Supreme Court of India
SHRI GANGAJALI EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2017 INSC 832
- Decided
- 31 August 2017
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- DIPAK MISRA
Holding
The Court held that the Competent Authority must give due regard to the Oversight Committee’s observations and cannot disregard them without recording reasons; therefore, the order barring admissions was quashed and the college was directed to be included in the counselling process.
Summary
Shri Gangajali Education Society applied to the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (MHFW) for a Letter of Permission to start a medical college. The Medical Council of India (MCI) found several deficiencies and recommended rejection, but the Supreme Court‑constituted Oversight Committee (OC) later accepted the college’s explanations and recommended confirmation of the permission. Despite the OC’s view, the MHFW again rejected the application, barred the college from admitting students for two years and ordered its bank guarantee to be encashed. The petitioners challenged this order, arguing that the Competent Authority failed to consider the OC’s observations and did not give reasons, violating statutory duty and natural justice. The Court held that the Competent Authority must give due regard to the OC’s findings and cannot disregard them without recording tangible reasons. Consequently, the order barring admissions was set aside and the college was directed to participate in the ongoing counselling process for the 2017‑18 academic year. The judgment was delivered under the Court’s plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
Issues considered
- The Competent Authority must consider the observations and recommendations of the Oversight Committee while deciding on the Letter of Permission.
- Whether the MHFW’s rejection of the application without analysing the OC’s factors violates statutory duty and principles of natural justice.
- Whether the college can be barred from admitting students for two years and have its bank guarantee encashed despite having started operations and meeting infrastructure norms.
- Whether the Supreme Court can, under Article 142, direct inclusion of the college in the counselling process for admissions.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Medical educationMedical Council of IndiaLetter of PermissionOversight CommitteeArticle 142Natural justiceStatutory dutyAdmission of studentsPublic interest
Judgment
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 463
SHRI GANGAJALI EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Writ Petition (C) No.709 of 2017)
WITH
B
(I.A. No. 74584of2017)
AUGUST 31, 2017
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Education I Educational Institutions - Medical College - C
Petitioner No.I applied to respondent No.I Ministry of Health &
Family Welfare. Government of India ("MHFW") for establishment
of a new medical college from academic session 2016-17
onwards - That application was forwarded to respondent no.2.
Medical Council of India ("MCI") for evaluation, which opined D
several deficiencies in the proposed college - Based on
recommendations made by MCI, the MIJFW disapproved the
proposal - Thereafter. the Oversight Committee (" OC ") constituted
by Supreme Court - After considering case of petitioner. order
passed by the OC - Pursuant thereto MHFW issued a conditional
Letter of permission to. the petitioners - Thereafter, a compliance E
verification inspection conducted by the MCI, which gave negative
recommendation to the MHFW - OC conveyed its opinion to the
MHFW that inspection conducted by MCI was contrary to the
guidelines issued by the OC - MHFW. however. rejected petitioner:,
application on the basis of the recommendation made by respondent F
No.2 MCI, while also debarring the petitioners from admitting
students for two years i.e 2017-18 and 2018-19 - Aggrieved,
Petitioners filed writ petition before High Court, which ordered ji-esh
opportunity of hearing to petitioner - Howeve1; MHFW reiterated
its earlier decision - On appeal, held: Jn instant case, the Competent
authority of the Government of India has not dealt with the matter G
as was expected in terms of the direction issued by the· Court - No
attempt made by the Competent authority to analyse the factors
noticed by the OC whilst recommending confirmation" ofL~tter of
permission in favour of the peiitioner college - From the observations
of the OC, it was amply clear that the deficiency noticed by the H
~3 ,
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.
