Supreme Court of India
KARPAGAM FACULTY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES . AND RESEARCHversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2017 INSC 904
- Decided
- 14 September 2017
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- DIPAK MISRA
Holding
The Supreme Court upheld the Central Government’s decision to deny recognition/approval for the 2017‑18 session, finding the MCI’s successive inspections permissible and the college’s failure to cure deficiencies sufficient to justify the debarment.
Summary
The appellant, Karpagam Faculty of Medical Sciences & Research, challenged the Central Government's order that barred it from admitting MBBS students for the 2017‑18 session and denied recognition under Section 11(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The college argued that successive inspections by the Medical Council of India (MCI) were impermissible and that the renewal of permission for 2016‑17 should automatically confer approval for 2017‑18. The Supreme Court examined the MCI’s assessment reports, noted that the college had not remedied the deficiencies identified, and held that successive inspections were lawful and the government’s decision was based on expert findings. The Court rejected the contention that the order lacked reasons and affirmed that the Ministry’s decision, upheld on re‑consideration, was valid. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, but the Court directed the MCI to treat the college’s application for 2017‑18 as an application for 2018‑19 and to conduct a fresh inspection within two months.
Issues considered
- Whether the Medical Council of India may conduct successive inspections of a medical college for separate statutory purposes.
- Whether renewal of permission for the 2016‑17 academic session automatically entitles the college to recognition/approval for the 2017‑18 session under Section 11(2) of the IMC Act.
- Whether the Central Government’s decision to debar the college for 2017‑18, based on identified deficiencies, is legally valid despite the college’s alleged lack of explanation.
- Whether the Supreme Court can intervene in the satisfaction of the expert body (MCI) and the Central Government’s decision.
- Whether the order dated 31 August 2017, issued without detailed reasons, is maintainable.
Legislation cited
- Indian Medical Council Act, 1956s. 10(A), s. 11(2)
Subjects
Indian Medical Council ActrecognitionapprovalMBBS admissiondebarmentmedical collegesuccessive inspectionscompliance verificationSupreme CourtCentral Government
Judgment
[2017] I l S.C.R. 1074
A KARPAGAM FACULTY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
. AND RESEARCH
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
B (Civi!AppeaINo.12845of2017)
SEPTEMBER 14, 2017
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A.M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
C Education/Educational institutions - Indian Medical Council
Act, 1956 - s.11(2) - Admission in MBBS course - Respondent
debarred the appellant college from admitting students in MBBS
course for the academic session 2017-2018 - Appellant challenged
the order - High Court refused to grant any interim relief for
academic session 2017-2018 - Supreme Court directed Respondent
D to consider the matter of appellant-college afresh - However,
respondent reiterated its earlier decision - Aggrieved, appellant
challenged the decision of the respondent contending that it was
not permissible for the MCI to carry out successive inspections -
Held: The fact that the Competent Authority of the Central
E Government has confirmed the renewal of permission in favour of
the appellant for academic session 2016-17, it would not follow
that the appellant college is entitled to grant of recognition/approval
uls. 11(2) of the Act from the academic session 2017-18 as a matter
of course, without removing the deficiencies pointed out in the latest
assessment report - Nothing to indicate that any plausible
F explanation was offered by the appellant college regarding the stated
deficiencies - In instant case, it is not a case of successive surprise
inspections - For, the inspection conducted on 17.02.2017 was
followed by the compliance verification assessment on 151
16.03.2017 for considering the proposal for confirmation of renewal
G of LOP for the academic session 2016-2017; and inspection carried
out on 10.04.2017 was for considering the proposal regarding
recognition/approval for the college from academic session 2017-
2018 - It is not possible to doubt the earlier decision of the Ministry,
as confirmed after re-consideration - Respondent directed to process
the proposal for grant of recognition/approval submitted by the
H
1074
KARPAGAM FACULTY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND 1075
RESEARCH v. U.0.1. AND ORS.
appellant college for academic session 2017-18 as having being A
made for academic session 2018-19 - For that purpose, MCI
directed to conduct inspection of the appellant college and inform
the appellant about the deficiencies - Appellant college to report
its compliance and communicate the removal of deficiencies to MCI;
whereafter it will be open to the MCI to undertake verification of B
the compliance and then prepare its report to be submitted to the
Central Government - Thereafter, Respondent to take appropriate
decision in accordance with law.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The fact that the Competent Authority of the c
Central Government has confirmed the renewal of permission in
favour of the appellant for academic session 2016-17, it would
not follow that the appellant college is entitled to grant of
recognition/approval under Section 11(2) of the Act from. the
academic session 2017-18 as a matter of course, without removing
the deficiencies pointed out in the latest assessment report. [Para D
16] [1094-D-E]
1.2 There is nothing to indicate in the communication sent
by the MCI or, for that matter, the impugned decision of the
Competent Authority of the Central Government dated 31'1 May,
2017, that any plausible explanation was offered by the appellant · E
college in regard to the stated deficiencies. Even the order dated
31'1 August, 2017, does not indicate as to whether any explanation
was offered by the appellant college during the hearing for
reconsideration by the Central Government. Notably, a member
of the OC constituted by this Court was present during the F
hearing. [Para 16] [1095-A-B]
2.1 The appellant would then contend that it was not
permissible for the MCI to carry out successive inspections.
Reliance has been placed· on the dictum of this Court in Kanacliur
Islamic Education Trust Vs. Union of India and Anr. decided on G
301h August, 2017. For, in the aforementioned case, this Court
found that it was unambiguously clear that the inspection of the
concerned college was already conducted on 171h/18'h November,
2016 and it did not divulge any substantial deficiency so as to
justify disapproval. Further, no reason was assigned for the
H
1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 11 S.C.R.
