Case: MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA Vs. N.C. MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL

3. Shanti Devi Charitable Trust made an application for establishment of a new Medical College in the name and style of NC Medical College and 2 Hospital, Panipat for the Academic Sessions. An assessment was accordingly undertaken by the assessors appointed by Medical Council of India (MCI, for short) who found as many as 25 deficiencies. By its letter dated 30.12.2015, MCI recommended to the Central Government not to issue letter of permission for establishment of said college for the Academic Year4. The Central Government accepted such negative recommendation and disapproved the scheme so proposed. However, the Supreme Court mandated Oversight Committee vide letter dated 11.08.2016 approved the scheme and as such admissions to 1st MBBS Course for the Academic Year7 with intake of 150 seats could be made by the Respondent College. Since such approval was subject to certain conditions, a further verification was undertaken by MCI on 7/8.11.2016 to assess whether those conditions were complied with or not. This assessment was again considered by the Executive Committee of MCI and in its noting dated 22.12.2016, the deficiencies were still found to be persisting. MCI by its letter dated 3 26.12.2016 informed the Central Government that since the Respondent College had failed to abide by the undertaking, it be debarred from admitting students for two academic sessions namely9 and the bank guarantee be encashed. The Central Government approved the report submitted by MCI. The matter was again placed before the Supreme Court mandated Oversight Committee which directed that a further opportunity be given to the Respondent College and an assessment be made whether the Respondent College had complied with the conditions. The matter was again considered and the Central Government accepted the recommendations of MCI, and by its order dated 09.06.2017 debarred the Respondent College from admitting students for two years namely9 and authorized MCI to encash the bank guarantee of Rs.2 crores5. The aforesaid order dated 09.06.2017 was questioned in this Court by way of Writ Petition No.432 of 2017 and by its order dated 01.08.2017 this Court directed the Central Government tor the case and pass a reasoned order. Pursuant thereto, the Central Government by its reasoned order dated 10.08.2017 reiterated its earlier decision dated 09.06.2017. When aforesaid Writ Petition No.423 of 2017 was again listed on 4 09.10.2017, MCI was directed to conduct physical inspection for grant of permission for the Academic Session9 as per MCI regulations. In compliance, the physical assessment was carried out by the assessors of MCI on 17/18.11.2017 and the report found various deficiencies of Infrastructure, Teaching Faculty, Clinical Material and other physical facilities. Executive Council of MCI therefore by its decision dated 14.12.2017 decided to recommend to the Central Government not to grant renewal permission for admitting students for the academic year. Said writ petition No.432 of 2017 was thereafter disposed of by this Court on 17.01.2018 directing MCI to take proper decision on or before 31.03.20186. It appears that according to the Respondent College it had complied with and removed the deficiencies. The Central Government therefore directed MCI to review the case. The papers and documents submitted by the Respondent College were duly considered and on the strength of those documents themselves, it was found that deficiencies 3, 6 and 7 were still not rectified. This assessment was made by thee of MCI without inspection and purely on the strength of documentation submitted by the respondent. The Respondent College was therefore called upon vide letter dated 07.03.2018 to submit satisfactory compliance in respect of said 5 deficiencies at Serial Nos.3, 6 and 7. The Respondent College by its letter dated 24.03.2018 claimed to have rectified all the deficiencies and accordingly a compliance verification was carried out by the assessors of MCI on 13.04.2018. This verification found that the deficiencies continued to persist and therefore the Executive Committee in its Meeting held on 26.04.2018 decided to recommend to the Central Government not to grant renewal of permission for admitting students for the academic year 20182019. This decision was squarely put in challenge by filing writ petition No.400 of 2018 in this Court which was dismissed on 01.05.2018 leaving all questions open7. On 07.05.2018 and 09.05.2018 the Respondent College requested the Central Government to grant personal hearing before any adverse order could be passed. The request was however declined by the Central Government on 17.05.2018, as the Respondent College was already granted personal hearing in the matter. The respondent being aggrieved, challenged the decision dated 17.05.2018 by filing civil writ petition No.13366 of 2018 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

Court's reasoning:
