Case: World College Of Medical Sciences And Research And Hospital Vs. Union Of India

follow the course adopted in the case of Shri Venkateshwara University through its Registrar and Another v. Union of India and Another, Writ Petition (C) No. 445 of 2017, decided on 1st September, 2017. and Krishna Mohan Medical College and Hospital & Anr. v. Union of India and Another, Writ Petition (C) No. 448 of 2017, decided on 1st September, 2017.. In the latter case, the Court observed thus:-"21. No endeavour whatsoever, in our comprehension, has been made by the respondents and that too in the face of an unequivocal direction by this Court, to fairly and consummately examine the materials on record in details before recording a final decision on the issue of confirmation or otherwise of the LOP granted to the petitioner college/institution as on 12.09.2016. True it is that the Regulations do provide for certain norms of infrastructure to be complied with by the applicant college/institution for being qualified for the LOP depending on the stages involved. This however does not obviate the inalienable necessity of affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the person or the college/institution concerned vis-a-vis the scheme for establishment of a college before disapproving the same. The manner in which the respondents, in the individual facts of the instant case, have approached the issue, leads to the inevitable conclusion that the materials on records do not support determinatively the allegation of deficiency in course of the process undertaken, as alleged. We are thus of the considered opinion that in view of the persistent defaults and shortcomings in the decision making process of the respondents, the petitioner college/institution ought not to be penalised. Having regard to the progression of events, the assertions made by the petitioners in the representations countering the deficiencies alleged, the observations/views expressed by the Oversight Committee in its communication dated 14.05.2017 and the DGHS in the hearing held on 17.01.2017 negate the findings with regard to the deficiencies as recorded by the assessors of the MCI in the inspections held. Consequently, on an overall view of the materials available on record and balancing all relevant aspects, we are of the considered opinion that the conditional LOP granted to the petitioner college/institution on 12.09.2016 for the academic year 2016-17 deserves to be confirmed. We order accordingly. However, as the Act and Regulations framed thereunder have been envisioned to attain the highest standards of medical education, we direct the Central Government/MCI to cause a fresh inspection of the petitioner college/institution to be made in accordance therewith for the academic year 2018-19 and lay the report in respect thereof before this Court within a period of eight weeks herefrom. A copy of the report, needless to state, would be furnished to the petitioner college/institution at the earliest so as to enable it to avail its remedies, if so advised, under the act and the Regulations. The Central Government/MCI would not encash the bank guaranteed furnished by the petitioner college/institution. For the present, the impugned order dated 10.8.2017 stands modified to this extent only. The direction for a writ, order or direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner college/institution to admit students for the academic year 2017-18, in the facts of the case, is declined. The Registry would list the writ petition and I.A. No. 73716 of 2017 immediately after the expiry of period of eight weeks, as above mentioned."In the case of Shri Venkateshwara University (supra), this Court observed thus:-"17. Though we have so held, yet we think it appropriate that the students who have been admitted in the Institution for the academic session 2016-2017, shall continue their studies. The MCI shall send the inspecting team to the Institution within a period of two months. After the report is filed, the MCI shall apprise the Institution with regard to the deficiencies and give a date for removal of the same so that the Institution would be in a position to do the needful. We may hasten to add that the inspection that will be carried out and the further follow up action shall be done for the academic session 2018-2019. 16 18. As we intend to appreciate the inspection report and the deficiencies and the action taken up thereon by the Institution, list the matter on 15th November, 2017. The renewal application that was submitted for the academic session 2017-2018 may be treated as the application for the academic session 2018-2019. The bank guarantee which has been deposited shall not be encashed and be kept alive."13. Be that as it may, we shall revert to the grievance of the petitioners that inspection could not have been conducted on 26th-27th October, 2016, as the said dates were too close to a major national festival. This argument deserves to be rejected, bearing in mind the interpretation of Clause 8(3)(1)(d) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 in the case of Shri Venkateshwara University (supra), which postulates that 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. In the present case, the head count was carried out on the first day of inspection, on 26th October, 2016, as noted in the assessment report. Diwali was on 29th October, 2016, and thus, the inspection on 26th October, 2016 in no way offended Clause 8. Further, if the argument of the petitioners was to be accepted, it would result in a situation where the inspection report dated 26th-27th October, 2016 will have to be discarded as a whole. As the feasibility of grant of LOP for medical college is essentially founded on such assessment report, if that report is to be discarded then the petitioners cannot get any relief whatsoever, without fresh inspection. It is not necessary for us to dilate either on this aspect or any other contention raised by the petitioners as we are inclined to adopt the course predicated in the aforementioned two recent decisions of this Court.