A surprise inspection carried out on 91h/10 1h December, 2016, in a
short span of less than one month. In that backdrop the Court
held that the justification for such surprise inspection was not
explained by the MCI. In the subsequent decision in the case of
Royal Medical Trust & Am: Vs. Union of India & Anr. the decision
in Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (supra) has been explained
·B and the argument under consideration has been rejected. Be that
as it may, in the present case, it is not a case of successive surprise
inspections. For, the inspection conducted on 171h February, 2017
was followed by compliance verification assessment on 151h/161h
March, 2017 for considering the proposal for confirmation of
C renewal of LOP for the academic session 2016-17; and the
inspection carried out on l01h April, 2017 was for considering the
proposal regarding recognition/approval for the college from
academic session 2017-18. [Para 18] [1095-F-H; 1096-A-C]
3. Considering the above, it is not possible to doubt the
D decision of the Ministry dated 31'1 May, 2017, as confirmed on
31'1 August, 2017 after re-consideration. [Para 19] [1096-D]
4. The proposal for grant of recognition/approval submitted
by the appellant college for the academic session 2017-18 be
treated as having been made for the academic session 2018-19
E and be processed by the respondents accordingly, in accordance
with law. For that purpose, the MCI is directed to conduct
inspection of the appellant college within two months and inform
the appellant about the deficiencies, if any, with the option to
remove the same within the time limit specified in that regard.
The appellant college shall then report its compliance and
F communicate the removal of deficiencies to MCI, whereafter it
will be open to the MCI to undertake verification of the
compliance and then prepare its report to be submitted to the
Central Government. The Central Government shall take
appropriate decision, as may be advised, in accordance with law.
G [Para 22] [1097-H; 1098-A-C]
Kanachur Islamic Education Trust v. Union of India
and Anr. (2017) 10 SCALE 321 ; Royal Medical Trust
& Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. (2017) 11 SCALE 307
- referred to.
H
KARPAGAM FACULTY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND 1077
RESEARCH v. U.0.1. AND ORS.
Case Law Reference A
2017 (10) SCALE 321 referred to Para 18
. 2017 (11) SCALE 307 referred to Para 18
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.12845 B
of2017.
From the impugned final Judgment and Order dated 19.07.2017
of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition (Civil)
No.18334 of2017.
c
Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv, Amit Kumar, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Shaurya .
Sahay, Kumar Abhishek, Advs for the Appellant.
Maninder Singh, ASG, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Vikas Singh, Sr. Ad vs,
Ms.KiranBhardwaj, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Gaurav Sharma, Dhawal D
-· Mohan, Prateek Bhatia, Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advs for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. Leave granted.
E
2. This appeal emanates from the judgment and order dated 19th
July, 2017 passed by the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No.18334
of2017. The said writ petition has been filed by the appellant for quashing
of the order dated 31st May, 2017, passed by the Under Secretary to the.
Government oflndia, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department
of Health and Family Welfare) debarring the appellant college from F
admitting students against 150 seats in MBBS course for the academic
session 2017-18.The said order was passed by the Competent Authority
of the Central Government on the proposal for confirmation of conditional
Letter of Permission (for short "LOP") granted in favour of the appellant
college for the 5th batch of 150 seats in MBBS course for the academic G
session 2016-17 and to grant recognition/approval to the appellant college
under Section 11 (2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short .
"the Act"). The communication dated 31" May, 2017, informing about
the decision of the Competent Authority of the Central Government,
which has been challenged before the High Court, reads thus:
1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] ll S.C.R.
A "ANNEXURE-P/10
No. U.12012112712016-ME.l[FTS.3084749]
Governrnent of India
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
(Department of Health & Family Welfare)
B Nirman Bhawn, New Delhi
Dated the 31" May, 2017
To
The Principal/Dean,
Karpagam Faculty of Medical Sciences & Research
C Pollachi Main Road, L & T By Pass Road junction
Eachanari Post, Eachnari,
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641021.
Subject: Confirmation of conditional permission granted in
D 2016-17 and disapproval of renewal permission for 2017-18
Karpagam Faculty of Medical Sciences & Research,
Coimbatore.
Sir/Madam,
E Jn continuation to this Ministry's letter dated 20.08.2016
granting conditional renewal permission for admission of S'h
Batch of (150 seats) in MBBS course at Karpagam Faculty
of Medical Sciences & Research, Coimbatore for the academic
year 2016-17 on the basis of approval communicated by
F Supreme CourtMandated Oversight Committee on MC! (OC)
and after granting an opportunity of hearing to the college
with reference to recommendation of MCI dated 24.03.'1.017
and considering the contents of MCI letter No. MCI-34(41)
(RG-17)12017-Med./107428 dated 29.04.20I7. I am directed
to confirm the renewal of permission granted vide this
G Ministry's letter dated 20.08.2016 for 2016-17 and remove
the conditions imposed there on. MCI is also being requested
to return the Bank Guarantee of Rs.2 Cr. submitted by the
College in the Ministry as per the conditions laid down by
the OC which is now in possession of MCI.
H
KARPAGAM FACULTY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND 1079
RESEARCH v. U.0.1. AND ORS. [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
2. Further. I am directed to convey the decision of the A ·
Central Government not to permit admission of students .
in MBBS Course 050 seats) for the academic year 2017-
18 at Kamai.mm Faculty of Medical Sciences & Research.
Coimbatore.
B
3. Admission made against the decision of the Central
Government will be treated as irregular and action will be
initiated under IMC Act & Regulation made thereunder.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/- C
(D V K Rao)
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India
Telefax: 011-23061120"
(emphasis supplied) D
3. As the said decision refers to the recommendation made by the ·
Medical Council oflndia (for short "MCI") vide letters dated 24'h March,
2017 and 29'h April, 2017, it may be apposite to reproduce the same for
discerning the real issue that arises for our consideration. The
communication dated 24'h March, 2017, sent by the Joint Secretary of
the MCI to the Secretary to the Government ofindia, Ministry of Health E
& Family Welfare, reads thus:
"ANNEXURE-P/5
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
No. MCJ-34(41)(RG-17)12016-Med.I Date: 2410312017 F
ITEM NO. 35
The Secretary,
Govt. of India,
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhawan, ··
New Delhi - 110011 G
Sub: Recognition/Approval of Karpagam Faculty of Medical
Sciences & Research, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu for the award
of MBBS degree (150 seats) granted by The Tamilnadu Di:
M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai u/s 11(2) df the IMC Act,·
H
1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 11 S.C.R.
