SHRI VENKATESHWARA UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR AND ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

                       [2017] 11 S.C.R. 1061


      SHRI VENKATESHWARA UNIVERSITY THROUGH                           A
             ITS REGISTRAR AND ANOTHER
                          v.
                  UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
                  (Writ Petition (C) No.445 of2017).                ·B
                       SEPTEMBER 01, 2017
           [DIPAK MISRA, CJI, AMITAVA ROY AND
                 A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.]
         Education/Educational Institutions - Admission in MBBS c
  course for the academic years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 - MCI
  had inspected the petitioner-university on 11'"& 12'" November 2016
  and found certain deficiencies ~ However, the Oversight Committee
  recommended for grant of Letter of Permission (LOP) and the same
  was granted by the Central Government for the year 2016-17 -
  MCI conducted another inspection on 9'" December, 2016 i.e. almost D
  after a month and gave negative recommendatiiJn for the years
  2017-2018 and 2018-2019 - Union of India debarred petitioner-
  University from admitting students in MBBS course for academic
                                   .
  year 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 - Petitioner contended. that MCI
. could not have conducted a surprise inspection on 9'" December E
  2016 as per regulations - Held: On a careful reading of clause
  8(3)(l)(d), it is clear and unambiguous that the obligation of the
  MCI is to ensure that inspections are not carried out at least 2 days
  before and 2 days after an important religious and festival holidays
  declared by the Central/State Government - In instant case, the
  inspection team had gone for inspection on 9'" December and they · F
  were deprived to carry out inspection - Whereas the festival was on
  12'" December - Inspection was thus not covered by the concept of
  two days of moratorium - In such situation when the institution
  does not allow the team of the MCI or the assessors of the MCI, it
   will be adding premium to deviancy - Conferment of this kind of G
  privilege absolutely unwarranted - Therefore, direction sought for
   renewal of LOP for the academic session 2017-2018 not accepted
   - However, students admitted for academic session 2016-2017 to
   continue their stUdies - MCI directed to send the inspection team to
   the institution for academic session 2017-2018 -After the report is
                                                                        H
                                   1061
1062            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2017] 11 S.C.R.


 A     filed, the MCI shall apprise the institution with regard to the
       deficiencies and give date to the institution for removal of the same
       - Court to appreciate the inspection report and the deficiencies
       and the action taken up thereon by the institution on the next date
       fixed - Further, the renewal application submitted for the academic
B      session 2017-2018 to be treated as the application for the academic
       session 2018-2019 - Establishment of Medical College Regulations
       1999 - cl.8(3)( l)(d).
             While issuing directions, the Court
       HELD: 1. The thrust of the matter is whether the inspecting
C team could have inspected on 9th December, 2016, when festival
  was on 12th December, 2016. [Para 12] (1071-B-C]
             2. On a careful reading of the Clause 8(3)(1)(d) of the
      Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999, it is quite
D     clear and unambiguous that the obligation of the MCI is to ensure
      that inspections are not to be carried out at least 2 days before
      and 2 days after an important religious and festival holidays
      declared by the Central/State Government. In the clause, the
      words which gain significance are "important religious and festival
E     holidays". On 12th December, 2016, it was Milad-un-Nabi and it
     is .the day of festival. The inspection was done on 9th December,
     2016, which was a Friday. The amended clause of the notification
     state only covers 2 days before the festival declared as a holiday
     by the Central/State Government and 2 days thereafter. In the
F    case at hand, the inspection team had gone for inspection on 9th
     December, 2016, and they were deprived to carry out the
     inspection. It was not covered by the concept of two days of
     moratorium. In such a situation when the Institution does not
     allow the team of the MCI or the assessors of the MCI, it will be
G    addin'g premium to deviancy. Conferment of this kind of privilege
     is absolutely unwarranted. Therefore, the directions sought for
     grant of renewal of Letter of Permission for the academic session
     2017-2018 is not acceptable. [Para 16] (1072-H; 1073-A-D]

H
SHRI VENKATESHWARAUNIVERSITY THR. ITS REGISTRAR 1063
          AND ANOTHER v. U.0.1. AND ANR.

