Holding

Significant deficiencies in faculty and residents cannot be treated as trivial; confirmation of the Letter of Permission is barred until the college rectifies them, but existing students may continue and the bank guarantee must not be encashed pending a fresh MCI inspection.

Summary

The petitioners, Varunarjun Trust, applied for a new medical college and were granted a conditional Letter of Permission (LOP) for the 2016‑17 session. Subsequent assessments by the Medical Council of India (MCI) revealed significant deficiencies in faculty (16.79%) and residents (21.73%), as well as shortcomings in minor operations and paramedical staff. The Ministry of Health, relying on the MCI report and a hearing committee, barred the college from admitting students for 2017‑18 and 2018‑19 and authorised the encashment of a Rs 2 crore bank guarantee. The petitioners challenged the order, arguing that the Oversight Committee’s (OC) opinion should bind the Central Government and that the deficiencies were trivial. The Supreme Court held that the deficiencies were material and could not be ignored; the college must first remedy them before any confirmation of LOP, but directed that existing students admitted under the conditional LOP be allowed to continue, that MCI conduct a fresh inspection within three months, and that the bank guarantee not be encashed pending final decision. The writ petition was disposed with these directions.

Issues considered

The significance of the faculty and resident deficiencies under the statutory scheme of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
Whether the opinion of the Oversight Committee is binding on the Central Government in granting or confirming a Letter of Permission.
Whether the Ministry’s order to debar the college and encash the bank guarantee can be set aside.
Whether students already admitted under the conditional LOP may continue their studies pending verification.

Legislation cited

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956s. 10-A, s. 19-A

Subjects

Medical college establishmentIndian Medical Council ActSection 10-ASection 19-ALetter of PermissionFaculty deficiencyResident deficiencyDebarmentBank guaranteeOversight CommitteeSupreme CourtWrit petition

Judgment

[2017] 12 S.C.R. 753

VARUNARJUN TRUST & ANR. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 787of2017)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017 B
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, AMITAVA ROY AND
A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.]
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - ss.10-A, 19-A -
Application by petitioner for establishment of a new medical college,
to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, fi·om academic session c
2016-17 onwardY - Conditional approval-cum-Letter of Permission
(LOP) granted by Central govt. - However, in view of certain
deficiencies noticed during assessment conducted by Medical
Council of India (MCI), Ministry vide letter dtd. 31.05.17, debarred
the petitioner-college from admitting students for two years i.e. 2017- D
18 & 2018-19, and also authorised MCI to encash the bank
guarantee - Writ petition by petitioner before High Court
challenging this order - Pursuant to decision of High Court
disposing of the writ petition, Hearing Committee considered the
fresh representation given by petitioner and submitted its report to
the Ministry - Relying on the said recommendation of Hearing E
Committee, Ministry vi de order dtd. 19. 08.17 reiterated its earlier
decision dtd. 31. 05.17 - Petitioner seeking quashing of the said
order - Held: In the instant case, the deficiency of faculty and
residents taken note of by the Hearing Committee and Central
Government in the impugned decision, was significant and cannot
F
be treated as trivial or unrelated to maintenance of high standards
of imparting medical education - In view of the fact that petitioner
failed to fulfil the conditions specified in the conditional LOP, the
question of confirming the LOP for the academic session 2016-17
without removal of deficiencies in all respects does not arise -
However, absence of faculty members and r{?s,idents .on the day of G
inspection could not be the basis for determining the efficiency and
performance of the college for the rest of the academic session, as
it is not the opinion of the Hearing Committee or of the Competent
Authority that requisite number offacul~v members and residents
were not employed in the petitioner-college or that the claim of the H
753
754 ·SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.
'.

A petitioner-college in that behalf was .bogus - This aspect requires
proper verification and consideration - MCI to send its Inspection
Team within a period of three months to submit an assessment report
regarding the overall pe1formance and efficiency of the petitioner-
college ·- Minisfly to take a final decision within one month of the
receipt of recommendation from MCI - Students already admitted in
8
petitioner-college on the bc1sis o,/conditional LOP for the academic
·session 2016~17. to continue their studJes - Respondents to treat
the renewal. application submitted by petitioner-college for the
academic session 2017-18 as one for the academic session 2018-
19.
c Disposing of the writ petitio~, the Court
HELD: l.1 In this case, the deficiency of faculty and
residents was significant, besides the other two deficiencies taken
note of by the Hearing Committee and the Central Government
in the impugned decision. For that, the college did not produce
D supportive documents or evidence in respect of its claim of 6
(six) minor operations and list of paramedical non-teaching staff.
These deficiencies cannot be treated as trivial or unrelated to
maintenance of high standards of imparting medical education.
[Para 13] [765-B-C]
E 1.2 The proposal under consideration was for establishment
of a new medical college from academic session 2016-17 and that
has to be examined keeping in mind the norms specified in the
statutory scheme formulated regarding permission to establish a
new medical college. That sclieme postulates the minimum
F standard of education, which has been formulated by the MCI in
terms of Section 19-A of the Act. The scheme provides for
minimum infrastructure facilities and staff requirements for 100
admissfons. It also provides guidance as to how deficiency in
respect of those matters should be calculated. The Medical
Council of India has published those norms and the schemes for .
G requirements to be fulfilled by the applicant College(s) for
obtaining Letter of Intent and Letter of Permission for
establishment of a new medical college and for yearly renewal
under Section 10-A of the Act. Considering the requirements of
the scheme and as the petitioner college failed to fulfil the
H conditions specified by the Oversight Committee (OC)
VARUNARJUN TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 755

