Case: MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA Vs. JAIPUR NATIONAL UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTRE

3. Pursuant to appropriate recommendation having been given by Medical Council of India (‘MCI?, for short), Central Government by its letter dated 06.06.2016 granted letter of permission to the Respondent Institute to establish a Medical College from the academic yearwith annual undertake of 150 students. It appears that after conducting due inspection and verification, MCI did not recommend renewal of permission for the next academic sessionIn Writ Petition No.432 of 2017 (N.C. Medical College and Hospital Principal v. Union of India Secretary and Another), a list of 24 Colleges who despite negative recommendation on part of MCI were accorded renewal of permission by the Central Government was extracted by this Court in its order dated 09.10.2017 and all those Institutions including the Respondent Institute were added as respondents. This Court further directed MCI to conduct surprise inspection in respect of all the Colleges. It appears that the Assessors appointed by MCI conducted physical assessment and verification on 31st October, 2017 and 1st November, 2017. The assessment report was placed before the Executive Committee of MCI in its Meeting held on 22.11.2017 where the Executive Committee observed various deficiencies of Infrastructure, Clinical Material and other physical facilities. The Executive Committee therefore decided to recommend to the Central Government not to grant renewal of permission for the 3rd Batch of students for the academic yearThereafter, the Central Government afforded opportunity of hearing to the Respondent Institute and requested MCI to review the case of Respondent Institute. Aforesaid Writ Petition No.432 of 2017 was disposed of by this Court on 17.01.2018 directing MCI to take appropriate decision in respect of 25 Medical Colleges for the academic year5. In order to verify the claims made by the Respondent Institute regarding compliance and that the deficiencies had been removed, MCI conducted compliance verification on 05.03.2018 and the report in respect thereof was placed in the Meeting of the Executive Committee of MCI held on 24.03.2018. After discussion and deliberation, the Executive Committee found that the deficiencies in respect of Infrastructure, Clinical Material and other physical facilities still persisted and therefore recommended to theCentral Government not to grant renewal of permission to the Respondent Institute for academic sessionThe aforesaid decision of the Central Government was challenged by the Respondent Institute by preferring D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10103 of 2018 in the High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. It appears that since the Advocates in Jaipur had gone on strike, the Chairperson of the Respondent Institute, Under Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Union of India and Law Officer of MCI who were present, were heard by the High Court on 29.05.2018. The High Court found that the inspection conducted by MCI was with predetermined mind not to renew the permission to the Respondent Institute and was of the prima facie view that the findings arrived at by MCI were required to be stayed at the interim stage. The High Court thus while admitting the petition fixed the matter for final hearing on 09.07.2018 but proceeded to pass followingThe matter is fixed for final hearing on 09.07.2018.6.3 In the meantime and till disposal of the petition, the order dated 01.05.2018 as well as dated 28.03.2018 both are stayed and respondent No.1 is directed to allow the petitioner College to admit 150 students in the third batch for the academic yearsubject to a rider that if ultimately the petitioner fails in this petition, he will refund all the fees to the students who are admitted pursuant to the order of this court.6.4 The stay application is accordingly disposed of.The Central Government will act upon this order?.

Reasoning: 8. In the companion matter namely Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14972 of 2018, we have adverted to certain decisions of this Court where the propriety and correctness of similar such interim directions had been questioned before this Court. Relying upon the decisions in (i) Medical Council of India v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and, (ii) Medical Council of India v. JSS Medical, (iii) Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, (iv) Dental Council of India v. Dr. Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal Hingoli and, we have held in the companion matter that there was no justification for passing interim directions and permitting the concerned College to go ahead with provisional admissions for the academic sessionWe have further held that any stipulation that the admissions pursuant to such interim directions shall be subject to the result of the petition would not be a sufficient protection or insulation and such orders result in tremendous prejudice to the students.We have further held that if a case is made out the proper course is to hear the matter finally rather than passing interim directions as have been passed in the present matter. Based on same reasoning, we hold that the High Court was not justified in passing the order under challenge.