      3. It is appropriate that the students who have been A
admitted in the Institution for the academic session 2016-2017,
shall continue their studies. The MCI shall send the inspecting
team to the Institutio_n within a period of two months. After the
report is filed, the MCI shall apprise the Institution with regard
to the deficiencies and give a date for removal of the same so B
that the Institution would be in a position to do the needful. The
inspection that will be carried out and the further follow up action
shall be done for the academic session 2018-2019. The removal
application that was submitted for the academic session 2017-18
may be treated as the application for the academic session 2018- c
19. [Paras 17, 18] [1073-E-H]

      Glocal Medical College and Super Speciality Hospital
      & Research Centre v. Vnion of India and Another
      (2018) 1 SCC 188 ; Kanachur Islamic Education Trust             D
      (R) v. Union of India and Another (2017) 10 SCALE
      321 - referred to.
                        Case Law Reference

      (2018) 1 sec 188            referred to         Para 7          E

      2017 (10) SCALE 321         referred to         Para9

       CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.445
. of2017.
                                                                      F
      Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia.

       Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Harin P. Raval, Sr. Advs, Gaurav Bhatia,
 Utkarsh Jaiswal, Abhishek Singh, Advs for the Petitioners.

      Maninder Singh, ASG, R. Balasubramanian, Gaurav Sharma,         G
 Ms.Amandeep Kaur, Prateek Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, Prabhas Bajaj,
 Ms. Aarti Sharma, G.S. Makker, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Advs for the
 Respondents.

                                                                      H
1064           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 11 S.C.R.


 A          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            DIPAK MISRA, CJI. 1. In this writ petition preferred under
    Article 32 of the Constitution ofindia, the petitioner-University and its
    functionary have prayed for issue of a direction for quashment of the
  B order dated 31" May, 2017, contained in letter No.U-12012/ 27/2016-
    ME-I [3084749] debarring the petitioners from admitting the students in
    MBBS course for academic sessions 2017·2018 and 2018-2019 and
    authorizing the respondent No.2, the Medical Council of India (MCI)
    not to encash the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners to the
. C MCI and further to issue writ of mandamus or any other direction in the
    nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant renewal of
    permission for academic year 2017-2018 and further to admit the students
    in the said academic session.
          2. The assertions made in the writ petition and the documents
 D annexed thereto exposit the history oflitigation which, we are inclined to
   think, has a different colour. Suffice it to note that for the academic
   session 2016-2017, the MCI had inspected the Institution and found
   certain deficiencies. The summary of assessment, which was submitted
   by a team of four doctors on l21h November, 2016, has been brought on
 E record. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the said summary of assessment
   read as follows:-
            "9. Any other remarks: Most of the faculty as well as resident
            doctors has joined this institute in last one & half month prior to
 F          the inspection. It is not known or could not be verified whether
            those faculties where considered by MCI in the same academic
            year where they were previously working or whether these faculty
            is appointed on permanent. basis or temporarily. Most of them did
            not have permanent address proof. Patients in the ward were
G           admitted with very vague complains which did not require
            admission, like pain abdomen, itching, cough mild fever, joint pains,
            irritation in the eyes, low back pains. In some wards both Male
            and female patients were admitted in the same ward (Like
           .Psychiatry). In pediatrics patients above age of 14 were admitted
H           with vague/no complain.
SHRI VENKATESHWARA UNIVERSITY THR. ITS REGISTRA~ 1065
  AND ANOTHER v. U.O.I. AND ANR. [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