constituted by Supreme Court, as incorporated 'in the fonnai A
conditional Letter of Permission dated 12'h September, 2016, the
question of confirming the Letter of Permission fur the UC!ldemic
session 2016-17 without removal ·of deficiencies in all respects
does not arise. The petitioner college must firs.t remove all those
deficiencies .to b.ecome eligibl!! for cqnfirmation of LOP, as per
B
the undertaking' given by the coll~g~ ii:{that regard. [Paras 14,
•, .
15][[765-D-F; 771-B-CJ
' . '.
1.3 In the prcs~t c~~e, the ,Hcar~ng. Committee has duly
considered the explanation offered by tbe college. It has, however,
rejected the same for the reasons recorded in the impugned
decision. The fact that specific reference to the. opinion of. the c
OC is absent in .the conclusion recorded by the Hearing
Committee, it does not .foll.ow that the _iss1,1e h.as not been
considered by the. Hearing
~ .. . Committee or by the Central
Government. The Co1npbtcnt Authority in the final decision after
adverting to the observations of the OC and also of the Hearing D
Committee has noted that the absence. of such large. number of·
faculties and residents during duty hours was unacceptable and,
moreso, failure of the college to ensure presence of 5 (five)
residents on night off and yet, could not come, even late, for th·e·
head count nor was it reflected in the SAF. This aspect has not
been dealt with by tlte OC in its opinion d·a-ted 14'h May,:2017. E
Therefore, non-acceptance of the explanation offered by the
college by the Hearing Committee and the Competent Authority
of the Central Government, cannot be said to be irrelevant, unjust
or for extraneous consideration. [Para 16][771-F-G; 772-A-B]
...
1.4 The college had failed to produce supportive documents F
or evidence about 6 (six) minor operations on the day of
assessment. No doubt, the OC accepted the explanation of the
college by holding that there was no Minimum Standard
Requirement ('MSR ') 'in that· behalf. The finding in the.
assessment report was that there was only one minor operation · G
on the day of assessment whereas the ·college clairiled to have·
conducted 6 (six) operations. Nothing prevented the coilege fro·m
producing documents or evidenc~ in support of th.at claim before
the Hearing Committee. The Hearing Committee has noted that
even the relevant list/documents in relation to paramedical non-
.... H
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A teaching staff was not produced before it. There is no reason to
doubt the correctness of this factual position noted by the Hearing
Committee. In any case, since the deficiencies in respect of faculty
(16.79%) and residents (21.73%) remains unexplained and being
significant, the same cannot be overlooked. This appears to be
B the view taken by the Hearing Committee and the Competent
Authority of the Central Government. [Para 17) [772-C-F]
1.5 However, the opinion of the Hearing Committee, which
is the basis for passing the impugned decision, is founded on the _
performance of the college on the day of inspection dated 1S'h-
19'h November, 2016. The question is: Whether absence of faculty
c members and residents on the given day, assuming it to be
substantial in number, per se, could be the basis for determining
the efficiency and performance of the college for the rest of the
academic session while considering the proposal for grant of
permission? There is nothing in the opinion of the Hearing
D Committee or the decision of the Competent Authority that
requisite number of faculty members and residents was not
employed in the petitioner college or that the claim of the
petitioner college in that behalf was bogus. The noting is about
the absence of such large number of faculty and residents on the
day of inspection and during the duty hours. Assuming that the
E college could not secure the presence of those persons at the
time of inspection, it docs not follow that those faculty members
and residents were not on the pay roll and in the employment of
the petitioner college. This aspect certainly requires proper
verification and consideration by the concerned authority. [Para
F 18) [772-F-H; 773-A-B]
Dr. Jagat Narain Subharti Charitable Trust & Am: v.
Union of India and Ors. 2017 (10) SCALE 308;
Gangajali Education Society & Anr. v. Union of India
& Ors. 2017 (10) SCALE 442; Saraswati Educational
G Charitable Trust & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 2017
(11) SCALE 68; Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences
& Research & Ors. v. Union of India & Am: 2017 (10)
SCALE 451 - distinguished.

