending. However, as the appellant invited the order dated 11th August, 2017 from this Court and thereafter participated in the proceedings before the Competent Authority of the Central Government, which in turn, has passed the impugned order dated 31st August, 2017 afterof the matter and as the appellant has chosen to assail the same by way of an I.A. filed in this appeal, coupled with the urgency of the matter, as thedate for admission in MBBS course for the academic sessionwas to expire on 31st August, 2017; and thatdate can be extended only by this Court in exercise of the plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we permitted the appellant to agitate all the issues before this Court.11. We have reproduced the order dated 31st May, 2017, passed by the Competent Authority of the Central Government, in its entirety to discern the real issue that needs to be answered in the present appeal. As noted earlier, the said order is partly in favour of the appellant. It is adverse only to the extent of debarring the appellant college from admitting students in MBBS course (150 seats) for the academic sessionThe fact that the Competent Authority of the Central Government has confirmed the renewal of permission in favour of the appellant for academic sessionit would not follow that the appellant college is entitled to grant of recognition/approval under Section 11(2) of the Act from the academic sessionas a matter of course, without removing the deficiencies pointed out in the latest assessment report dated 10th April, 2017. The appellant, however, would contend that the correctness of the report dated 10th April, 2017, is seriously in doubt. For, the previous assessment reports made no reference to the deficiencies regarding faculty and residents in particular. The Dean of the appellant college had registered his protest and made such noting on the said reportthat he did not agree with most of the findings in the report and that he would submit a detailed reply. Indeed, the assessment reports dated 17th February, 2017 and 15th/16th March, 2017 have noted deficiencies which are not identical to the deficiencies noted in the assessment report dated 10th April, 2017. It must, however, be kept in mind that the reports are in respect of the factual position noticed during the inspection carried out on the relevant dates. The variation of deficiencies may be on account of different situations. Therefore, it may not be correct to discredit the 10th April, 2017 assessment report on the basis of such variations. It is one thing to say that the college is in a position to explain the deficiencies but whether to accept that explanation, is within the domain of the expert body. There is nothing to indicate in the communication dated 29th April, 2017 sent by the MCI or, for that matter, the impugned decision of the Competent Authority of the Central Government dated 31st May, 2017, that any plausible explanation was offered by the appellant college in regard to the stated deficiencies. Even the order dated 31st August, 2017, does not indicate as to whether any explanation was offered by the appellant college during the hearing for reconsideration by the Central Government. Notably, a member of the OC constituted by this Court was present during the hearing on 25th August, 2017. The Hearing Committee was of the view that the bed occupancy as claimed by the college cannot be validated by the Committee unless physical verification was done for that purpose. That findingthat the explanation offered by the appellant college, if any, did not commend to the Hearing Committee. The fulfilment of benchmark regarding bed occupancy for grant of recognition/approval under Section 11(2) of the Act is essential. That is a precondition for grant of recognition and can certainly be a relevant factor to be considered by the MCI as well as the Hearing Committee.17. The bed occupancy noticed in the assessment report dated 10th April, 2017 is 62.76% as against the claim made by the college of 78%. The claim of the college was found to be highly inflated. Even in the earlier assessment reports comments have been made regarding the bed occupancy to be tailor made to suit the assessment. Suffice it to observe that the Hearing Committee, during the reconsideration, was not convinced about the deficiency regarding bed occupancy until it was physically verified. It is not for this Court to sit over the satisfaction of the expert body and of the Competent Authority of the Central Government as a Court ofsubmission does not commend us. For, in the aforementioned case, this Court found that it was unambiguously clear that the inspection of the concerned college was already conducted on 17th/18th November, 2016 and it did not divulge any substantial deficiency so as to justify disapproval. Further, no reason was assigned for the surprise inspection carried out on 9th/10th December, 2016, in a short span of less than one month. In that backdrop the Court held that the justification for such surprise inspection was not explained by the MCI. In the subsequent decision in the case of Royal Medical Trust & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., W.P.(C) No.747 of 2017, decided on 12th September, 2017, the decision in Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (supra) has been explained and the argument under consideration has been rejected. Be that as it may, in the present case, it is not a case of successive surprise inspections. For, the inspection conducted on 17th February, 2017 was followed by compliance verification assessment on 15th/16th March, 2017 for considering the proposal for confirmation of renewal of LOP for the academic sessionConsidering the above, it is not possible to doubt the decision of the Ministry dated 31st May, 2017, as confirmed on 31st August, 2017 afterThe fact that there are some factual errors committed in paragraph 13 of the impugned decision dated 31st August, 2017, regarding the chart pertaining to the some other inspection has been fairly admitted by the counsel for the respondents as a clerical error. But that would not vitiate the order dated 31st August, 2017. Because, the decision dated 31st May, 2017 is founded on the factual position stated in the recommendation of the MCI vide communications dated 24th March, 2017 and 29th April, 2017, in particular. The latter communication pertains to the proposal for grant of recognition/approval to the appellant college under Section 11(2) of theargument, though attractive at first blush, will have to be rejected. In that, the personal hearing scheduled on 11th April, 2017, in terms of the said communication dated 5th April, 2017, was for considering the proposal for confirmation of renewal permission for 5th batch (150 seats) of students in MBBS course for the academic sessionunder Section 10(A) of the Act and not related to the issue of grant of recognition/approval under Section 11(2) of the Act which was for the academic sessionWhereas, the inspection conducted on 10th April, 2017 was for considering the proposal for grant of recognition under Section 11 of the Act and not pertaining to the proposal for renewal of permission for the academic sessionIndisputably, the renewal of permission for the academic sessionhas been confirmed by the Central Government vide order dated 31st May, 2017, despite the negative recommendation given by the MCI in that behalf. Suffice it to observe that the argument of the appellant is replete with confusion in reference to the record and proceedings relating to two different proposals, namely, one for confirmation of renewal of LOP for the academic sessionunder Section 10A of the Act and another for grant of recognition/approval from academic sessionunder Section 11 of the Act. The benchmark and the minimum standards for these proposals are bound to be different and we must presume that the expert body, such as MCI and the Hearing Committee in which one member of the OC also participated, were fully aware of the essentialities andfor grant of recognition/approval. Since the decision of the Competent Authority of the Central Government is based on such inputs, it is not open for us to sit over that decision as a Court of appeal. Further, as ordained in the decision of Royal Medical Trust (supra), the relief to permit the appellants to admit students for academic sessioncannot be countenanced. In that decision, in paragraph 52, this Court has also rejected the challenge to the order such as dated 31st August, 2017, being bereft of reasons. That dictum applies on all fours to the present case.21. Accordingly, we find no merit in this appeal. Since we have already examined all the issues raised by the appellant for assailing the correctness of the order dated 31st May, 2017 and confirmation thereof on 31st August, 2017 by the Competent Authority of the Central Government, nothing would survive for consideration in the writ petition filed by the appellant before the High Court of Madras