A 1956 and Compliance Verification Assessment for renewal of
permission for admission of 5th batch (150 MBBS seats) u/
.sJO(A) of the lMC Act., 1956 for the Academic Year 2016-17.
Sir,
l am directed to inform you that an assessment to assess the
B standard of examination held by the Tamilnadu Dr. MGR
Medical University, Chennai and to assess the physical and
the other teaching facilities available for Recognition/Approval
of Karpagam Faculty of Medical Science & Research,
Coimbatore, Tamilnadu for the award of MBBS degree (150
c seats) granted by the Tamilnadu Dr. MGR Medical University,
Chennai u/s 11(2) of the IMC Act, 1956 as well as Compliance
Verification Assessment for renewal of permission for
a.dmission of 5th batch (150 MBBS seats) u/s JO(A) of the
lMC Act, 1956 for the Academic year 2016-17 with reference
to the conditional approval accorded by Oversight Committee
D were carried out by the Council assessors on ]7th February,
2017 and 15th & 16th March, 2017. The assessment reports
(J7'h February, 2017 & )5th & 16th March, 2017) and a letter
dated 1510312017 from the Assessors regarding complaint
dated 03.01.2017 of the students of Karpagam Faculty of
E Medical Sciences & Research, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu were
considered by the Executive Committee of the council at its
meeting held on 2110312017 and it was decided as under:-
"The Executive Committee of the Council noted that the
compliance verification assessment report (19t" February
F 2016) along with previous assessment report (2•d & ]'d
November, 2015) with regard to renewal of permission for
MBBS course for 5th batch (150 seats) of Karpagam Faculty
of Medical Sciences & Research, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu
under The Tamilnadu Dr. M.GR. Medical University, Chennai
uls JOA of the IMC Act, 1956 for the academic year 2016-
G 2017 was considered by the Executive Committee of the
Council at its meeting held on 13.05.2016 and it was decided
as under:-
"The Executive Committee of the Council considered the
compliance verification assessment report (19th February
H
KARPAGAM FACULTY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND 1081
RESEARCH v. U.0.1. AND ORS. [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
2016) along with previous assessment report (2"d & Jrd A
November, 2015) and-noted the following:-
]. As-per 0. T. & Ward records in Surgical & allied branches,
Radiodiagnosis and obstetrics & Gynaecology, full time
working of many f acuity members in the rank of Professors
and Asso. Prof. could not be verified. B
2. Many patients were admitted with minor ailments without
any maior problem. The occupancy was tailor to suit
assessment. E.ft. Qne referred patient froin Ophthalmology
was lying in medical ward.
3. There were only 4 Major operations & 3 minor operations C
on day of assessment. ·
4. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report.
·In view of above, the Executive Committee of the Council
decided to recommend to the Central Govt. not to renew the D
permission for admission of 5'h batch of 150 MBBS students
at Karpagam Faculty of Medical Sciences & Research,
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu under The Tamilnadu Dr. M.G.R.
Medical University, Chennai u/s JOA of the IMC Act, 1956
for the academic year 2016-17.
E
The above decision of the Executive Committee was
communicated to the Central Govt. vide this office letter dated
1410512016. The Central Government vide its letter dated
10.06.2016 had conveyed its decision to the college authorities
as well as other concerned authorities not to admit any
students for the academic year 2016-17. F
Thereafter, the Central Govt. vide its letter dated
20.08.2016 had granted approval to the said college for
renewal of permission for admission of 5rh batch (150 seats)
u/s JOA of the IMC Act, 1956 for the academic year 2016-17,
in the light of the directive of the Supreme Court Mandated G
Oversight Committee (OC) subject to submission of bank
guarantees, affidavit and some other conditions. ·
In continuation to the earlier letter_ dated 20.08.2016
the Central Govt. vide its letter dated 31.08.2016 had
H
1082 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 1l S.C.R.
A forwarded the following documents as submitted by the college
to the Ministry on 24.08.2016.
i. An affidavit dated 22.08.2016 from the Chairman of the Trust!
Society and the Dean/Principal of the college concerned.
ii. A bank guarantee bearing No. 0507116BG0000170 dated
B 22.08.2016 Rs. 2 Cr. issued by State Bank of India in favour
of MCI, with a validity of 1 year.
The Executive Committee of the Council further noted that
upon receipt of request through the Central Government u/s
l1 (2) of the IMC Act, 1956, the assessments to assess the
c standard of examination held by The Tamilnadu Dr. MGR
Medical University, Chennai and to assess the physical and
the other teaching facilities available for Recognition/Approval
of Karpagam Faculty of Medical Science & Research,
Coimbatore, Tamilnadu for the award of MBBS degree (150
D seats) granted by The Tamilnadu Dr. MGR Medical University,
Chennai u/s 11(2) of the IMC Act, 1956 as well as Compliance
Verification Assessment for renewal of permission for
admission of 5'h batch (150 MBBS seats) u!s JO(A) of the
IMC Act, 1956 for the Academic year 2016-17 with reference
to the conditional approval accorded by Oversight Committee
E have been carried out by the Council assessors on 17"'
February, 2017 and 15'" & 16'" March, 2017 and noted the
following:-
. 1. OPD attendance of 1,343 on day of assessment as provided
by Institute appear to be highly inflated. On physical
F verification at 11 a.m. & 11:30 a.m., total OPD statistics as
recorded in registers of all the departments was only 286.
2. There were NIL Normal Delivery & 2 Caesarean Section
on day of assessment.
3. Histopathology & Cytopathology workload for the whole
G
Institute was only OS each on day of assessment.