H
VARUNARJUN TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 757·

World College of Medical Sciences & Research v.Union A
of India 2017 (ll)'SCALE 136 - relied on~
".·'
Glocal Medical .Colleg? 4 Supf!r Speciality ,Hospital
and Research Centre v. Union of India and Am: 2017
(8) SCALE 356 - referred to.
Case Law Reference B

2017 (8) SCALE 356 referred to Para 6
2017 (10) SCALE 308 distinguished Para 16
2017 (10) SCALE 442 distinguished Para 16
2017 (11) SCALE 68 distinguished Para 16
c
2017 (10) SCALE 451 distinguished Para 16
2017 (11) SCALE 136 relied on Para 19
CIVILORl\JINALJURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.787 D
of2017.
: ,. ,.1:
Under Article 32 of the Constitutibn offodia. · '" '·' '· · ·
4• t. t !
1• 1· , ' I , •, , , •• ': I ' : · '':

Raj iv Dhavan, Sr. Adv., Abdhesh Chaudhary, Om Prakash Shukla,
Amit Jaiswal, Raj iv Ranjan Dwivedi, Advs. for the fetitioners
Maninder Singh, ASG, Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv.,· Gaurav Sharma, E
Pratcck Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, Ms. Dccpika Kaha, Ms. Srishti
Banerjee, Ms. Amandcep Kaur, Advs. for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. l. The petitioners made an F
application for establishment of a new medical college at Banthra,
Shahj ahanpur, U .P., in the name and style ofVarunarj un Medical College
from academic session 2016-17 onwards, to the Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare, Government of India. The Ministry forwarded that
application to the Medical Council of India (for short "MCI") for evaluation
and making recommendations ·under Section l OA of the Indian Medical · G
Council Act, 1956 (for short "the· 1956 Act"). The MCI conducted an
assessment of the petitioner college on· 12•h' and 13'h January, 2016. On
the basis of the assessment report, the Executive Committee ofMCI, in
its meeting held on 3Qlh January, 2016, decided to make negative
rccommendatig_ns,)n view of a large number of deficiencies noticed in
; . ·: _,.
~
' ... J
:s.
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A the assessment report. A formal communication in that behalf was sent.
to the Central Government by MCI vide letter dated 31st January, 2016.
The Ministry then afforded an opportunity of hearing to the college before
a Hearing Committee on 25th Februaxy, 2016. The Hearing Committee
concurred with the recommendation of MCI and submitted its observations
to the Ministry to disapprove the proposal. Later on, compliance
B
verification assessment was done by MCI on 30th March, 2016, which
report was duly considered by the Executive Committee of MCI in its
meeting held on 13'h May, 2016. Once again, MCI in its meeting held on
13'h May, 2016 decided to give negative recommendations in view of the
deficiencies noticed in the compliance verification assessment. That
c opinion was formally communicated by the MCI to the Ministry vide
letter dated 14th May, 2016.The Ministry accepted the recommendation
of MCI and disapproved the application for establishment of a new
medical college for academic session 2016-17 vide letter dated s•h June,
2016.
D 2. The Oversight Committee (for short "OC") constituted by this
Court, however, issued a directive to the Ministry to obtain fresh
compliance from tbe college and forward it to MCI. Pursuant to the
said directive, MCI submitted its compliance to the Minist1y citing various
reasons. However, the OC approved the scheme of establishment of a
new medical college with annual intake of {SO students for the academic
E year 20 I 6-17, on certain conditions. The Central Government, therefore,
issued a formal approval-cum-Letter of Permission (for short "LOP")
on 12th September, 2016 incorporating the conditions imposed by the
oc. ..
3. As per the conditions noted in the said LOP, an assessment
F· with regard to verification compliance submitted by the college was
conducted by the MCI on l 81h & I 9'h November, 2016. During the said
verification, certain deficiencies were noticed which were mentioned in
the assessment report. The assessment report was duly considered by
the Executive Committee of MCI in its meeting held on 22"<1 December,
Q 2016. In view of the deficiencies, MCI decided to send a negative
recommendation to the Ministry. The deficiencies noticed were as
follows:
.. i. Deficiency of faculty is 16. 79% as detailed in the report.
ii. Shortage of Residents was 21. 73% as detailed in the report.
H
VARUNARJUN TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 759
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

iii. There was only 1 Minor Operation on day of assessment. A
iv. There was 1 normal Delivery & NIL Caesarean Section on
day of assessment.
v. JCUs: There was only I patient each in MJCU & SJCU and
2 patients each in !CCU & PICUINICU on day of assessment.
B
vi. Details of Paramedical & Non-teaching staff available in
the Institute are not provided.
vii. MRD: JCD X classification of diseases is not followed.for
indexing.
viii. Central Library: It is not air-conditioned." c
4. The decision of the MCI was formally communicated to the
Ministry vidc letter dated 26'h December, 2016. After receipt of the
recommendation from the MCI, the Ministry decided to afford a personal
hearing to the college on l 71hJanuary, 2017 before the Director General
of Health Services (DGHS). The Hearing Committee considered the D
oral and written submissions of the college, but was not satisfied with
the explanation given by the petitioners for want of proper evidence.
The Hearing Committee submitted its report to the Ministry, which in
tum forwarded the same to the OC for guidance. The OC vide letter
dated l 41hMay, 2017 conveyed its views to the Ministry as follows:
E
(i) Facul(v: In the Standard Assessment Forms (SAF), Principal
has ment~oned that 4 faculty members had gone for exchange/
withdrawal of money from the bank with permission of the
Principal and 3 were on sanctioned leave. Considering this
explan~tion, the deficiency would be 6. I 5%, which is within
F
the acceptable limits.
(ii) Residents:- Jn the SAF, Principal has mentioned that 5 .
Residents had gone for exchange/withdrawal of money from
the bank with·permission of the Principal and 3 were on
sanctioned leave. Considering these residents, the c(eficiency.
would be 4.34%, which is within the acceptable limits. G
(iii) Minor operation:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR.
(iv) Deliveries:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR.
(v) !CCU & PJCUINJCU:- This deficiency is subjective. No •
MSR. . . . H
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 12 S.C.R.