A Assessing Officer was within the permissible limils - Neither 1he
Hearing Committee nor the Competent aulhority has not made any
endeavour 10 dislodge the observation of OC - The
recommendatirms of OC may not be stricto sensu binding on the
Competent Authority. hut same cannot be completely disregarded -
Further. the petitioner college undertakes to remove with promptiwde
B
any deficiency already noted - Considering the fact that the
petitioners college fulfills the infrastructure and academic
requireme/1ls and has already started the college for academic
session 2016-J7. in larger public interest. respondent directed to
permit the petitioner college to take part in the current year i.e.
c 2017-18 counselling prucess which is still in progress - Constitution
of India - Art.142.
Allowing the petition and I.A. , the Court
HELD: 1. No attempt was made by the Competent
Authoritv co analyse the factors noticed by the OC whilst
D recommending confirmation of Letter of Permission in favour of
the petitioner college. From the observations of the OC, it was
amply clear that the deficiency noticed by the Assessing Officer
was within the permissible norms. Moreover, the explanation
offered by the petitioner college with regard to each of the
E deficiencies was acceptable. In the case on hand, neither the
Hearing Committee nor the Competent Authority has made any
endeavour to dislodge the said observation. It is clear that the
recommendation of OC may not be stricto sens11 binding on the
Competent Authority. But at the same time, it cannot be
completely disregarded. Also, the Competent Authority is not
F expected to give elaborate reasons but is certainly bound to advert
to the relevant factors noticed by the OC and record its clear
finding that it was disagreeing with the same for some tangible
reasons discernablc from the record before it. It is also possible
that the Competent Authority may have additional reasons or
G advert to some material which has been glossed over by the OC,
but then, the decision making process would require the
Competent Authority to not only advert to such matter but also
record its reasons to come to a different conclusion. In the present
case, the Competent Authority has not dealt with the matter as
was expected in terms of the direction issued by the Court to
H
SHRI GANGAJALI EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR. v. UNION 465
OF INDIA AND ORS.
reconsider the matter after giving opportunity to the petitioners. A
[Para 12] [477-D-H; 475-A]
2. The reconsideration of the matter by the Competent
Authority in terms of the order passed by the Court leaves much
to be desired. It borders on abdication of statutory duty. Even for
academic session 2016-17, the approach of the Competent B
Authority was questioned by the petitioner college and after
pursuing remedies, the petitioner college was e> entually granted
a Letter of Permission subject to conditions. It is not the finding
of the Competent Authority that the conditions so specified have
not been fulfilled by the petitioner college. The petitioner college C
has already started functioning from the academic session 2016-
17 and is desirous of getting permission to admit the second batch
in the MBBS course for the academic session 2017-18. The
petitioner college undertakes to remove with promptitude any
deficiency already noted or which becomes known in due course.
Considering the fact that the petitioner college fulfills the D
. infrastructure and academic requirements and has already started
the college for the academic session 2016-17 by admitting the
first batch of students in the MBBS course, in the larger public
interest, this writ petition and the application filed by the
petitioners are allowed. [Para 14] [475-G-H; 476-A-C]
E
3. The impugned decision to the extent that it bars the
petitioners to admit upto 150 students in the academic session
2017-18 Is quashed and set aside. Instead, the respondents
directed to permit the petitioner college to take part in the current
year counselling process which is still in progress. The cut-off
date for completing the admissions in respect of the petitioner F
college, however, will stand extended till 51• September, 2017.
The respondents shall make available students willing to take
admission in the petitioner college through central counselling,
in order of their merit. This direction is being issued in exercise
of plenary powers of this Court under Article 142 of the G
Constitution of India, in the peculiar facts of the present case to
do complete justice and in the larger public interest, so that
aspiring students who have not been admitted to the 1" year
MBBS course for the academic session 2017-18, in order of their
merit in NEET examination, will get an opportunity to be admitted
H
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.