4. Data of radiological investigations as provided by lllstitute
appear to be inflated.
S. Wards: A11cillary facilities are not properly used in the wards.
H
KARPAGAM FACULTY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND 1083
RESEARCH v. U.0.I. AND ORS. [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
6. RHTC: No independent activity in National Health . A
Programmes is carried out.
7. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the. assessment report.
I
In. view of the above, the college has failed to abide by the
'.
undertaking it had given to the Central Govt. that there are
no deficiencies as per clause 3.2 (i) of the directions passed B
by the Supreme Court mandated Oversight Committee vide
Communication dated 1210812016. The Executive Committee,
after due deliberation and disc;ussion, has· decided .that the
college has failed to comply with the stipulation laid down by
the Oversight Committee. Accordingly, the Executive Committee c
recommends that as per the directions passed by Oversight
Committee in 19 as even after giving an undertaking that they
have fulfilled the entire infrastructure for recognition/approval
of Karpagam Faculty of medical sciences & Research,
Coimbatore, Tamilnadu for the award of MBBS degree ( 150
seats) granted by The Tamilnadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical D
University, Chennai uls 11 (2) of the IMC Act, 1956 and
Compliance Verification Assessment for renewal of permission
for admission of 5'" batch (ISO MBBS seats) u!s JO(A) of the
IMC Act, 1956 for the Academic year 2016-17, the college
was found to be grossly deficient. It has also been decided by E
the Executive Committee that the Bank Guarantee furnished
·by the college in pursuance of the directives passed by the
Oversight Committee as well as GO/ letter dated 2010812016
is liable to be encashed.
The above decision of the Executive Committee is subject F
to approval of Oversight Committee.
Two copy of assessment report is enclosed herewith.
Your faithfully,
Sd/-
G
(Dr. Rajendra Wabale)
Joint Secretary
Encl: As above.
Endst. No. MCl-34(4/)(RG-17)12016-Med.!179222
Date:24103/17
H
1084 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 11 S.C.R.
A Copy forwarded for information and necessary action to:-
I. The Secretary to Oversight Committee on MCI, 2"d Floor,
Academic Block, National Institute of Health & Family
Welfare, Munirka, New Delhi 110067
2. The Dean/Principal, Karpagam Faculty of Medical Sciences
B & Research, Pollachi Main Road, Othakkalmandapam,
Coimbatore-64I 032 (Tamilnadu), Email:
info@karpagam.com, karvagammedicalcollege@gmail.com
with the request to submit the detailed point-wise compliance
with regard to recognition/approval (softcopy-in editable
c word format with C.D. also) with the documentary evidence
in respect of the rectification of deficiencies pointed out as
above within I 5 days to the Council office a Longwith the
demand draft worth Rs. 3.00 lakhs (Rupees three lakhs only)
in favour of The Secretary, Medical Council of India
payable at New Delhi.
D
Sdl-
(Dr. Rajendra Wabale)
Joint Secretary"
(emphasis supplied)
E
The second communication sent by the Joint Secretary of the
MCI to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare dated 29•h April, 2017 reads thus:
"ANNEXURE P/9
F
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
No. MC!-34(4l)(RG-I 7)120I7-Med.I
Date: 29'h April, 2017
ITEM N0.6I
The Secretary
G
Govt. of India
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi- JJOOll.
H
KARPAGAM FACULTY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND 1085
RESEARCH v. U.0.1. AND ORS. [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
'•
Sub: Recognition/Approval of Karpagam Faculty. of medical A
Scienences & Research, ·Coimbatore, Tamilnadu for the Award
of MBBS degree (150 seats) granted by the Tamilnadu Dr.
M.GR. Medical University., Chennai u/s 11(2) of the IMC Act,
1956.
Sir, B
I am directed to inform you that an assessment to verify
the. compliance submitted by the college authorities on the
deficiencies pointed out in the assessment report (15'h & J61h
March, 2017) with regard to Recognition/Approval of
Karpagam Faculty of Medical Science & Research, C
Coimbatore, Tamilnadu for the award of MBBS degree (150
seats) granted by the Tamilnadu Dr. MGR Medical University,
Chennai uls 11(2) of the IMC Act, 1956 as well as Compliance
Verification Assessment for renewal of permission for
admission of 5'h batch (150 MBBS seats) u/s JO(A) of the D
IM_C Act, 1956 was carried outby the Council Assessors on
101h April, 2017. The compliance verification assessment
report (JO'h April, 2017) along with previous assessment report
(15'h & J61h March, 2017) was considered by the Executive
Committee of the Council at its meeting held on 28.04.2017
and it was decided as under: · E
'The Ex.ecutive Committee of the Council considered the
compliance verification assessment report (JO'h April 2017)
alongwith previous assessment report (l 5'h & J61h March,
2017) alongwith a letter dated 12.04.2017 from Dr. L.P.
Thangavelu, Faculty, Department of Surgery, Karpagam F
Faculty of Medical Sciences and Research, Coimbatore and
noted the following:-
1. Deficiency of faculty is 17.16% as detailed in the report.
2. Shortage of Residents is, 16.25% as .detailed in the report.
G
3. OPD attendance at 1.209 as claimed by Institute is highly
inflated. When the assessors reached the Institute at 10:15
a.m., a few patients were seen at Registration. After this the
Institute brought healthy persons to register to inflate OPD
attendance.
H
1086 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] II S.C.R.
A 4. Bed Occupancy at 10 a.m. is 62.76% lnstitute's fieure of
78% is highly inflated. The figures in the histopathology
registers, grossly mismatch the number of surgeries. There
is no register maintained in OT for handing over the specimens
in histopathology. Many specimens, paraffin blocks and slides
were missing on random checking. Cytopathology reported
B
by Astt. Prof. and repetition of same diagnosis with the same
findings. These were signed digitally.