A (vi) Non-teaching staff:-· There is no such mention in SAF
2.24.
(vii) Central Librc1ry:- There is no such mention in the previous
assessment report. However, the explanation of the College
is acceptable.
B
LOP Confirmed."
5. The Ministry after considering the recommendation of the MCI,
the report of the DGHS and the views received from the OC, finally
chose to accept the recommendation of the MCI. The decision of the
C Ministry was communicated to the petitioner college vide letter dated
31" May, 2017, debarring the college from admitti'ng students for two·
years i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19, and also authorising the MCito encash
the bank guarantee.
6. Fccling aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioners filed a
D writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, being WP (C) No.15302
of 201 7 which was disposed of on 81h August; 2017 following the decision·
of this Court in the case of Glocal Medical College & Super Speciality
Hospital and Research Ce11tre Vs. Union ofIndia a11d A11r. 1 , decided
on l" August, 2017:

E 7. Pursuant to the aforementioned decision of the High Court, the '
Ministry granted a hearing to the petitioner college on 161h August, 2017.'
lt'app~ars tliat the Hearing Committee considered the record, oral and
written submissions of the college also the fresh representation given by
the college. The Hearing Committee.then submitted its report to the
Ministry. Relying on the said recommendation -of the Hearing Committee,
F the Ministry vide order dated l 9'h August, 2017 reiterated its earlier
·" · decision dated 31 '' May, 2017, debarring the college from admitting
students for a period of two years i.e. 2017-.18 &. 2018~1"9 and aiso,
authorising MCI to encash the. bank guarantee of Rs.2 Crore. This
, dcc\sion of the Ministry was corrimunicated to the petitioners. The crucial
G part of this decision is in paragraphs 17 and 18 which read as fol.lows:
"17. Now, therefore, in compliance with the above .direction
of Court, the Ministry granted hearing to tl;e qollege on ...
16.8.2017. The Hearing Committee after considering the

H I 2017 (8) SCALE 356
• l . ; . '. ' ; .. .
VARUNARJUN TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 761
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

records and oral & written submission of ihe college submitted A
its report to the Ministry. The findings of the Hearing
Committee are as under:
'the coll~gi has trle<I to explain deficiency of 4 faculty and
. 5 residents in terms of visit to bank/or currency exchange in
the wake of demonetization. This could be a plausible B
expla11ation but the Comn1ittee is not incli11ed to accept it as it
.cannot be proved. Further, such abse11ce .during duty hours
ca1111ot be overlooked.. Tire Committee i11quired from the
college why the 5 residents 011 night .oj]' could not come, eve11
late, for the head c:ount. They would have been ac:c:ordingly
reflected as such i11 the SAF.
c .
The college claimed 6 minor operations 011 the day of
assessment but could not produce supportive document or
evidence, which they claimed to have submitted i11 tire earlier
hearing.
D
Tire co11tention of college on MRD and library is accepted
and the deficiency may not exist. The college should be having
paramedical non teaching staff hut they did not produce the
list/documents before tire Hearing Committee.
In view of tire above the Committee agrees with the decision E
of the Ministry vide .letter dated 31.05.2017 to debar the
college for two years a11d also permit .MCI to e11cash bank
guarantee•
.18. Accepting the recommendations of the }(earing Committee,
the Ministry reiterates its earlier decision dated 31.05.2017 F
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. "
8. Aggrieved, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the said
order and further, directing respondent No. I (Union of India through
G
Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare) to issue first renewal
of Letter of Permission for admission of the 2•d batch of 150 MBBS
students in the petitioner college for the academic session 2017-18 and
also refrain from encashing the bank guarantee dated 15 11> September,
2017 offered by the petitioners in favour of MCI in the sum of Rs.2
Crore. H.
762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 12 S.C.R.