A in the petitioner college. At the same time, it is made clear that
the MCI or the Competent Authority of the Central Government
is free to inspect the petitioner college as and when deemed fit
and, if any deficiency is found, after giving opportunity to the
petitioner college, it may suitably proceed against the college in
accordance with law. [Para 15] [476-D-G]
B
Glocal M,!dica/ College and Super Speciality Hospital
and Reseqrch Centre v. Union of India 2017 (8) SCALE
356; D1: Jagat Narain Suhharti Charitable Trust and
Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 2017 (10) SCALE 308
- referred to.
c Case Law Reference
2017 (8) SCALE 356 referred to Para 7
2017 (10) SCALE 308 referred to Para 14
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
D 709 of2017
Under article 32 of the Constitution ofindia.
With
I. A. No. 74584 of 2017.
Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv., Amalpushp Shroti, Adv. for the Petitioner.
E Ajit Kurruµ- Sinha, Vikas Singh, Sr. Advs., Shadman Ali, Anmol
Chandan, Gaurav Sharma, Amandeep Kaur, Prateek Bhatia, Dhawal
Mohan. Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. I. The petitioners have filed the
F
present writ petition challenging the order ofrespondent No.I dated 14"'
August, 2017, whereby respondent No. I, relying upon the
recommendations made by respondent No.2, rejected the petitioners'
application. for establishment of a medical college and debarred the
petitioners from admitting students to the said college for two years i.e.
G 2017-18 and 2018-19 and also directed that the petitioners' bank guarantee
of Rs. 2 crore be encashed.
2. Petitioner No. I Shri Gangajali Education Society had made an
application to the respondent No. I Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Government of India (for short "MHFW") for establishment of a new
H medical college at Bhilai, Chhatisgarh in the name and style of 'Shri
SHRI GANGAJALI EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR. v. UNION 467
OF INDIA AND ORS. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
Shankaracharya Institute of Medical Sciences' from the academic session A
2016-17 onwards. That application was forwarded to respondent No.2
Medical Council of India (for short "MCI") for evaluation and making
recommendations to the MHFW under Section I 0-A of Medical Council
Act, 1956 (for short "1956 Act"), which then opined that several
deficiencies existed in the proposed college and submitted its negative
B
recommendation to MHFW vi de its letter dated 14'" May, 2016. Based
on the recommendations made by MCI, the MHFW disapproved the
proposal vide order dated lQ•h June, 2016 but nevertheless, granted liberty
to the petitioners to apply for the next academic session.
3. Soon thereafter, the Oversight Committee (for short "OC")
constituted by this Court, adopted a resolution to permit all applicant
c
colleges, including the petitioners, to furnish compliance reports in relation
to the deficiencies communicated by MCI. MCI would then forward
such compliance reports to the MHFW which, in tum, would take a
decision on the said reports and forward its decision along with the
applications and the reports to the OC. After considering the petitioners' D
case, the OC passed an order on ll'h August, 2016.
4. Pursuant to the OC's aforestated order, the MHFW issued a
conditional Letter of Permission to the petitioners dated 20'" August,
2016, which was subject to certain criteria being fulfilled, including an
inspection by the OC for verification of the compliance report issned by E
the petitioners.
5. Thereafter, a compliance verification inspection was conducted
by the MCI on 16'"1171h December, 2016, and after considering the
assessment report of the said inspection, the Executive Committee of
the MCI noted several deficiencies in the petitioners' college. The MCI F
then submitted its negative recommendation to the MHFW vide letter
dated 15'" January, 2017, inter a/ia to revoke th.e Letter of Permission
granted to the petitioners. After receipt of the aforestated
recommendation, the MHFW/Director General of Health Services (for
short "DGHS") granted the petitioners an opportunity for personal hearing
on 81' February, 2017. The Hearing Committee noted as follows: G
Sri. Deficiencies reported by MCI 0 bserva tio ns of
No. liearing committee
I. Deficiency of faculty is 10.60 % No satisfactory
as detailed. in the report. justification for
deficiencies. H
468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 13 S.C.R.
A ii. Shortage of Residents is 15.21 %
as detailed in the report.
iii. In General Medicine ward, some
patients did not require
hospitalization; E.g. Bodyache,
B Dy~pepsia, Giddiness, etc. In
General Surgery ward, some
pati~nts are such who do not
require hospitalization; E.g.