5. (a) No. of at the time of visit at 1030 a.m. the pre operative
OT list showed 21 patients for surgeries of All OTs but in pre
OP waiting there were 5 patients. Completed surgeries were
c 2, and 2 surgeries were ongoing. Institute Statistics-JS inflated
to suit the requirement.
(b) 3 Surgeries were completed at 11 a.m. Minor surgeries
were done ill Major OT. Institute statistics-29 appear to be
highly inflated.
D
6. Many patients in the hospital were admitted which were
for superspeciality category, Superspeciality doctors are
coming and attending these patients.
(a) In Surgery ward Cl patient named Chandranesi was
E admitted for chemotherapy.
(b) Mrs. Mylathal No. 1703038727/K/T030936 was admitted
under urology as per records
(c) In D2 Pediatrics ward there were total 14 patients at 11
a.m. All were admitted on JQ1h April, 2017. Hence no old
F patient.
(d) Few case sheet of patient like Charudershna were blank
i.e. not seen in OPD before admission.
7. Inadequate clinical material as per verified case records
and indoor register.
G
(a) Number of admissions in Pediatrics on 8'h April, -03, 7'h
April-02, 9111 April-02, 61h April-02.
General Surgery department on 81h April-OS, S1h April-06,
111
6 April-09
H
KARPAGAM FACULTY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND 1087
RESEARCH v. U.0.I. AND ORS. [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
(b) TB Chest male ward as per Indoor register no admission A
on 811', 9'11, 4'11, 5'11 April. No admission from 27111 March to 3rt1
April, 22 11d March to 27'11 March no admissions.
(c) Skin ward male no admission from 23rd March to 29'11
March no admission .. 20'11 February to 6'11 March No
admission. 5111 April-2 admissions, 8111 April-2 admissions. B
(d) Many of senior faculty on clinical departments are not
working/participating in teaching.
(e) In Radiology - only one faculty was available. TB - No
faculty.
c
(j) Histopathology section is in the Central Clinical Lab. No
Histopathology section Pathology department.
(g) No attendance register or Biometric record was available
with Dean at 10 a.m.
8. Data of Radiological investigations as provided by the D
Institute are highly inflated.
9. Wards: Pantry in wards do not appear to.be used.
10. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report.
In view of the above, the Executive Committee of the E
Council decided to recommend to the Central Government
not to recognize/approve Karpagam Faculty of Medical
Sciences & Research, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu for the award
of MBBS degree (150 seats) granted by The Tamilnadu Dr.
M.GR. Medical University, Chennai u/s 11(2) of the IMC Act,
1956 and further decided that the Institute be asked to submit F
the compliance for rectification of the above deficiencies
within OJ month for further consideration of the matter.
However in view of above, the Executive Committee decided
to reiterate its earlier decision to recommend to the Central
Govt. that the college should be debarred from admitting a
students in the above course for a period of two academic
years i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19 as per the directions passed by
Oversight Committee in para 3.2(b) vide communication dated
1210812016'.
H
1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) l 1 S.C.R.
A The above decision of the Executive Committee is subject to
approval.of Oversight Committee.
A copy of assessment report is enclosed herewith.
Your faithfally,
13 Sd/-
(Dr. Rajendra Wabale)
Joint Secretary
Encl: As above.
Endst. No. MCI-34(4l)(RG-17)/2017-Med./107430
c Date: 29104117
Copy forwarded for information and necessary action to:-
!. The Secretary to Oversight Committee on MCI, 2"d Floor,
Academic Block, National Institute of Health & Family
D Welfare, Munirka, New Delhi - []0067.
2. The Dean/Principal, Karpagam Faculty of Medical
Sciences & Research, Pollachi Main Road,
Othakkalmandapam, Coimbatore-641032 (Tamilnadu),
Em a i l : info@ k a r v a g am.com.
E karpagammedicalcollege@gmail.com with the request to
submit the detailed point-wise compliance with regard to
recognition/approval (softcopy-in editable word format with
C.D. also) with the documentary evidence in respect of the
rectification of deficiencies pointed out as above within I (one)
to the Council office alongwith the demand draft worth Rs.
F 3.00 lakhs (Rupees three lakhs only) in favour of The
Secretary, Medical Council of India payable at New Delhi.
Sd/-
(Dr. Rajendra Wabale)
G Joint Secretary"
(emphasis supplied)
4. As mentioned above, the appellant has challenged the decision
of the Competent Authority of the Central Government communicated
H
KARPAGAM FACULTY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND 1089
RESJ;:ARCH v. U.0.I. AND ORS. [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
vide letter dated 31" May, 2017. The decision was partly in favour of A
the appellant, confirming the renewal of permission granted for admitting
students for the S1h batch in MBBS course for the academic session
2016-17 and also directing the MCI to return the bank guarantee ofRs.2
crore given by the appellant college. The latter part of the said decision,
however, is adverse to the appellant, debarring the appellant college from
admitting students in MBBS course (ISO seats) for the academic session B
2017-18.
5. The High Court vide order dated 19'h July, 2017, which is
impugned in this appeal, has issued notice to the respondents but refused
to grant any interim relief to the appellant to allow them to admit students
in MBBS course for the academic session 2017-18. As a result, the C
appellant approached this Court by way of present special leave petition
which was heard on 11th August, 2017. On the basis of the arguments ·
advanced by the parties, this Court directed the Central Government to
reconsider the matter and accordingly, passed the following order:
"Heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned D
se.nior counsel, Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for
the Union of India and Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel
for the Medical Council of India. Having heard learned
counsel for the parties, it is directed that the Central E
Government shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the
representatives of the Institutions and take assistance of the
newly constituted Committee as per the judgment passed by
the Constitution Bench in Amma Chandravati Educational and
Charitable Trust and Others v. Union of India and Another
{Writ Petition (C) No.408 of 2017], within ten days hence F
and pass a reasoned order by end of August, 2017. Be it noted,
we have passed this order as the order impugned is the
communication by the Central Government which is dated.31st
May, 2017.
' G
List the matter in the first week of September, 2017."