      10. No patients were in labor. No Lscs, No Normal Delivery on          A
      the date of inspection.
      11. Only one major surgery on the date of inspection (Open
      cholecystectomy) & One minor (D & C).
      Ii College website does not show riames of all the faculty             B
      members (Like only one name appears on website out of five
      present in Pharmacology.)"
       3. We are not referring to other aspects of the summary of
assessment, as the deficiencies pointed out are within the permissibl~
limit. Be it noted, the deficiencies which are noted earlier were by the     C
inspecting team, and the Oversight Committee constituted by this Court
accepted the explanation offered 9Y the University and imposed certain
conditions and recommended for grant of Letter of Permission and
eventually the sa.me was granted by the Central Government for the
year 2016-17.                                                                D
      4. After the inspection that was conducted on 11th and J2th of
November, 2016, another inspection took place on 9th December, 2016.
The team of the assessors vide letter dated 9'h December, 2016, has
communicated to the MCI, which reads as follows:-                            E
      "We reached the Dean's office. The Dean was present in his
      office. However, he left his chamber immediately and was not to
      be seen for next 15 minutes. Whereafter he returned to inform
      us his refusal to allow us to conduct the MCI assessment today
      eve~ after presenting MCI order to conduct the assessment. He          F
      stated that it was a holiday declared by their own university for
      Eid, which falls 5 days later. It was not national or State or local
      holiday. ·He also mentioned that there were no doctors in wards
      or OPD or Emergency as it was a holiday. When questioned               G
      again, regarding the patients' services can also stop·on a holiday,
      he had no answer.
       He has no answer as to why the Dean and two or three possible
       officers were working on a holiday, if all the doctors were on a
       holiday.                                                              H
1066            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          (2017) 11 S.C.R.



 A          We then asked him to give his refusal in writing. It took two
            hours for the Dean to hand over the letter. In the meantime the
            assessors went on rounds of campus. There were no patients.
            There were no doctors in campus. Hostel rooms and wards,
            OPD had no patients or nurses to be seen. In all ICUs, there
B           were no patients admitted. Casualty area and reception area
            there were no patients, in laboratory, no patients for giving the
            samples. Only IO to 12 cars were patient in the campus. No sign
            of a running hospital was seen in the entire hospital. Infrastructure
            looked highly inadequate. All beds were seen to be fresh. We,
c           the assessors' team, wondered how an entire hospital service can
            take holiday as mentioned in the Dean's reply since a hospital
                                             .
            should run on a 24x7 basis for an entire year.

            The way, the Dean refused for the assessment quoting invalid
D          excuses shows and confirms the non-functioning of the Hospital
           as well as Medical College/classes which are self declared holidays
           from 08.12.2016 to 12.12.2016. The dates looked like tailored
           dates confirming with the assessment dates as add when the
           assessment occurred also the Jeter submitted to the MCI by the
E          College on 08.12.2016 mentions holidays of IO'h & ll'h December
           of Saturday and Sunday respectively and Monday 12 for Eid. No
           mention is found of 91hDecember as claimed by the Dean in his
           letter.

F          At the fag end of the process, another letter was submitted to us
           with some of the key words changed and we were pressurized to
           include this and rep I.ace the first letter. So we are submitting both
           the letter for your perusal."

           5. On the basis of the assessors report, the MCI vide letter dated
G    26'h December, 2016, recommended to the Ministry as follows:-

           "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 the directions passed by the Supreme Court
H          mandated Oversight Committee and communicated vide Ministry
SHRI VENKATESHWARA UNIVERSITY THR. ITS REGISTRAR 1067
  AND ANOTHER v. U.0.1. AND ANR. [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

    . of Health & F.W. letter dated 12/09/2016 [para l(i)]. The A
      Executive Committee, after due deliberation and discussion, has
      decided that the college has failed to comply with the stipulation
      laid down by the Oversight Committee. Accordingly, the Executive
      Committee recommends that as per the directions passed by
      Oversight Committee and communicated vi de Ministry of Health B
      & F.W. letter dated 12/09/2016 [in para 2(b)], the college should
      be debarred from admitting students in the above course for a
      period of two academic years i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19 as even
       after giving an undertaking that they have fulfilled the entire
       infrastructure for establishment- of new medical college at C
       Gajaroula, Dist Amroha, Uttar Pradesh by Shri Venkateshwara .
       University, Meerut (Trust name-Shri Bankey Bihari Educational
       & Welfare Trust) under Shri Venkateshwara University, Gajroula,
     · Amroha, the college was found to be grossly deficient. It has D
       also been decided by the Executive Committee that the Bank
   , Guarantee furnished by the college in pursuance of the directives
       passed by the Oversight Committee as well as GOI letter dated
        12/09/2016 is liable to be encashed."
       6. The Ministry granted a personal hearing to the Institution on       E
17'h January, 2017, by the Directorate General of Health Services. The
Hearing Committee, after permitting the Institution to file written
submissions, eventually, submitted its report to the Ministry. The Ministry
forwarded the report of the Hearing Committee to the Oversight
                                                                              F
Committee for guidance. The Oversight Committee vide letter dated
14'h May, 2017, conveyed the following views to the Ministry:-
       "EC has not considered the assessment report of assessment
       carried out on ll'h·l2'h Nov. 2016.
                                                                              G
       As per the assessment report dated 11th - 12'h Nov. 2016, there is
       no deficiency in infrastructure, faculty /residents strength, clinical
       material and investigation workload_ that would warrant disapproval
       of the scheme. There are certain remarks such as : (i) Most of
       the faculty and resident doctors have joined in last one and a half H
 \