A 9. According to the petitioners, they had placed all the relevant
material before the Competent Authority of the Central Government,
clearly indicatingthatthe deficiencies noticed in the concerned assessment
report were insignificant and within permissible limit. Our attention was
invited to the communication sent by the MCI dated 26'h December,
2016, highlighting the deficiencies noticed by the Council Assessors <.m . ,;.,
B
J8 1h & 19'h November, 2016. The petitioners have also relied on the
explanation offered by the petitioners before the Hearing Committee as
well as OC. It is contended that the explanation found favour with the
OC. The Competent Authority of the Central Government has, however,
completely disregarded the opinion of the OC. It was then contended
c that the recent report of the Hearing Committee does not take the matter
any further. The relevant portion of the said report has been extracted in
paragraph 17 of the impugned decision of the Ministry. On the one
hand, the Hearing Committee observed that the explanation offered by
the petitioner college regarding absence of faculty and residents was
plausible, but it still chose to disregard that explanation on the specious
D.
ground that it was not proved. Further, no analysis as to why the opinion
of the OC should be deviated is found in the observations of the Hearing
Committee. It is contended that the absence offaeulty and residents on
the day of inspection ought to be excluded, in which case the deficiency
of faculty would stand reduced to only 6.15% and of residents to only
E 4.34%. Further, the adverse.observations noted by.theHearing Committee .
with regard to minor operations and paramedical non-teachii1g staff is
not consistent with the recora produced by the petitioner college during
the hearing. It is submitted that in view of the recent pronouncements of
this Court in respect of other institutions, similar relief be given to the
petitioner institution. A comparative chart of the deficiencies in respect
F
of the said institutions was produced before us to contend that in so far
as the petitioner college is concerned, the deficiencies were marginal
and relatively less. The main grievance of the petitioners is that despite
clear directions given by the .Court to consider the proposal of the
petitioner college after taking into account the material produced and
G explanation offered by t~c petitioners, including the fresh representation,
neither the Hearing Committee nor the Competent Authority of the
Central Government has adverted to the explanation and material relied
upon by the petitioners. Moreso, neither the Hearing Committee nor the
CompetentAuthority of the Central Government has analysed the opinion
of the OC which had accepted the explanation or recorded any reason
H . . . ·' ·, '" .
VARUNARJUN TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 763
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

to deviate from the ~ame. The fres}, decision of the Competent Authority A
of the Central Government is, again, a mechanical order, if not perverse.
It is against the spirit of the direct. ons issued by the Court to reconsider
the proposal afresh and record reasons. It is, therefore, submitted that
the impugned decision deserves to be quashed and set aside and further
directions should be issued to the respondents to issue confirmation of B
Letter of Permission in favour of the petitioner college for the academic
session 2016-17 and also allow the petitioner college to admit 150 students
in the second batch of the MBBS course for the academic session 2017-
18.
l 0. Per contra, the respondents submit that the final decision of C
the Competent Authority of the Central Government is just and proper,
in the fact situation of the pres.ent case. Inasmuch as the Hearing
Committee did not accept the e~planation offered by the petitioner
regarding the deficiencies relatirlg to faculty member~ and residents.
The Hearing Committee was also not convinced with the explanation
given by the petitioners about their claim of 6 (six) minor operations as D
the college had failed to produce supporting qocuments and evidence in
that regard. Similarly, the college failed to produce material to substantiate
that the college had paramedical non-teaching staff which was one of
the essential requirements. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that the recent decisions rendered by this Court on which reliance has
been placed, were on the facts of the concerned case. Our attention E
was also invited to the relevant provisions of the Act, Regulations and
Statutory Scheme formulated for consideration of application for
permission to establish a medical college. It is submitted that the
assessment done by the MCI in the present case was with regard to the
verification of the compliance submitted by the college for considering F
the proposal for confirmation of conditional LOP granted to the petitioner
college for the academic session 2016-2017. For that reason, the
minimum standards regarding infrastructure and academic requirements
as postulated in the Statutory Scheme must govern the consideration of
the proposal. The benchmark regarding infrastructure and academics
to be fulfilled by the applicant college for permission to establish medical G
college lire pre-conditions. However, without fulfilment of those
. conditions. conditional LOP was granted to the petitioner college on the
basis' of direction issued by the OC, which was then acted upon by the
Central Government by issuing a formal LOP for the academic session
H
764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] n S.C.R: ··

A 2016-2017 on conditions specified by the OC. The college has failed to
fulfil those conditions as was noticed during the verification of compliance.
It is submitted that no indulgence be shown to the petitioner college,
much less, grant further relief claimed to allow the petitioner college to
admit students in the second batch of the MBBS course for the academic
scssion2017-18.
B
11. Heard Mr. Rajiv Dhavan, learned senior counsel along with
Mr. Abdhesh Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manindcr
Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General for Union of India and Mr.
Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Gaurav Sharma,
learned counsel for the Medical Council oflndia.
c
12. We must first answer the submission of the petitioners that
the satisfaction recorded by the OC whilst accepting the explanation
offered by the petitioners was binding on the Central Government. We
do not agree with this submission. It is one thing to say that the
satisfaction/opinion recorded by the OC constituted by this Court is a
D relevant matter and which must receive due attention of the Hearing
Committee as well as the Central Government. But it.is not possible to
accept the contention that the opinion of QC must bind the. Hearing
Committee and the Central Government whilst discharging their statutory
duties, moreso, when the legislative scheme of the Act has bestowed
E the final authority upon the Central Government to grant or refuse to
grant permission in terms of Section 10-A of the Act.
13. Having said this, we may now advert to the deficiencies noticed.
in the assessment report regarding verification of compliance submitted
by the college. The deficiencies noticed in the said report in respect of
F faculty members and residents were sought to be explained by the college
- that 4 (four) faculty members and 5 (five) residents had gone for
exchange/withdrawal of money from the bank with permission of the
Principal and 3 (three) were on sanctioned leave. This explanation
commended to the OC as plausible and on that basis, the OC was of the
view that deficiency in respect of faculty members would stand reduced
G · to t11e pcrinissi.ble limit. Hence, the OC recommended confirmation of
LOP. The Hearing Committee, however, observed that the petitioner
college did not substantiate the stand so taken. Further, absence of such
. large number of faculties and residents during working-duty hours could
not be countenanced. Additionally, the Hearing Committee was of the
H view that the college was not able to explain the absence of 5 (five)
VARUNARJUN TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 765
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