6. In view of the directions given by this Court, the Central
Government considered the matter afresh and has passed a detailed
order (running into 5 pages) on 31" August, 2017. The relevant portion
of the order is in paragraphs 16 & 17. The rest of the paragraphs refer
H
1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 11 S.C.R.
A to the previous proceedings reckoned by the Ministry. Paragraphs 16 &
17 of the said order read thus:
"16. Now, in compliance with the above direction of Hon'ble
Supreme Court dated JI.08.2017, the Ministry granted
hearing to the college on 25.08.2017. A member of the
B Oversight Committee was present during the entire proceeding
of the Hearing Committee. The Hearing Committee after
considering the record and submission of the college
submitted its report to the Ministry with the following
conclusion:-
c The Hearing Committee is of the view that the bed
occupancy as claimed by the college cannot be validated by
this Committee and requires physical verification.
A copy of the Hearing Committee report containing the above
observation is enclosed.
D / 7. Accepting the recommendations of Hearing Committee,
the Ministry reiterates its earlier decision dated 31.5.2017 to
confirm the conditional permission issued to the Karpagam
Faculty of Medical Sciences & Research, Coimbatore, Tamil
Nadu and directs the college not to admit MBBS students for
E the academic year 2017-18."
(emphasis supplied)
7. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed I.A. No.84171 of 2017 to
challenge the correctness of the aforementioned decision of the
Competent Authority of the Central Government, reiterating its earlier
F decision dated 31 ''May, 2017.
8. During the arguments, the counsel appearing for the appellant
invited our attention to the relevant documents to question the observation
recorded by the Executive Committee of the MCI and the Hearing
Committee. It is contended that the impugned decision refers to the
G observation of the Hearing Committee as reproduced in paragraph 16 of
the impugned decision dated 31" August, 2017, which according to the
appellant is contrary to the factual position emerging from the record. In
any case, contends learned counsel that it is an inconclusive observation
and could not have been the basis to pass the impugned decision. The
respondents, on the other hand, have supported the orders passed by the
H
KARPAGAM FACULTY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND 1091
RESEARCH v. U.0.1. AND ORS. [AM. KHANWILKAR, J.]
·Competent Authority of the Central Government on 31st May, 2017 and A
31st August, 2017 being well considered decisions.
9. We have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel
appearing for the. appellant college, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior
counsel appearing for the MCI and Mr. Maninder. Singh, learned
Additional Solicitor General appearing for Union oflndia. B
10. Ordinarily, we would have relegated the parties before the
High Court where the writ petition is still pending. However, as the
appellant invited the order dated nth August, 2017 from this Court and
thereafter participated in the proceedings before the Competent Authority
of the Central Government, which in turn, has. passed the impugned c
order datecJ 31st August, 2017 after re-consideration of the matter and
. as the appellant has chosen to assail the' saine by way of an I.A. filed in
this appeal, coupled with the urgency of the matter, as the cut-off date
for admission in MBBS course forthe academic session 2017-18 was to
·expire on 31st August, 2017; and that cut-off date can be extended only
by this Court in exercise of the plenary power under Article 142 of the D
·Constitution oflndi~, we permitted the appellant to agitate all the issues
before this Court.
11. We have reproduced the order dated 31 'i May,· 2017, passed
by the CompetentAuthorityoffueCentral Government, in its entirety to
discern the real issue that needs to be answered in the present appe~l. E
As noted earlier, the said order is partly in favour of the appellant. It is
adverse only to the extent ofdebarring the appellant college from admitting
students in MBBS course (150 seats) for.the academic session 2017-18
and also not granting recognition/approval to the appellant collegl'. which
had already started MBBS course and admitted five batches of students F
until the academic session 2016-17.
12. From the factual narration in the communications sen.t by the
MCI to the Ministry vide letters dated 24th March, 2017 and 29th April,
2017, which inter alia were considered by the Competent Authority of
the Central Government to form its opinion, it is indisputable that the G
appellant college was granted conditional renewal permission by the
Central Government on 20'h August, 2016 to admit 5'h batch (150 seats)
in MBBS course for the academic session 2016-17, on conditions
specified .by the Oversight Committee (for short "OC" constituted by
this Court) in its communication dated 12th August, 2016. The appellant
H
1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] ll S.C.R.
A college accepted those conditions and had filed an affidavit of undertaking
to remove all the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI within specified
time. Thereafter, a compliance verification assessment was carried out
by the MCI on 17'h February, 2017 and IS'h & l61h March, 2017 when
the following deficiencies were noticed:.
B "1. OPD attendance of 1,343 on day of assessment as
provided by Institute appear to be highly inflated. On physical
verification at 11 a.m. & ll :30 a.m., total OPD statistics as
recorded in registers of all the departments was only 286.
2. There were NTL Normal Delivery & 2 Caesarean Section
c on day of assessment.
3. Histopathology & Cytopathology workload for the whole
Institute was only 05 each on day of assessment.
4. Data of radiological investigations as provided by Institute
appear to be inflated.
D
5. Wards: Ancillary facilities are not properly used in the
wards.
6. RHTC: No independent activity in National Health
Programmes is carried out."
