Case: Varunarjun Trust Vs. Union Of India

such an institute will not be considered for issue of renewal of permission in that Academic Year and further such ain institute will not be considered for processing applications for Postgraduate courses in that Academic Year and will be issued show cause notices as to why the recommendations for withdrawal of recognition of the courses run by that institute should not be made for undergraduate and postgraduate courses which are recognised u/s 11(2) of the IMC Act, 1956 along with direction of stoppage of admissions in permitted postgraduate courses.In Clause 8(3)(1)(d) under the heading "Colleges which are found to have employed teachers with fake/forged documents: the second paragraph shall be substituted as:-"However, the office of the Council shall ensure that such inspections are not carried out at least 2 days before and 2 days after important religious and festival holidays declared by the Central/State Govt."4. The Council may obtain any other information from the proposed medical college as it deems fit and necessary.Whenever the Council in its report has not recommended the issue of Letter of Intent to the person, it may upon being so required by the Central Government reconsider the application and take into account new or additional information as may be forwarded by the Central Government. The Council shall, thereafter, submit its report in the same manner as prescribed for the initial report."Considering the requirements of the scheme and as the petitioner college failed to fulfil the conditions specified by the OC as incorporated in the formal conditional Letter of Permission dated 12th September, 2016, the question of confirming the Letter of Permission for the academic session 2016-17 without removal of deficiencies in all respects does not arise. The petitioner college must first remove all those deficiencies to become eligible for confirmation of LOP, as per the undertaking given by the college in that regard.16. The petitioners have relied upon recent decisions of this Court dealing with similar issues in the cases viz Dr. Jagat Narain Subharti Charitable Trust & Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., Writ Petition (C) No. 513 of 2017, decided on 30.08.2017. ; Gangajali Education Society & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (C) No.709 of 2017, decided on 31.08.2017.; Saraswati Educational Charitable Trust & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (C) No. 515 of 2017, decided on 01.09.2017.; Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences & Research & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., Writ Petition (C) No. 496 of 2017, decided on 31.08.2017. to contend that in similar situations, this Court preferred to rely on the opinion given by the OC and overturned the conclusion reached by the Competent Authority of the Central Government for debarring the concerned institution from admitting students for a period of two years and authorising MCI to encash bank guarantee of Rs. 2 Crore. This submission does not commend us. For, the dictum in those cases is contextual and on facts of those cases. In the present case, the Hearing Committee has duly considered the explanation offered by the college. It has, however, rejected the same for the reasons recorded in the impugned decision. The fact that specific reference to the opinion of the OC is absent in the conclusion recorded by the Hearing Committee, it does not follow that the issue has not been considered by the Hearing Committee or by the Central Government. The Competent Authority in the final decision after adverting to the observations of the OC and also of the Hearing Committee has noted that the absence of such large number of faculties and residents during duty hours was unacceptable and, moreso, failure of the college to ensure presence of 5 (five) residents on night off and yet could not come, even late, for the head count nor was it reflected in the SAF. This aspect has not been dealt with by the OC in its opinion dated 14th May, 2017. Therefore, non-acceptance of the explanation offered by the college by the Hearing Committee and the Competent Authority of the Central Government, cannot be said to be irrelevant, unjust or for extraneous consideration.17. As stated earlier, the college had failed to produce supportive documents or evidence about 6 (six) minor operations on the day of assessment. No doubt, the OC accepted the explanation of the college by holding that there was no Minimum Standard Requirement (for short `MSR) in that behalf. The finding in the assessment report was that there was only one minor operation on the day of assessment whereas the college claimed to have conducted 6 (six) operations. Nothing prevented the college from producing documents or evidence in support of that claim before the Hearing Committee. It was open to the petitioners to invite the attention of the Hearing Committee to such documents, if already placed on record during the earlier hearing. That was obviously not done. Else, the Hearing Committee in its conclusion submitted to the Ministry may have referred to it. The Hearing Committee has noted that even the relevant list/documents in relation to paramedical non-teaching staff was not produced before it. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of this factual position noted by the Hearing Committee. In any case, since the deficiencies in respect of faculty (16.79%) and residents (21.73%) remains unexplained and being significant, the same cannot be overlooked. This appears to be the view taken by the Hearing Committee and the Competent Authority of the Central Government.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?