1068          SUPREME.COURT REPORTS                          [2017) 11 S.C.R.


 A         months prior to inspection. It is not known or could not be verified
           whether those faculties were considered by MCI in the same
           year, where they were previously working or where these faculty
           were appointed with permanent address proof.

 B         There are no remarks given by the College. However, it was· the
           responsibility of the assessment team to verify the above about
           the faculty.

           ii) Patients in the ward were admitted with very vague complaints
           which did not require admission like pain in abdomen, itching, cough,
c
           mild fever, joint pains, irritation in the eyes, low back pains. In
           some wards, both male and female patients were admitted in the
           same ward (like Psychiatry). In Paediatrics, patients above the
           age of 14 were admitted with vague/no complaint.
D          The remarks about patients are not specific and are general in
           nature.

           iii) No patients were in labor. No LSCS. No Normal delivery on
           date of assessment. This is a subjective remark without MSR.
E
          iv) Only 1 major & 1 minor surgery on date of assessment. This
          is a subjective remark without MSR.

          v) It is reported in SAF that the College website does not show
          name of all the faculty members (only 1 name appears on website
F         out of 5 present in Pharmacology). Names of all faculty (including
          Pharmacology) are shown on website (http://vimshospital.edu.in/
          wp-content/uploads/2016112/Faculty-1O-Nov-2016.pdO."

          7. Thereafter, the Union of India passed an order on 31'1 May,
G 2017. As the order was an unreasoned one, this Court in Glocal Medical
  College and Super Specialty Hospital & Research Centre vs. Union
  ofllldia & Others [Writ Petition (Civil) No.41 of2017] had given certain
  directions and the present matter was included. The direction given on
  l •1 August, 2017, by this Court reads as follows:-
H
SHRI VENKATESHWARA UNIVERSITY THR. ITS REGISTRAR 1069
  AND ANOTHER v. U.0.1. AND ANR. [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

      "In the above persuasive premise, the Central Government is              A
       hereby ordered to consider afresh the materials on record
       pertaining to the issue of confirmation or otherwise of the Jetter of
       permission granted to the petitioner college/institutions. We make
       it clear that in undertaking this exercise, the Central Government
       would re-evaluate the recommendations/views of the MCI, B
       Hearing Committee, DGHS and the Oversight Committee, as
       available on records. It would alsoafford an opportunity of hearing
       to the petitioner colleges/institutions to the extent necessary. The
        process of hearing and final reasoned decision thereon, as ordered,
        would be completed peremptorily within a period of 10 days from
                                                                             c
        today. The parties would unfailingly co-operate in compliance of
      . this direction to meet the time frame fixed."

        8. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the Ministry granted hearing
 to the Institution on 3ro August, 2017 and on IO'h August, 2017, passed D
•the following order:-

           "The college informed that compliance verification was carried
       out by MCI on 11-12 November, 2016. As per SAF form the
       deficiency was 1.5% ·in faculty and 8.6% in residents.                  E

           The college had declared extended holiday due to Eid and
       informed MCI on 08.12.2016. But MCI conducted surprise
       inspection on 09.12.2016. The college did not allow inspection as
       only one compliance inspection was warranted as per OC orders.          F

           It is seen from assessors note that on thelrvisit too the college
       on 09 .12.2016, the campus wore a completely deserted look. There
       was no sign of a functional hospital.
          In the opinion of the Committee, MCI was not precluded from          G
       conducting inspection subject to sufficient reason and justification.
       The Committee agrees with the decision of the Ministry conveyed
       by letter dated 31.05.2017 to debar the college for 2 years and
       also permit MCI to encash bank guarantee.
                                                                               H
1070              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017111 S.C.R.