E 7. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report. "
13. The Executive Committee of the MCI, in its meeting held on
21" March, 2017, considered the relevant assessment reports submitted
by the Assessors periodically and, noting the deficiencies, recommended
to the Central Government not to renew the permission for admission of
F s•h batch of 150 students in MBBS course for the academic session
2016-17, and to debar the appellant college. The relevant portion of the
communication dated 24'h March, 2017 sent by the MCI to the Ministry,
reproducing the recommendation, reads thus:
"In view of the above, the college has failed to abide by
G the undertaking it had given to the Central Govt. that there
are no deficiencies as per clause 3.2 (i) of the directions passed
by the Supreme Court mandated Oversight Committee vide
Communication dated 121080016. The Executive Committee.
after due deliberation and discussion. has decided that the
£Q]lege has failed to comply with the stipulation laid down by
H
KARPAGAM FACULTY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND 1093
RESEARCH v. U.O.I. AND ORS. [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
the Oversight Committee. Accordingly, the Executive Committee A
recommends that as per the directions passed by Oversight
Committee in 19 as even after giving an undertaking that they
have fulfilled the entire infrastructure for recognition/approval
of Karpagam Faculty of medical sciences & Research,
Coimbatore, Tamilnadu for the award of MBBS degree ( 150 B
seats) granted by The Tamilnadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical
University, Chennai u/s 11(2) of the IMC Act, 1956 and
Compliance Verification Assessment for renewal of permission
for admission of 5'h batch (150 MBBS seats) u/s lO(A) of the
IMC. Act,· I956 for the Academic year 2016-17, the college
was found to be grossly deficient. It has also been decided by C
the Executive Committee that the Bank Guarantee furnished ·
by the college in pursuance of the directives passed by the·
Oversight Committee as well as GOT letter dated 2010812016
is liable to be encashed.
The above decision of the Executive Committee is subject D
to approml of Oversight Committee."
(emphasis supplied)
14. A copy of this communication was forwarded to the Secretary
of the OC as wen as the appellant college with a request to submit a
detailed, point-wise compliance with respect to ttie recognition/approval E
(soft copy in editable word format with CD also) along with documentary
evidence in respect of the rectification of the deficiencies pointed out by
the Assessors.
15. On JO'h April, 2017, a compliance verification assessment was
carri~d out in respect of which an assessment report was submitted to F
MCI. The Executive Committee of MCI in its meeting held on28'h April,
2017 considered the relevant assessment reports including the compliance
verification report dated IQ<h April, 2017 with regard to recognition/
approval of the appellant college under Section 11 (2) of the Act. The
Executive Committee noted 10 deficiencies (as reproduced in the G
communication dated 291hApril, 2017 -Annexure P/9) and decided to
send a negative recommendation to the Central Government on the
proposal for recognition/approval, including to debar the appellant college
from admitting students for two academic sessions 2017-18 & 2018-19
as per the directions passed by the OC in paragraph 3.2(b) vide
H
1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 11 S.C.R.
A communication dated 121h August, 2016. The said decision ofMCI was
communicated to the Central Government vide communication dated
29•h April, 2017 and copies of the said communication were also
forwarded to the Secretary of OC and the appellant college with a request
to submit a detailed, point-wise compliance with regard to recognition/
approval along with documentary evidence in respect ofrectification of
B
geficiencies pointed out in the said communication. On the basis of the
aforesaid recommeµdation of the MCI, the Competent Authority of the
Central Government took a decision which was partly in favour of the
appellant college. In other words, the Ministry did not accept the
recommendation of the MCI in toto. The Ministry, instead, vide order
c dated 31" May, 2017 merely directed the appellant college not to admit
students for the academic ~ession 2017-18, which position has been
·reiterated in the order dated 31" August, 2017 passed after
reconsideration. It is this part of the direction which is adverse to the
appellant.
D 16. The fact that the Competent Authority of the Central
Government has confirmed the renewal of permission in favour of the
appellant for academic session 2016-17, it would not follow that the
appellant college is entitl~d to grant of recognition/approval under Section
11(2) of the Act from the academic session 2017-18 as a matter of
course, without removing the deficiencies pointed out in the latest
E assessment report dated 1o•h April, 2017. The appellant, however, would
contend that the correctness of the report dated lO'h April, 2017, is
seriously in doubt. For, the previous assessment reports made no reference
to the deficiencies regarding faculty and residents in particular. The Dean
of the appellant college had registered his protest and made such noting
F on the said report - that he did not agree with most of the findings in the
report and that he would submit a detailed reply. Indeed, the assessment
reports dated 17•h February, 2017 and 15'h/16'h March, 2017 have noted
deficiencies which are not identical to the deficiencies noted in the
assessment report dated lQ•h April, 2017. It must, however, be kept in
mind that the reports are in respect of the factual position noticed during
G the inspection carried out on the relevant dates. The variation of
· deficiencies may be on account of different situations. Therefore, it may
not be correct to discredit the lQ•h April, 2017 assessment report on the
basis of such variations. It is one thing to say that the college is in a
position to explain the deficiencies but whether to accept that explanation,
H
KARPAGAM FACULTY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND 1095
RESEARCH v. U.O.I. AND ORS. [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)
is within the domain of the expert body. There is nothing to indicate in A
the communication dated 29'h April, 2017 sent by the MCI or; for that •
matter, the impugned decision of the Competent Authority of the Central
Government dated 31" May, 2017, that any plausible explanation was
offered by the appellant college in regard to. the stated deficiencies.
Even the order dated 31" August, 2017, does not indicate as to whether
any explanation was offered by the appellant college during the'hearing B
· for reconsideration by the Central Government. Notably, a member of
the OC constituted by this Court was present during the hearing on 25'h
August, 2017. The Hearing Committee was of the view that the bed
· occupancy as claimed by the college cannot be validated by the
Committee unless physical verification was done for that purpose. That C ·
finding pre-supposes that the explanation offered by the appellant college,
if any, did not commend to the Hearing, Committee. The fulfilment of
benchmark regarding bed occ;upancy for grant of recognition/approval
under Section 11 (2) of the Act is essential. That is a precondition for .
grant of recognition and can certainly be a relevant factor to be considered D
by the MCI as well as the Hearing Committee.
17. The bed occupancy noticed in the assessment report dated
lQ'h April, 2017 is 62.76% as against the claim made by the college of .