Simple would dressing, etc. One
patient who required Dental
c Intervention was admitted in
General Surgery ward.
iv. OPD attendance was 540 at 2
p.m. en day of assessment against
requirement of 600 as per
D
Regulations.
v. There was NIL Minor Operation
on day of assessment
vi. Radiological investigations
E workload is grossly inadequate.
USG workload was NIL on day
of assessment.
vii. Laboratory investigations
workload is inadequate. There
F was NIL Mocrobiological &
Serological investigations on day
of assessment.
viii. Histopathology & Cytopathology
workload was NIL on day of
G assessment.
ix. Wards: Space between 2 beds is
< 1.5 m. in Orthopaedics ward.
Nursing station is unsatisfactory
in several wards.
H
SHRI GANGAJALI EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR. v. UNION 469
OF INDIA AND ORS. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
x. Casualty: Separate Casualty for A
O.G. is not available. Casualty
attendance & admissions are sub-
optimal.
xi. There are only 2 Pre-operative
beds. B
xii. ICUs: There was NIL patient in
SICU & only 1 patient each in
NICU/PICU on day of
assessment. Out of 2 patients in
ICCU, 1 was of
Glomerulonephritis & another c
was ofHemiparesis.
xiii. Labour room: Septic Labour
room is located away from
Labour room.
xiv. MRD: It is partially D
computerized.
xv. Central Photography Section:
Equipment is inadequate. There is
no staff.
' E
xvi. Students' Hostels: There is no
hostel for medical students as
such. Engineering college hostel
is used for accommodating
medical students by creating
partitions.
F
xvii. Nurses' Hostel: No hostel for
Nurses is available as such. They
are accommodated on ground
floor of Engineering students'
hostel.
G
xviii. Pharmaco Vigilance Committee:
No meeting is held.
xix. MEU: It is not available.
xx. College Council: NIL meeting is
held. H
470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.
A This report was forwarded to the OC for guidance vide letter dated 5"
May, 2017. In response to this letter, the OC conveyed its opinion to the
MHFW vide its letter dated 14'' May, 2017, interalia recording that the
inspection conducted by MCI was contrary to the guidelines issued by
the OC. The OC recommended confinnation of the grant of the Letter
of Permission dated 20•h August, 2016 to the petitioners, as set out
B
hereunder:
'"(i) Faculty:- As per EMCR 1999, the requirement o((aculty
is acceptable with deficiency upto 20%. However College
has explained the grounds on which the assessors had not
accepted the 7 faculty members. The explanation is
c acceptable.
{ii) Residents:- College has explained the grounds on which
the assessors had not accepted 4 Residents. The explanation
lv acceptable. Deficiency o(3 Residents i.e. 6.52% is within
norms.
D
(iii) General Medicine ward:- This deficiency is subjective.
No MSR.
(iv) OPD al/endance:- During the last assessment the College
had mentioned that the OPD attendance by 4 pm was 620,
E while assessors had mentioned 340 at 12 noon. This
attendance was 540 upto 2 pm. The assessors have not shown
this as deficiency in their summary and OPD attendance is
540 in SAF The rest of the remark is subjective.
{v) Operations:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR.
F (vi) Radiological investigations workload:- All equipments
were available and fimctional as per SAF No ji1rther remarks
of the assessor. The deficiency pointed out is subjective. No
MSR.
(vii) Laboratory investigations workload:- This deficiency
G is subjective. No MSR.
(viii) Histopatho/ogy and Cytopatho/ogy workload:- This
deficiency is subjective. No MSR.
(ix) Wards:- It is not specified by how much is the distance
less than 1.5111. This deficiency is subjective. No MSR.
H
SHRI GANGAJALI EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR. v. UNION 471
OF INDIA AND ORS. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
(x) Casualty:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR. A
(xi) ICUs:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR.
(xii) Labour room:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR.
(xiii) MRD:- This deficiency is suNective. No MSR.