 A                Accepting the recommendations of the Hearing Committee,
              the Ministry reiterates its earlier decision dated 31.05.2017 to debar
              the college from admitting students for a period of two years i.e.
              2017-18 and 2018-19 and also to authorize MCI to encash the
              Bank Guarantee of Rs.2 Crore."
B
         9. Criticizing the aforesaid order, it is submitted by Mr. Mukul
  Rohatgi and Mr. Harin P. Raval, learned senior counsel for the petitioners
  that the order passed by the Union of India is absolutely unjustified,
  inasmuch as the inspecting team of the MCI could not have conducted a
c surprise inspection on 9'h December, 2016. However, there is a
  subsequent amendment to the Medical Council of India Regulations,
  which clearly states that the MCI shall ensure that such inspections are
  not carried out at least 2 days before and 2 days after important religious
  and festivals holidays declared by the Central/State Government. Learned
D senior counsel would further submit that the controversy is squarely
  covered by the decision rendered by this Court on 30'h August, 2017, in
  Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (R) vs. Union of brdia and
  Another [Writ Petition (Civil) No.468 of2017].
               10. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General
E
       supporting the order passed by the Union of India contended that the
       inspection report clearly spells out the deficiencies in the Institution and
       if the Letter of Permission is granted, it would be travesty of justice. It is
       his further submission that the controversy in the instant case is remotely
p      not covered by the decision rendered in Kanachur Islamic Education
       Trust (R) (supra). Additionally, learned Additional Solicitor General would
       harp upon the fact that the entire exercise has been carried out for the
       academic session 2016-2017 and not for 2017-2018.
         11. To appreciate the controversy in issue, it is necessary to mention
G that on the basis of the recommendation of the Oversight Committee,
  the Central Government had granted the Letter of Permission. The
  Oversight Committee had imposed certain conditions. One such condition
  was to furnish the bank guarantee amounting to Rs.2 crores and to remove
  certain deficiencies and file an affidavit of affirmation of removal of
H
SHRI VENKATESHWARA UNIVERSITY THR. ITS REGISTRAR 1071
  AND ANOTHER v. U.0.I. AND ANR. [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

deficiencies that was meant for2016-2017. Though, Mr. Singh, has laid         A
immense press that the inspection was carried out for 2016-2017, we
are not inclined to accept the same. We are disposed to think that the
inspection was done for academic session 2017-2018 because we have
been apprised in the course of hearing that the Institution had applied for ·
grant of renewal of permission for the academic session 2017-2018.            B

      12. The thrust of the matter is whether the inspecting team could ·
have inspected on 91h December, 2016. It is worthy to note that the
Medical Council of India with the previous sanction of the Central
Government had amended the "Establishment of Medical College .· c
Regulations 1999". The amended clause 8(3)(l)(d) reads as follows:-

       "However, the office of the Council shall ensure that such
       inspections are not carried out at least 2 days before and 2 days
       after important religious and festival holidays declared by the
                                                                              D
       Central/State Govt."

       13. In Ka11achur Islamic Educatio11 Trust (R) (supra), while
dwel.Jing upon the same, this Court has held:-

       "The fact that the petitioner's college/institution is a minority
       institution and that a major festival for the said community was ·· E
       scheduled on 12.12.2016 and that the day previous thereto i.e.
       11.12.2016 was a Sunday, are facts which may not be wholly ·
       irrelevant."

       14. Thereafter, the Court has proceeded to state thus:-                F
       "The observation of the Hearing Committee that petitioner's
       college/institution has not explained the deficiency of faculty is
       belied by its representations and also the observations amongst
       others of the Oversight Committee. The conclusion that a few
                                                                              G
       residents might have been on leave on account of NEET (PG)
       examination but not all, also seems to be inferential in the face of
       exhaustive explanation provided by the petitioner's college/
       institution. In this context, the observation of the Oversight
       Committee in its communication dated 14.5.2017 that eight colleges     H
1072           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] JI S.C.R.