78%. The claim of the ~ollege was found to be highlyinflated. Even in
the earlier assessment reports comments have been made regarding the
bed occupancy to be tailor made to suit the assessment. Suffice it to · E
observe tliat the Hearing Committee, during the reconsideration, was
not convinced about the deficiency regarding bed occupancy until it was
physically verified. It is not for this Court to sit over.the satisfaction of
the expert body and of the Competent Authority of the Central
Government as a Court of appeal. . ' . ' F
18. The appellant would then contend that it was not permissible
for the MCI to carry out successive inspections. Reliance has. been
placed on the dictum of this Court in Kanachur Islamic Education
Trust Vs. Union of India andAnr. 1, decided on 30'h August, 2017. This
submission does not commend us~ For, in the aforementioned case, this G
Court found that it was unambiguously clear that the inspection of ~he
concerned college was already conducted on 17'h/18'h November, 2016
and it did not divulge any substantial deficiency so as to justify disapproval.
Further, no.reason was assigned for the surprise inspection carried out
'(2017) 10 SCALE 321
1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] II S.C.R.
A on 9th/I()th December, 2016, in a short span of less than one month. In
that backdrop the Court held that the justification for such surprise
inspection was not explained by the MCI. In the subsequent decision in
the case of Royal Medical Trust & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr. 2 ,
the decision in Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (supra) has been
explained and the argument under consideration has been rejected. Be
B
that as it may, in the present case, it is not a case of successive surprise
inspections. For, the inspection conducted on 17th February, 2017 was
followed by compliance verification assessment on 15th/16th March, 2017
for considering the proposal for confirmation of renewal of LOP for the
academic session 2016-17; and the inspection carried out on 1()th April,
C 2017 was for considering the proposal regarding recognition/approval
for the college from academic session 2017-18.
19. Considering the above, it is not possible to doubt the decision
of the Ministry dated 31" May, 2017, as confirmed on 31" August, 2017
after re-consideration. The fact that there are some factual errors
D committed in paragraph I 3 of the impugned decision dated 31st August,
2017, regarding the chart pertaining to the some other inspection has
been fairly admitted by the counsel for the respondents as a clerical
error. But that would not vitiate the order dated 31" August, 2017.
Because, the decision dated 31" May, 2017 is founded on the factual
position stated in the recommendation of the MCI vi de communications
E dated 24th March, 2017 and 29th April, 2017, in particular. The latter
communication pertains to the proposal for grant of recognition/approval
to the appellant college under Section 11 (2) of the Act
20. Counsel for the appellant while referring to the communication
dated 5th April, 2017 sent by the Under Secretary to Government of
F India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to the appellant college
(Annexure-A/9) vehemently contended that the personal hearing before
the Ministry was scheduled on I 1th April, 2017, but the inspection of the
college was conducted one day earlier. The argument, though attractive
at first blush, will have to be rejected. In that, the personal hearing
G scheduled on 11th April, 2017, in terms of the said communication dated
5th April, 2017, was for considering the proposal for confirmation of
renewal permission for 5th batch (150 seats) of students in MBBS course
for the academic session 2016-17, under Section IO(A) of the Act and
not related to the issue of grant of recognition/approval under Section
H, 2W.P.(C) No.747 of2017, decided on 12'" September, 2017
KARPAGAM FACULTY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND 1097
RESEARCH v. U.0.I. AND ORS. [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
11 (2) of the Act which was for the academic session 2017-18. Whereas, . A
the inspection conducted on lQ•h April, 2017 was for considering the
proposal for grant of recognition under Section 11 of the Act and not
pertaining to the proposal for renewal of permission for the academic
session 2016-17. Indisputably, the renewal of permission for the academic
session 2016-17 has been confirmed by the Central Government vide B
order dated 31" May, 2017, despite the negative recommendation given
by the MCI in that behalf. Suffice it to observe that the argument of the
appellant is replete with confusion in reference to the record and
proceedings relating to two different proposals, namely, one for
confirmation of renewal of LOP for the academic session 2016-17 under
Section 1OA of the Act and another for grant of recognition/approval C
from academic session 2017-18 under Section 11 of the Act. The
benc.hmark and the minimum standards for these proposals are bound to
be different and we must presume that the expert body, such as MCI
and the Hearing Committee in which one member of the OC also
participated, were fully aware of the essentialities and pre-conditions D
for grant of recognition/approval. Since the decision of the Competent
Authority of the Central Government is based on such inputs, it is not
open for us to sit over that decision as a Court of appeal. Further, as
ordained in the decision of Royal Medical.Trust (supra), the relief to
permit the appellants to admit students for academic session 2017-18
cannot be countenanced. In that decision, in paragraph 52, this Court E
has also rejected the challenge to the order such as dated 31st August,
2017, being bereft of reasons. That dictum applies on all fours to the
present case.
21. Accordingly, we find no merit in this appeal. Since we have
already exan:iined all the issues raised by the appellant for assailing the · F
correctness of the order dated 31st May, 2017 and confirmation thereof
on 31st August, 2017 by the Competent Authority of the Central
Government, nothing would survive for consideration in the writ petition
filed by the appellant before the High Court of Madras. As a result, Writ
Petition No.18334 of2017 be deemed to have been disposed of in terms
G
of this judgment.
22. We may, however, make it clear that the proposal for grant of
recognition/approval submitted by the appellant college for the acaden:iic
session 2017-18 be treated as having been madefor the academic session
2018-19 and be processed by the respondents according! y, in accordance
H
1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 11 S.C.R.
A with law. For that purpose, the MCI is directed to conduct inspection of
the appellant college within two months and inform the appellant about
the deficiencies, if any, with the option to remove the same within the
time limit specified in that regard. The appellant college shall then report
its compliance and communicate the removal of deficiencies to MCI,
B whereafter it will be open to the MCI to undertake verification of the
compliance and then prepare its report to be submitted to the Central
Government. The Central Government shall take appropriate decision,
as may be advised, in accordance with law, within one month therefrom
and forthwith communicate the same to the appellant college. If the
appellant college is aggrieved by the said decision, it will be open to the
C appellant to take recourse to remedies as may be available in law.
23. The appeal and interlocutory application are disposed of in the
above terms. No order as to costs.
Ankit Gyan Appeal disposed of. .
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Indian Medical Council Act"Sign in to search