residents who were on night off and yet could not come, even late, for A
· the head count. Besides, no entry to that effect was recorded in the
Standard Assessment Forms (for short, "SAF"). The OC, however, has
not commented on this aspect of the matter at all. In our opinion, the
, 11 ..-view taken by the Competent Authority of the Central Government is a
possible view. The pre-conditions to maintain high academic standards
B
for imparting MBBS course canno.t be undermined. In this case, the
deficiency of faculty and residents was significant, besides the other
.two deficiencies taken note of by the Hearing Committee and the Central
Government in the impugned decision. For that, the college did not produce
supportive documents or evidence in respect of its claim of 6 (six) minor
operations and list of paramedical non-teaching staff. These deficiencies c
cannot be treated as trivial or unrelated to maintenance of high standards
of imparting medical education.
14. We are conscious of the fact that the proposal under
consideration was for establishment of a new medical college from
academic session 2016-17 and that has to be examined keeping in mind D
the norms specified in the statutory scheme formulated regarding
permission to establish a new medical college. That scheme postulates
the minimum standard of education, which has been formulated by the
MCI in terms of Section 19-A of the Act. The scheme provides for
minimum infrastructure facilities and staff requirements for 100
admissions. It also provides guidance as to how deficiency in respect of E
those matters should be calculated. The Medical Council of India has
published those norms and the schemes for requirements to be fulfilled
by the applicant College(s) for obtaining Letter oflntent and Letter of ·
Permission for establishment of a new medical college and for yearly
renewal under Section 10-A of the Act. Inter alia, it provides as follows:- F
------ -- -~--
.. -· ---------
"NJt~·:

. For 011 rmse of' JWrkilll! out the deficie11ro:
( 1) The deficiency qf teaching fa::ulty and Resident Doctors shall be
cauntai se1Ylratdv.
G
(4) For Teadiiml Fac1dty:
(~ For mlcu/ating the .dejicieocy qffaculty, Prof. Assoc Prof., Asst. Prqf
& Tutor in respective departments shill be counted together.
(b) Any excess tea:hing f<CU/ty in higher cadre mn compensate the
deficiency oflower mdreo(the sanr deoortment only.
H
766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 12 S.C.R.

A
(c) Any excess tea:hing fa:ulty of lo»f!r cadre/cate~ry in any apartment
cannot conpensate the de.ficiercy of any teaching fcx:ulty in the higher
cairelcategury ofthe same department <JI. any otlrr dpartrrcmt. e.g. excess of
AssLvtwlf PrrfESsor canmt compensate the deficietry ofAssodate PrufESsor or
Professor.
(d) Exr::ess/Extm twchingfaculty of af1)' department cannot compensate the
' B deficimcy ofany teadringfaculty in any other ckfxi11ment.

(BJ For Re!>ident Doctors:
(q) Excess if SR can be compensata:I to the defidency of JR of the same
department only.
(b) Excess SRI.JR ofany department cannot rompensate the deficietry ofSR/JR
c in af1)' otlrr department.
(c)A1!Y excess if JR CfO'lmt compmsate the deficiency of SR in same or w1y
other deµtment.
(<,p Any ex02Sslextra tmclringfaculty of same or any other ckfxirtment ca1111ot
compemate the deficiency ofSR/JR
e_:g:._f!!Eess <f_1!-!i'l!!!'!.~frg~<;:;.'!_c_cm'E_t W111J!'!'!-!.'!_~!!!_e_ij_eJJ.~~e~<f_SR!!!..!B.:_
D
(2) A se1mrde department of Dentistry/Dental faculty is mt required where a
dental college is available in same campuvldty and run by the same
1naoofZ(!ment.
.
(3) College rzoming ro j;.0gromne require Cidditioml stqff, bed; &. other
E __r«{uire1_nents <J!]!!!_the PG_R~(J!_ions - 2fX!..O. ·-·-------

Designation LOP 1st Ilnd IDrd IVth Retog-
(l'I Renewal Renewal Renewal Renewal nltioil
Batch) (211<1 Batch) (3" (4111 Batch (5" Batch)
Batch)
F Fatult~· 59 85 89 97 106 106
total
Resident 45 47 47 54 62 62
Total

15. It maybe useful to advert to the Scheme dealing with grant of
permission as substituted in terms of Gazette Notification dated
G
08.02.2016. The same reads thus:-
··B. GRANT OF PERMISSION:
(i) The Central Government, on the recommendation of the
Council for Letter of Permission, may issue a letter to set up a
H
VARUNARJUN TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 767
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

new medical college with such conditions or modifications in A
the original proposal as may be considered necessary. This ·
letter can also include a clear cut statement of preliminary
requirements to be met in respect of buildings, infrastructural
facilities, medical and allied equipments, faculty and staff
before admitting the first' batch of students. The formal B
permission may be granted after the above conditions and
modifications are accepted and pe1formance bank guarantee
for the required sums are furnished by the person and after
consulting the Medical Council of India.
(1) The formal permission may. include a time bound
programme for the establishment of the medical college and C
expansion of the hospital facilities. The permission may also
define annual targets as may be fixed by the Council to be
achieved. by the person to commensurate with the intake of
students during the following years.
The following shall be added: D

