[2017] 9 S.C.R. 518

SUBHARTI MEDICAL COLLEGE

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 426of2017)

SEPTEMBER 08, 2017

[DIPAK MISRA CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND

DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.)

Education/Educational Institutions - Medical education - MBBS seat - Grant of recognition - Application by appellant- C Medical College seeking enhancement of the intake capacity from

JOO to 150 MBBS seats for academic session 2017-18 - On inspection, deficiencies noted by MCI regarding bed occupancy - Observations of Hearing Committee that there was no deficiency with regard to the clinical material, faculty or residents as the same D was within the permissible limits, however, the Committee did not comment on thefaCtum of bed occupancy noticed in the assessment report - Held: Direction issued to respondents, in particular the MCI, to send its Inspecting Team to the petitioner college and inform the petitioner college about the deficiencies, with option to remove the same - Petitioner college would report its compliance to MCI - E Thereafter, on basis of the report by MCI, the Competent Authority would take final decision - In case the final decision is adverse to the petitioner, it would take recourse to further remedies.

Melmaruvathur Adhiparasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research v. Union of India and Am: W. P.

F (C) No. 680 of 2017 - referred to.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 426of2017.

Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia.

G Mukul Rohgi, A. Sharan, Sr. Advs., Amitabh Sinha, Vivek Sirigh, Advs. for the Petitioner.

Maninder Singh, ASG, Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Saurabh Mishra, Amit Lal, Ms.Amandeep Kaur, Prateek Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, Gaurav Sharma, Ms: Deepeika Katia, R. K. Rathore, Vibhu ShankarMishra, G.

H S. Makker, Kuldeep Chauhan, Advs. for the Respondents. 518

•1,

' I

I ' " .I r

('I

 I

I I

" j

1 0

SUBHARTI MEDICAL COLLEGE v. UNION OF INDIA 519

The Judgment of the_ Court was delivered by A

A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. I. The petitioner college made an application for grnnt of recognition in respect ofMBBS seats (I 00-150) to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.

That application was forwarded to the Medical Council of India (for short "MCr') for assessment of requisite physical and other teaching B facilities for enhancing the intake capacity from I 00 to 150 MBBS seats.

Pursuant thereto, the MCI deputed its Inspection Team who, in turn, submitted an assessment report dated 27th March, 2017. The report has noted deficiencies inter alia regarding the bed occupancy which was stated to be only 55.27% at 10.00 A.M. on the date of assessment. The C said report noted as follows:

"!. Medical college & hospital are part of University campus alongwith other Institutions of the University. No clear-cut boundary of the medical college campus is shown in the compliance.

2. Shortage of Residents is 5.81 % as detailed in the report.

3. Bed occupancy is 55.27% at 10 a.m. on day of assessment.

4. There was NIL Normal Delivery & I Caesarean Sction on day of assessment.

E 5, Data of clinical material & Casualty attendance provided by Institute appear to be inflated.

6. Casualty: There was NIL patient in Triage area at 10:30 a.m. on day of assessment.

7. In Tb & Chest ward# 11, Nursing Station is btaqk without any F medicines or papers. Deficiency remains the same.

8. Wards: All the comers of the ward are not completi:ty visible from Nursing Stations due to pillars. Sterilized treatment trays are not available in all the wards."

2. On that basis a negative recommendation was submitted by G the MCI to the Central Government. That report was placed before the Hearing Committee. The petitioner college was afforded personal hearing before the Hearing Committee on 22•• May, 2017. The Hearing Committee Qbserved that there was no deficiency with regard to the clinical material, faculty or residents as the same was within the H

. \

• v.•·.;.

A pefmissible limits. However, the-Hearing Committee did not comment on the factum of bed occupancy noticed in the assessment report, as can be discerned from the extracted chart available in the impugned decision dated 29'h August, 2016. The said chart reads thus:

Sri.

Dejide11cies reported by MCI Observatio11s of hearin1: B No. - committee

Medical college & hospital.

The Medical College exists in the are part of University campus University campus and has been alongwilh other Institutions of recognized as such by MCI. the University. No clear-cut bmmdary of the medical c college campus is shown in the ''ompliance.

The Sizar/age of residents is anly marginal at 5.81% with the

II.

Shortage of Residents is submission rendered by the 5.81% as_ detailed

the college it st.>e111s to be brought report. . . under the permis:vible limit .

Ill Bed Occupancy is 55.27% at JO a.m. on day of assessment.

I There was

NIL Norina/ Adequency of clinical material

Df!liVC!l)' & I Caesarean ma.J/ have to be verified.

Section on day of assessment.

/II vi en• of the Committee.

II Data of clinical material & apparently there is 110 dejlciencj' Casualty attendance provided of faculty and residents, ho wev,'r by Inst ilute appear to be the same cannot be said of inflated. clinical material. In the given

Ill Casualty: There

NIL

facts, debarring the college for 2 was year seem too strict. patient in ~_Tri age area at

JO: 30 a.m. 011 day of assessment.

IV In Tb & Chest ward # II.

Nursing Station is blank without any medicines or papers.

Deficiency remains the same.

) G -v Wards: All the comers of the ward are not completely visible from Nursing Stations due to pillars.

Sterilized treatment trays are not available in al/ the wards.