(xiv) Central Photography Section:- The deficiency pointed
out is subjective. No MSR. B
(x1) Student's hostels:- Explanation of College is acceptable.
(xvi) Nurses Hostel:- Hostel is within the campus with
adequate capacity.
(xvii) Pharmaco Vigilance Committee:- This deficiency is
subjective. No MSR.
c
(xviii) College Council:- This deficiency is subjective. No
MSR.
(xix) There are only 2 Pre-operative beds.:- This deficiency
is subjective. No MSR.
D
LoP confirmed. "
(emphasis supplied)
6. However, on 31" May, 2017, the MHFW rejected the petitioners'
application on the basis of the recommendation made by respondent
No.2 MCI, while also debarring the petitioners from admitting students E
for two years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19 and further, authorising respondent
No.2 MCI to encash the petitioners' bank guarantee.
7. Aggrieved, the petitioners challenged the above order of the
MHFW by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh.
The High Court proceeded to dispose of the same in light of the decision F
of this Court in Glocal Medical College and Super Speciality Hospital
and Research Centre v Union of India 1 [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 411
of 2017] in which this Court had directed the Central Government to
revaluate the recommendations made by the MCI and the OC with
respect to the applicant college therein as also to grant the applicant
college therein a fresh opportunity of hearing. G
8. Accordingly, the petitioners were granted fresh hearing on 81h
August, 2017 to present their case but ultimately, the MHFW reiterated
its earlier decision and rejected the petitioners' application vide order
1
2017 (8) SCALE 356 H
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.
A dated I 4'" August, 20 I 7 while also debarring the petitioners from adnritting
students for two years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19 and authorising
respondent No.2 MCI to encash the petitioners' bank guarantee. The
relevant extract of the impugned decision reads thus:
'" 17. Now, in compliance with the above direction of Hon 'hie
B High Court dated 03.08.2017, !he Ministry granted hearing
to the college on 08.08.2017. The Hearing Committee after
considering the record and oral & written submission of the
college submitted its report to the Ministry. The findings of
Hearing Committee are as under:
c The Committee note that deficiency of 7 faculty and 7
residents have been pointed our in the MCI assessment.
The SAF fom1 mentions 8 faculty and 5 residents who were
not accepted, 11 for coming late and 2 in the absence of
Form-16. The Forni 16 and salary details for some faculty
were randomly perused. The college did not submit Form-
D 16 for residents since they are very mobile and do not stay
for Icing periods.
The suhmission of !he college !hat palients go for
laboratory investigations after clinical rounds is not
acceptable. The college had no explanation for how a renal
E and a neurology patient could he admitted in Intensive
Cardiac Care Unit.
The Commiuee also notes the finding of the assessors that
nursing hostel is not available and they are accommodated
in the Engineering hostel run by the same management.
F The college denied and was asked to submit some proof of
the availability of hostels. They could not provide a
convincing evidence.
In view of the above the Committee concludes that the
deficiency of clinical material and infrastructure seems
G more pronounced than the deficiency of faculty and
residents. The college is at LoP stage and the facilities have
to be satisfactorily verified.
The Commitlee agrees with the decision of the Ministry vide
letter dated 31.05.2017 to debar the college for two years
H and also permit MCI to encash hank guarantee.
SHRI GANGAJALI EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR. v. UNION 473
OF INDIA AND ORS. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
18.Accepting the recommendations of Hearing Committee. A
the Ministry reiterates its earlier decision dated 31.05.2017
to debar the college from admitting students for a period of
2 years i.e., 2017-18 & 2018-19 and also to authorize MCI
to encash Bank Guarantee of Rs.2 Crores."