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

Explanation:
1[ds]12. We must first answer the submission of the petitioners that the satisfaction recorded by the OC whilst accepting the explanation offered by the petitioners was binding on the Central Government. We do not agree with this submission. It is one thing to say that the satisfaction/opinion recorded by the OC constituted by this Court is a relevant matter and which must receive due attention of the Hearing Committee as well as the Central Government. But it is not possible to accept the contention that the opinion of OC must bind the Hearing Committee and the Central Government whilst discharging their statutory duties, moreso, when the legislative scheme of the Act has bestowed the final authority upon the Central Government to grant or refuse to grant permission in terms of Section10A of thethis case, the deficiency of faculty and residents was significant, besides the other two deficiencies taken note of by the Hearing Committee and the Central Government in the impugned decision. For that, the college did not produce supportive documents or evidence in respect of its claim of 6 (six) minor operations and list of paramedicalstaff. These deficiencies cannot be treated as trivial or unrelated to maintenance of high standards of imparting medical education.14. We are conscious of the fact that the proposal under consideration was for establishment of a new medical college from academic sessionand that has to be examined keeping in mind the norms specified in the statutory scheme formulated regarding permission to establish a new medical college. That scheme postulates the minimum standard of education, which has been formulated by the MCI in terms of Sectionof the Act. The scheme provides for minimum infrastructure facilities and staff requirements for 100 admissions. It also provides guidance as to how deficiency in respect of those matters should be calculated. The Medical Council of India has published those norms and the schemes for requirements to be fulfilled by the applicant College(s) for obtaining Letter of Intent and Letter of Permission for establishment of a new medical college and for yearly renewal under Section10A of thethe requirements of the scheme and as the petitioner college failed to fulfil the conditions specified by the OC as incorporated in the formal conditional Letter of Permission dated 12th September, 2016, the question of confirming the Letter of Permission for the academic sessionwithout removal of deficiencies in all respects does not arise. The petitioner college must first remove all those deficiencies to become eligible for confirmation of LOP, as per the undertaking given by the college in thatsubmission does not commend us. For, the dictum in those cases is contextual and on facts of those cases. In the present case, the Hearing Committee has duly considered the explanation offered by the college. It has, however, rejected the same for the reasons recorded in the impugned decision. The fact that specific reference to the opinion of the OC is absent in the conclusion recorded by the Hearing Committee, it does not follow that the issue has not been considered by the Hearing Committee or by the Central Government. The Competent Authority in the final decision after adverting to the observations of the OC and also of the Hearing Committee has noted that the absence of such large number of faculties and residents during duty hours was unacceptable and, moreso, failure of the college to ensure presence of 5 (five) residents on night off and yet could not come, even late, for the head count nor was it reflected in the SAF. This aspect has not been dealt with by the OC in its opinion dated 14th May, 2017. Therefore,of the explanation offered by the college by the Hearing Committee and the Competent Authority of the Central Government, cannot be said to be irrelevant, unjust or for extraneous consideration.17. As stated earlier, the college had failed to produce supportive documents or evidence about 6 (six) minor operations on the day of assessment. No doubt, the OC accepted the explanation of the college by holding that there was no Minimum Standard Requirement (for short `MSR) in that behalf. The finding in the assessment report was that there was only one minor operation on the day of assessment whereas the college claimed to have conducted 6 (six) operations. Nothing prevented the college from producing documents or evidence in support of that claim before the Hearing Committee. It was open to the petitioners to invite the attention of the Hearing Committee to such documents, if already placed on record during the earlier hearing. That was obviously not done. Else, the Hearing Committee in its conclusion submitted to the Ministry may have referred to it. The Hearing Committee has noted that even the relevant list/documents in relation to paramedicalstaff was not produced before it. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of this factual position noted by the Hearing Committee. In any case, since the deficiencies in respect of faculty (16.79%) and residents (21.73%) remains unexplained and being significant, the same cannot be overlooked. This appears to be the view taken by the Hearing Committee and the Competent Authority of the Central Government.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 18th19th November, 2016.