"(3)(1). The permission to establish a medical college and
admit students may be granted initially for a period of one
year and may be renewed on yearly basis subject to
verification of the achievements of annual targets. It shall
be the responsibility of the person to apply to the Medical E
Council of India for purpose of renewal six months prior
to the expiry of the initial permission. This process of
renewal of permission will continue till such time the
establishment of the medical college and expansion of the
hospital facilities are completed and a formal recognition F
of the medical college is granted. Further admissions shall
not be made at any stage unless the requirements of the
Council are fit/filled. The Central Government may at any
stage convey the deficiencies to the application and
provide him an opportunity and time to rectify the
deficiencies. G

PROVIDED that in respect of
(a) Colleges in the stage upto II renewal (i.e. Admission
of third batch):
H
768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A If it is observed during any regular inspection of the
institute that deficiency of teaching faculty and/or
Residents is more than 30% and/or bed occupancy
is<60%, such an institute will not be consideredfor renewal
of permission in that Academic Year.
B (b) Colleges in the stage fi'om III renewal (i.e. Admission
of fourth batch till recognition of the institute (or award
ofMB.B.S. degree:
If it is observed during any regular inspection of the
institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or
c Residents is more than 20% and/or bed occupancy is
< 70% , such an institute will not be considered for renewal
of permission in that Academic_ Year.
(c) Colleies which are already recognized for award of
MB.B.S. degree and/or running Postgraduate Cour.~es:
D If it is observed during any regular inspection of the
institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or
Residents is more than 10% and/or bed occupancy is
<80%, such an institute will not be considered for
processing applications for postgraduate courses in that
E Academic Year and will be issued show· cause notices as to
why the recommendation for withdrawal of recognition of
the courses nm by that institute should not be made for
Undergraduate and Postgraduate courses which are
recognized u/s 11 (2) of the IMPC Act, 1956 along with
direction of stoppage of admissions in permitted
F Postgraduate courses.
(c) Colleges which are found to have employed teachers
with faked/forged documents:
if it is observed that any institute is found to have employed
a teacher with faked/forged documents and have
G
submitted the Declaration Form of such a teacher, such
an institute will not be considered for renewal of
permission/recognition for award of MB.B.S. degree/
processing the applications for postgraduate courses for
two Academic Years - i.e. that Academic Year and the next
H Academic Year also.
VARUNARJUN TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 769
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

However, the office of the Council shall ensure that such A
inspections are not carried out at least 3 days before upto
3 days ajier important religious and festival holidays
declared by the Central/State Govt.
(2}The recognition so granted to an Undergraduate Course
for award of MBBS degree shall be for a maximum period of B
5 years, upon which it shall have to be renmved
(2) The procedure for 'Renewal' of recognition shall be same
as applicable for -the award of recognition.
(3) Failure to seek timely renewal of 1;ecognition as required
in sub-clause (a) supra shall invariably result in stoppage of C
admissions to t~e concerned Undergraduate Course of MBBS ·
at the said institute. "
As per the terms of Notification published on 16.04.2010 in
the .Gazette of India.
D
In terms of Gazette Notification dated 18.03.2016 the
following additions/modifications/deletions/substitutions, shall
be, as indicated therein:
3.(1) In Clause 8(3}(J}(a) under the heading of ''Colleges in
.the stage upto II renewal (i.e. Admission of third batch):' shall E
be substituted as:-
(a) Colleges in the stage ofLetter ofPermission upto JI renewal
(i.e. Admission of third batch).
If it is observed during any inspection/assessment of the
institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or F
Residents is more than 30% and/or bed occupancy is <50%
(45% in North East, Hilly terrain, etc.), compliance of
rectification of deficiencies ji-om such an institute will not be
considered for issue of Letter of Permission (LOP/renewal of
permission that Academic Year.
G
Jn Clause 8(3)(J)(b} under the heading of "Colleges in the
stage from III renewal (i.e. Admission of fourth batch) till
recognition of the institute for award of M.B.B.S. degree"
shall be substituted as:-

H
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017) 12 S.C.R.