SUBHARTI MEDICAL COLLEGE v. UNION OF INDIA 521

[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

3. Presumably, because of the deficiencies amongst other A regarding bed occupancy; the Competent.Authority of the Central Government passed an order on 31st May, 2017, debarringtbe petitioner college from admitting students for two academic years 2017-18 & 2018-19 and authorising the MCI to encash the bank guarantee ofRs.2 crore offered by the petitioner. Since the order passed by the Competent . 8 Authority on 31st May, 2017 was bereft of reasons, this C.ourt vide order dated I st August, 2017 directed the. Competent Authority of the Centr.al Government to give fresh opportunity to the petitioner college and then pass a reasoned order. Pursuant thereto, the Competent Authority of the Central Government has passed a fresh order on z9•h August, 2017, which, however, is founded on the recommendation made by the Hearing C Committee. It appears that the Central Government had placed the matter before the Hearing Committee in which a member of the newly constituted Oversight Committee (for short, "OC"), constituted by this Court was present. The Hearing Committee could not arrive at any conclusive:. opinion concerning the bed occupancy deficiency, for it was of the view D that physical verification was essential in that regard. Despite such inconclusive findings .submitted by the Hearing Committee, the Competent Authority mechanically proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 29th August, 2017. It may be apposite to reproduce the s11id order:

. "13. Whereas in compliance with the above direction of Hon 'ble Supreme Court dated 1.8.2017, the Ministry granted E hearing to the college on 22. 8.2017. A Member of the newly constituted Oversight Committee also attended the Hearing Committee Meeting. The Hearing Committee submitted its second and final report after reviewing all facets of the case on 29. 08.2017 to the Ministry with the following conclusion:- F

'Tlte Hearing Committee is of tfle view tlrat t/le. bed . occupancy as claimed by tlie college cannot be validated by tlris Committee and requires pltysical. verification.' ,

.. ··.'

A copy of the Hearing Committee report containing their

observations is enclosed. a

14. Now, co11sidering the jindi11gs of the Hearing Committee, the Ministry reiterates its earlier decfaion dated 31.5.2017 to debar the Sublrarti Medical College, Meerut from admitting. students against increased i11take i.e. from 100-150 for two H

'\,."

A academic years i.e. 2017-18 ·& 2018-19 and authorize the MC'I to encash the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 2. 00 Crore. "

4. We have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner college, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for MCI and Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional B Solicitor General appearing for Union oflndia. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has made diverse submissions, including that there is serious doubt about the manner in which the matter proceeded before the Hearing Committee. In that, the Hearing Committee had already concluded the hearing on 22nd August, 2017 but submitted its second and final report after reviewing all facts of the case on 291h August, 2017.

C This contention has been justly refuted by the learned counsel for the respondents by pointing out that the hearing was concluded on 22nd August,

2017. On that date there was no OC in place. Soon thereafter, the OC was re-constituted by this Court and for that reason, the Competent Authority thought it appropriate to submit the second and final report D after reviewing all facets of the case on 291h August, 2017, to which a member of the newly constituted OC was party.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner college also invited our attention to the relevant record, in particular, the averments in paragraph 18 of the I.A., to buttress his contention that bed occupancy in the E petitioner college has never been in doubt. The occupancy position noted in assessment report of March, 2017 was, therefore, unreliable. This argument though attractive at the first blush does not take the matter any further, inasmuch as on the earlier occasion also, the Hearing Committee did not note any finding or observation regarding the bed

F occupancy deficiency one way or the other. That deficiency being beyond permissible limit, it will not be safe to accede to the request of the petitioner to grant any relief or justify issue of directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to increase the intake capacity of the college for academic session 2017-18 without proper verification.

6. In another case decided today i.e. Melmari1vat/111r G Atll1iparasaktl1i Institute of Medical Scie11ces and Researclt Vs.

U11io11 of India a11d A11r. 1, we have come across a similar situation where the Hearing Committee did not give a conclusive opinion/finding regarding the deficiency pertaining to bed occupancy noticed in the

H 1 W.P.(C) No.680 of2017

SUB HARTi MEDICAL COLLEGE v. UNION OF INDIA . 523

[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

assessment report dated 2 i" March, 2017. For the same reasons, we A may observe that even though the impugned order cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny, however, the appropriate course would be to direct the respondents, in particular the MCI, to send its Inspecting Team to the petitioner college within a period of three months and inform the_ petitioner college about the deficiencies if any, with option to remove the same within the time limit as may be specified in that regard. The petitioner college shall then report its compliance and communicate the removal of deficiencies to MCI, whereafter it will be open to the MCI to verify the position and then prepare its report to be placed before the Competent Authority for being processed further in accordance with

law. Final decision be taken by the Competent Authority within one month C from receipt of the report from MCI. In the event the final decision is adverse to the petitioner, it will be open to them to take recourse to further remedies as may be available in law. '

7. We make it clear that the inspection to be done will be for considering the proposal for enhancement of intake capacity from I 00 D MBBS seats to I SO seats and if approved, the same be given effect to in academic session 2018-19. In other words, the proposal/application submitted by the petitioner for the academic session 2017-18 be treated as if having been made for academic session 2018-19. The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner shall not be encashed but the same shall be kept alive until further orders to be passed by the Competent Authority of the Central Government in that behalf.

8. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforementio, ned terms. No order as to costs.

Nidhi Jain Writ Petition disposed of.