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]10. Having considered the rival submissions, we are in agreement with the petitioners that the Competent Authority has once again failed to consider the relevant matters in the spirit of the direction given by this Court on 1st August, 2017. It has mechanically adverted to the recommendation of the Hearing Committee, which, in turn, has reproduced the factual position narrated in the assessment report in respect of the inspection conducted onOctober, 2016. The Competent Authority has not examined the matter with respect to the specific plea taken by the petitioners which had found favour with the OC. The OC in its recommendation dated 14th May, 2017 had noted that the faculty deficiency was only 06.18% which was within the acceptable norms. The OC had noted that the assessing team completely glossed over the fact that some staff was on leave due to the ensuing Diwali festival and that 4 staff members had come late after the scheduled time. The explanation offered by the petitioners in that behalf found favour with the OC. However, neither the Hearing Committee nor the Competent Authority has dealt with the factual matrix and in particular, the explanation offered by the petitioners, including the fresh representation.11. Having said thus, we would have proceeded to issue directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner medical college to admit students in the MBBS course for the academic sessionHowever, in the present case, we find that the MCI, which is an expert body, on the day of assessment has noticed deficiency of 29.23% of Faculty, 28.26% of Residents and 34% of Bed Occupancy, each of which was beyond the permissible limits. It has also taken into account the factum of `Nil Normal Delivery and `NIL Caesarean Section on the day of the assessment. Further, there was only 1 patient in NICU/PICU and 2 in SICU on the day of assessment and none in ICCU and MICU. It has also noticed that the Central Library was partiallyand there was no separation of Students Reading Room (Outside) and Students Reading Room (Inside). Further, there were only 65 mounted specimens in the Anatomy Department. Indeed, the OC in its letter dated 14th May, 2017 has noted that the explanation submitted by the college regarding deficiencies of Faculty, Residents and Bed Occupancy was acceptable and, therefore, within the permissible norms. As has been noticed earlier, the Competent Authority in the impugned decision did not accept the explanation offered by the petitioner college but, as aforesaid, no analysis is found in the impugned decision as to why the same was rejected and, moreso, no tangible reason is forthcoming as to why it chose to deviate from the opinion expressed by the OC. At the same time, we also find that the OC has not dealt with the factum noticed by the Competent Authority in the impugned decision that the salary slips in respect of 27 staff members of the college did not bear details of bank account, PAN, PRAN etc. That presupposes that there was no clear identity about the staff employed by the college to the extent of 27 persons which is quite significant and raises grave suspicion. The communication sent by the OC also does not explain as to why the Bed Occupancy figure of 62%, as claimed by the college, should be accepted as against the physical verification done by the assessor on the given day which found only 34% Bed Occupancy. The OC has also not recorded any reason as to why the abysmal level of occupancy and indoor patients in ICCU/ MICU/PICU and SICU was irrelevant. Absence of indoor patients was a reflection on the performance of the hospital as a whole, which inevitably would deprive the students of the said college of proper experience and exposure. The deficiencies noticed by the MCI were significant and beyond the permissible limits and the Competent Authority has not dealt with the relevant material including the fresh representation submitted by the petitioners.Be that as it may, we shall revert to the grievance of the petitioners that inspection could not have been conducted onOctober, 2016, as the said dates were too close to a major national festival. This argument deserves to be rejected, bearing in mind the interpretation of Clause 8(3)(1)(d) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 in the case of Shri Venkateshwara University (supra), which postulates that 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. In the present case, the head count was carried out on the first day of inspection, on 26th October, 2016, as noted in the assessment report. Diwali was on 29th October, 2016, and thus, the inspection on 26th October, 2016 in no way offended Clause 8. Further, if the argument of the petitioners was to be accepted, it would result in a situation where the inspection report datedOctober, 2016 will have to be discarded as a whole. As the feasibility of grant of LOP for medical college is essentially founded on such assessment report, if that report is to be discarded then the petitioners cannot get any relief whatsoever, without fresh inspection. It is not necessary for us to dilate either on this aspect or any other contention raised by the petitioners as we are inclined to adopt the course predicated in the aforementioned two recent decisions of this Court.