(emphasis supplied) B
9. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition before this
Court, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to set aside the aforesaid
order of the MHFW dated 14., August, 2017 as also to confirm the
Letter of Permission granted to the petitioners for admission of students
(150 seats) to the MBBS course. The petitioners also filed an Interlocutory c
Application along with the main writ petition, being LA. No.74584 of
2017, praying for stay of the MHFW's order of 14., August, 2017 and to
direct the respondent No.3 State to include the petitioner No.2 college
for counselling and allot students for the MBBS course for the academic
year 2017-18. This application was taken up for hearing along with the
main writ petition. D
I 0. The principal grievance ofthe petitioners is that the Competent
Authority of the Government of India has once again passed a casual
and mechanical order, mainly being influenced by the recommendation
of the MCI. It has failed to advert to the opinion recorded by the OC in
its letter dated 14.05.2017, which expressly held that the deficiencies E
noticed by the Assessing Officer were acceptable and within the norms
specified therefor. No effort has been made by the Competent Authority
to indicate any tangible reason for not accepting the stated opinion of the
OC. Significantly, the deficiencies adverted to by the Competent Authority
relate to technical matters and rejected the explanation offered by the F
college on the basis of conjectures. On the other hand, the OC was fully
convinced that the petitioner college fulfilled the requisite requirements
regarding infrastructure and academic matters. No finding has been
recorded by the Competent Authority that the deficiency of faculty of
I 0.60 % and residents of 6.52 % was exceeding the prescribed norms in
tha\ regard. Further, the Competent Authority has not considered or G
analysed the explanation offered by the petitioner college with regard to
the deficiencies highlighted in the impugned decision but has jumped to
the conclusion that the said explanation was not acceptable. Moreover,
the conclusion reached by the Competent Authority, that there was
deficiency of clinical material and infrastructure, was manifestly wrong· H
474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 13 S.C.R.
A and is belied by the opinion of the OC, but no effort has been made by
the Competent Authority to point out the specific infonnation and material
facts as to why it took a view contrary to the one taken by the OC. In
substance, the argument is that the conclusion reached by the Competent
Authority suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and non-
consideration of relevant materials and record which were pressed into
B
service by the petitioners even during the recent hearing.
11. The respondents, on the other hand, have supported the
conclusion re~ched by the Competent Authority and would contend that
the same is just and proper. According to the respondents, MCI in its
recommendation, has adverted to the deficiency not only regarding faculty
c and residents but also clinical material which, according to it, was more
pronounced. The respondents contend that this writ petition is devoid of
merits and deserves to be dismissed.
12. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the
considered opinion that the Competent Authority has once again passed
D an order which is cryptic, if not perverse. No attempt has been made by
the Competent Authority to analyse the factors noticed by the OC in its
letter dated 14.05.2017 whilst recommending confinnation of Letter of
Permission in favour ofthe petitioner college. From the observations of
the OC, it was amply clear that the deficiency noticed by the Assessing
E Officer was within the permissible norms. Moreover, the explanation
offered by the petitioner college with regard to each of the deficiencies
was acceptable. In the case on hand, neither the Hearing Committee
nor the Competent Authori"ty has made any endeavour to dislodge the
said observation. We are conscious of the fact that the recommendation
of OC may not be stricto sensu binding on the Competent Authority.
F But at the same time, it cannot be completely disregarded. We are also
conscious of the fact that the Competent Authority is not expected to
give elaborate reasons but is certainly bound to advert to the relevant
factors noticed by the OC and record its clear finding that it was
disagreeing with the same for some tangible reasons discernable from
G the record before it. It is also possible that the Competent Authority may
have additional reasons or advert to some material which has been glossed
over by the OC, but then, the decision making process would require the
Competent Authority to not only advert to such matter but also record its
reasons to come to a different conclusion. In the present case, the
Competent Authority has not dealt with the matter as was expected in
H
SHRI GANGAJALI EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR. v. UNION 475
OF INDIA AND ORS. [A. M. KHANWlLKAR, J.]
terms of the direction issued by the Court to reconsider the matter after A
giving opportunity to the petitioners.