 A           including the petitioner's college/institution had been assessed
             twice in quick succession for the same purpose though not
             authorized by it in its guidelines, deserves attention. The Hearing
             Committee seems to have ignored the explanation provided by
             the Professor and Head of Department of Surgery, explaining the
 B           treatment given to the three patients named in clause xii (a) to (c)
            of the Inspection Report in concluding that, the petitioner's college/
            institution had not responded thereto. Its deduction that there
            might have been more instances of multiple entries in the OPD
            patient statistics based on five such instances is also visibly
c           presumptive. The striking feature of the observations of the Hearing
            Committee, on the basis of which the impugned decision ha_s been
            rendered, is the patent omission on its part to consider the relevant
            materials on record, as mandated by this Court by its order dated
            1.8.2017. The findings of the Hearing Committee, in our
D
           comprehension, thus stands vitiated by the non-consideration of
           the representations/ explanations of the petitioner's college/
           institution, the documents supporting the same, the
           recommendations/views of the MCI, the observation of the earlier
E          Hearing Committee, DGHS and Oversight Committee, as available
           on records. The Central Government as well readily concurred
           with the observations of the Hearing Committee in passing the
           impugned order, which per se, in our estimate, is unsustainable in
           the singular facts and circumstances of the case."
F         15. On a careful reading of the aforesaid judgment, we do not
  think that the clause has been interpreted as not to allow any inspection
  on a Sunday, but the Court have said in the factual matrix of the said
  case that the Institution was a minority institution and a major festival
  for the said community was scheduled on J2•h December, 2016 and the
G
  day previous thereto i.e. ll'h December, 2016, was a Sunday and the
  said facts are not wholly irrelevant. The said analysis cannot be regarded
  as the construction of the clause.
         16. Having said that, we shall proceed to analyze what the clause
H precisely conveys. On a careful reading of the same, it is quite clear
SHRI VENKATESHWARA UNIVERSITY THR. ITS REGISTRAR 1073
  AND ANOTHER v. U.O.I. AND ANR. [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

 and unambiguous that the obligation of the MCI is to ensure that A
 inspections are not to be carried out at least 2 days before and 2 days
 after an important religious and festival holidays declared by the Central/
 State Government. In the clause, the words which gain significance are
 "important religious and festival holidays". On 121hDecember, 2016, it
 was Milad-un-Nabi and it is the day of festival. The inspection was B
 done on 9'h December, 2016, which was a Friday. The amended clause
 of the notification state only covers 2 days before the festival declared
 as a holiday by the Central/State Government and 2 days thereafter. In
 the case at hand, the inspection team had gone for inspection on 9'h
 December, 2016, and they were deprived to carry out the inspection. It
                                                                             c
 was not covered by the concept of two days of moratorium. In such a
·situation when the Institution does not allow the team of the MCI or the
  assessors of the MCI, it will be adding premium to deviancy. Conferment
  of this kind of privilege is absolutely unwarranted. Therefore, the D
  directions sought for grant of renewal of Letter of Permission for the
  academic session 2017-2018 is not acceptable.
        17. Though we have so held, yet we think it appropriate that the
 students who have been admitted in the Institution for the academic
 session 2016-2017, shall continue their studies. The MCI shall send the             E
 inspecting team to the Institution within a period of two months. After
 the report is filed, the MCI shall apprise the Institution with regard to the
 deficiencies and give a date for removal of the same so that the Institution
 would be in a position to do the needful. We may hasten to add that the
 inspection that will be carried out and the further follow up action shall          F
 be done for the academic session 2018-2019.
        18. As we intend to appreciate the inspection report and the
 deficiencies and the action taken up thereon by the Institution, list the
 matter on 15'h November, 2017. The renewal application that was G
 submitted for the academic session 2017-2018 may be treated as the ·
 application for the academic session 2018-2019. The bank guarantee
 which has been deposited shall not be encashed and be kept alive.

 Ankit Gyan                                                    Directions i~~l1ed.