20. In our opinion, the contentions are baseless, the deficiency of faculty has been culled out in the inspection report in detail. There was deficiency of 9 members of teaching faculty and deficiency of 14 resident doctors out of a total of 49. Some girls getting engineering education were found to be staying in the residents? hostel. Duty roster of faculty and Residents was not produced till 2.00 p.m. List of faculty and Residents joined after the last assessment was not produced. In many wards, demonstration rooms were not functional and nonfurnished. It was submitted that certain members of faculty reported late on that day and one member suffered fracture and brother of another member was ill who breathed his last on the same day. Even if 2 incumbents on leave are excluded still there was shortage, 11.00 a.m. time was fixed in guidelines so as to make the assessment. The Faculty Members came too late, cannot be a ground to find fault with the report of the assessors which has to be undertaken as per norms fixed for them. At the time of inspection, the Faculty should be present otherwise in a few hours any number of members can be arranged, otherwise very purpose of inspection would be defeated. Be that as it may. Report of the assessors cannot be faulted; the court cannot sit in appeal over it and cannot go into the disputed facts.Yet for another reason we do not propose to interfere. In Ashish Ranjan v. Union of India, (2016) 11 SCC 225  , this Court has referred the time schedule for granting permission etc. under the MCI Regulations by which date admissions etc. are to be grantedThese Regulations may be called theRegulations on Graduate Medical Education, 2015. (ii) They shall come into force from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.ons on Graduate Medical Education,Appendix E shall be replaced as under:TIME SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF THE ADMISSION PROCESS FOR FIRST MBBS COURSEle for admissionSeats to be filled up by the Central Government through theats to be filled up by the State Government/Instit of entrance examinationst to 7en 10th to 17on of the result of the qualifying exam/By 1By 1st round ofTo be over by 25en 6th July to 15st date for joining the allotted college and the courseth July2 ndn for vacancies.d July to 30en 10th to 22st date of joining for the 2nd round ofBy 9By 28nt of academic session/termt of Augustt date up to which students can be admitted/joined against vacancies arising due to any reason.st Augustll India Quota Seats remaining vacant after last date for joining, i.e. 9th August will be deemed to be converted into state quota.Institute/college/courses permitted after 31st May will not be considered for admission/allotment of seats for current academic year.In any circumstances, last date for admission/joining will not be extended aftere aforesaid dates are over, as such, in the instant case, it is not possible to issue directions at this juncture for the sessionIn view of the deficiencies and the law enunciated by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, the High Court has clearly exceeded its power while allowing the writ application, passing of repeated interim orders was also not warranted.Thus, unhesitatingly we have no option except to set aside the judgment and order passed by High Court. At the same time, it would be open to the college to apply for the next academic yearby depositing requisite fees etc.After hearing the learned counsel, we are of the opinion that order of High Court is not sustainable. It is apparent from impugned judgment and order that High Court has totally ignored and overlooked that order dated 29.5.2018 passed by it had been set aside by this Court in CA No.6001/2018. The High Court had issued a mandatory interim direction on 29.5.2018 to Central Government to accord permission by 31.5.2018, it was not open to High Court to rely upon order dated 31.5.2018, which was a provisional order passed in compliance of the interim order dated 29.5.2018, said order was set aside by this Court in C.A. No.6001/2018 as it was not legally permissible to pass such order. Nothing more need be said about the interim order. Once the order has been set aside, the order of Government of India dated 31.5.2018 which was passed pursuant to order dated 29.5.2018 could not have been relied upon by the High Court to allow or to dispose of the writ application holding that Central Government has tacitly accepted the claim of the college. It was wholly impermissible act and it virtually gave premium to the college on the basis of the interim order that was set aside by this Court. The High Court gravely erred in law to rely upon the very permission granted by Government of India under an interim mandatory order dated 29.5.2018, which could not have been passed and was set aside. The Government of India has clearly mentioned in the order dated 29.5.2018 that the permission was subject to condition stipulated by the High Court in interim order dated 29.5.2018. High Court could not have acted upon it as that is clearly derogatory to order of this Court dated 4.7.2018 passed in C.A. No.6001/2018. Thus, the order passed by the High Court lacks judicial propriety and also tantamounts to ignoring the effect of the order dated 4.7.2018 passed by this Court.