13. Be that as it may, reverting to the factors which have been
highlighted in the impugned decision, particularly in paragraph 17 which
is the edifice of the impugned order, the first is about the deficiency of
seven faculty and seven residents pointed out by the MCI. With reference B
to the said deficiency, the OC has noted that the deficiency up to 20% is
permissible. The Competent Authority has not chosen to dislodge that
observation of the OC. Further, the OC has noticed that the explanation
offered by the petitioner college with regard to deficiency of 7 faculty
and 7 residents was acceptable and plausible. However, the Competent
Authority has not analysed the said explanation in the impugned decision C
or recorded a clear finding that it was disagreeing with the view of OC
in that behalf for reasons which can be perceived as tangible and just.
The Competent Authority has then adverted to another facet of the.
deficiency concerning Form 16 and salary details, but has not chosen to
i advert to the explanation given by the petitioner college in that behalf D
r which had found favour with the OC. Another reason which has weighed
with the Competent Authority is that the explanation of the college that
patients go for laboratory investigations after clinical rounds is not
acceptable and that no explanation was forthcoming from the petitioner
college as to how a renal and neurology patient could be admitted in
Intensive Cardiac Care Unit. Assuming that the observation is correct, E
the issue cif granting permission cannot be answered on the basis of one
stray incident. No finding ha~ been recorded by the Competent Authority
that a pattern of such practice is being followed by the college and it has
been so noticed from the record and further, that such lapse is opposed
to defined medical protocols entailing in revocation of pennission accorded F
to a medical college.
14. An objective assessment would be one which is based on the
information gathered from the entire record pertaining to the relevant
period and not just one stray lapse or mistake. Suffice it to observe that
the reconsideration of the matter by the Competent Authority in terms. G
of the order passed by the Court leaves much to be desired. It borders
on abdication of statutory duty. It is unnecessary to underscore that
even for academic session 2016-17, the approach of the Competent
Authority was questioned by the petitioner college and after pursuing
remedies, the petitioner college was eventually granted a Letter of
H
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 13 S.C.R.
A Pennission subject to conditions. It is not the finding of the Competent
Authority that the conditions so specified have not been fulfilled by the
petitioner college. The petitioner college has already started functioning
from the academic session 2016-17 and is desirous of getting permission
to admit the second batch in the MBBS course for the academic session
2017-18. The petitioner college undertakes to remove with promptitude
B
any deficiency already noted or which becomes known in due course.
Considering the fact that the petitioner college fulfills the infrastructure
and academic requirements and has already started the college for the
academic session 2016-17 by admitting the first batch of students in the
MBBS course, in the larger public interest, we allow this writ petition
c and the application filed by the petitioners. We are also inclined to issue
further directions to the respondents as have been issued in the judgment
of Dr. Jagat Narain Subharti Charitable Trust and Anr. vs. Union
of India and Ors., delivered on 30th August, 2017.
15. We, accordingly, quash and set aside the impugned decision
D to the extent that it bars the petitioners to admit upto 150 students in the
academic session 2017-18. Instead, we direct the respondents to permit
the petitioner college to take part in the current year counselling process
which is still in progress. The cut-off date for completing the admissions
in respect of the petitioner college, however, will stand extended till 5"'
September, 2017. The respondents shall make available students willing
E to take admission in the petitioner college through central counselling, in
order of their m~rit. This direction is being issued in exercise of plenary
powers of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution oflndia, in the
peculiar facts of the present case to do complete justice and in the larger
public interest, so that aspiring students who have not been admitted to
F the I" year MBBS course forthe academic session 2017-18, in order of
their merit in NEET examination, will get an opportunity to be admitted
in the petitioner college. At the same time, we make it clear that the
MCI or the Competent Authority of the Central Government is free to
inspect the petitioner college as and when deemed fit and, if any
deficiency is found, after giving opportunity to the petitioner college, it
G may suitably proceed against the college in accordance with law. This
arrangement will subserve the ends of justice.
16. No order as to costs.
Ankit Gyan Petition and application allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Medical education"Sign in to search