A (b) Colleges in the stage of III & IV renewal (i.e. Admission
of fourth & fifth batch)
If it is observed during any inspection of the Institute that the
deficiency of teaching faculty and/or residents is more than
20% and/or bed occupancy is <65% compliance of
B rectification of deficienciqs from such an institute will not be
considered for renewal of permission in that Academic Yeai:
In Clause 8(3)(1)(c) under the heading of "Colleges which
are already recognized for award of MB.B.S, degree and/or
running Postgraduate courses" shall be substituted as:-
c ( C) Colleges which are already recognised for award of
MB.B.S. degree and !or running Postgraduate courses.
If it is observed during any inspection/assessment of the
institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or
Residents is more than 10% and/or bed occupancy is <70%,
D compliance of rectification of deficiency ji·om such an· institute
will not be considered for issue of renewal of permission in
that Academic Year and fi1rther such ain institute will not be
considered for processing applications for Postgraduate
courses in that Academic Year and will be issued show cause
E notices as to why the recommendations for withdrawal of
recognition of the courses run by that institute should not be
made for undergraduate and postgraduate courses which are
recognised u!s 11 (2) of the IMC Act, 1956 along with direction
of stoppage of admissions in permitted postgraduate courses.
In Clause 8(3)(1)(d) under the heading "Colleges which are
F
found lo have employed teachers with fake/forged documents:
the second paragraph shall be substituted as:-
''Howeve1; 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
G
by the Central/State Govt."
4. The Council may obtain any other information from the
proposed medical college as it deems fit and necessary.
Whenever the Council in its report has not recommended the
H issue of Letter of Intent to the person, it may upon being so
VARUNARJUN TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 771
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

required by the Central Government reconsider the application A
and take into account new or additional information as may
be forwarded by the Central Government. The Council shall,
thereafter, submit its report in the same manner as prescribed
for the initial report. "
Considering the requirements of the scheme and as the petitioner B
college failed to fulfil the conditions specified by the OC as incorporated
in the formal conditional Letter of Permission dated l 2'h September, 2016,
the question of confirming the Letter of Permission for the academic
session 2016-17 without removal of deficiencies in all respects does not
arise. The petitioner college must first remove all those deficiencies to
become eligible for confirmation of LOP, as per the undertaking given
c
by the college in that regard.
16. The petitioners have relied upon-recent decisions 9fthis Court
dealing with similar issues in the cases viz Dr. Jagat Narain Subltarti
Charitable Trust & Anr. Vs. Union of I11dia and Ors. 1 ; Gangajali
Education Society & Anr. Vs. Union of I11dia & Ors: 3; Saraswati D
Educational Charitable Trust & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 4;
Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences & Research & Ors. Vs. Union
ofIndia & Anr. 5, to contend that in similar situations, this Court preferred
to rely on the opinion given by the OC and overturned the conclusion
reached by the Competent Authority of the Central Government for E
debarring the concerned institution from admitting students for a period
of two years and authorising MCI to encash bank guarantee of Rs.2
Crore. This submission does not commend us. For, the dictum in those
cases is contextual and on facts of those cases. In the present case, the
Hearing Committee has duly considered the explanation offered by the
college. It has, however, rejected the same for the reasons recorded in F
the impugned decision. The fact that specific reference to the opinion
of the OC is absent in the conclusion recorded by the Hearing Committee,
it does not follow that the issue has not been considered by the Hearing
Committee or by the Central Government. The Competent Authority in
the final decision after adverting to the observations of the OC and also G
of the Hearing Committee has noted that the absence of such large
number of faculties and residents during duty hours was unacceptable
' Writ Petition (C) No. 513 of2017, decided on 30.08.2017.
3
Writ Petition (C) No.709 of2017, decided on 31.08.2017.
4
Writ Petition (C) No. 515 of2017, decided on 01.09.2017.
' Writ Petition (C) No. 496 of2017, decided on 31.08.2017.
H
772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 12 S.C.R.

A and, moreso, failure of the college to ensure presence of5 (five) residents
on night off and yet could not come, even late, for the head count nor
was it reflected in the SAF. This aspect has not been dealt with by the
OC in its opinion dated 14'h May, 2017. Therefore, non-acceptance of
the explanation offered by the college by the Hearing Committee and
the Competent Authority of the Central Government, cannot be said to
B
be irrelevant, unjust or for extraneous consideration.
17. As stated earlier, the college had failed to produce supportive
documents or evidence about 6 (six) minor operations on the day of
assessment. No doubt, the OC accepted the explanation of the college
C. by holding that there was no Minimum Standard Requirement (for short
'MSR') in that behalf. The finding in the assessment report was that
·there was only one minor operation on the day of assessment whereas
the college claimed to have conducted 6 (six) operations. Nothing
prevented the college from producing documents or evidence in support
of that claim before the Hearing Committee. It was open to the petitioners
D . to invite the attention of the Hearing Committee to such documents, if
already placed on record during the earlier hearing. That was obviously
not done. El_se, the Hearing Committee in its conclusion submitted to the
Ministry may have referred to it. The Hearing Committee has noted that
eveil the relevant list/documents in relation to paramedical non-teaching
staff was not produced before it. There is no reason to doubt the
E · correctness of this factual position noted by the Hearing Committee. In
any case, since the deficiencies in respect of faculty (16.79%) and
residents (21. 73 %) remains unexplained and being significant, the same
Cannot be overlooked. This appears to be the view taken by the Hearing
Committee and the Competent Authority of the Central Government.
F 18. Be that as it may, the opinion of the Hearing Committee, which
is the basis for passing the impugned decision, is founded on the
performance of the college on the day of inspection dated 1S'h - 19'h
November, 2016. The question is: whether absence of faculty members
and residents on the given day, assuming it to be substantial in number,
G per se, could be the basis for determining the efficiency and performance
of the college for the rest of the academic session while considering the.
proposal for grant of permission? There is nothing in the opinion of the
.Hearing Committee. or the decision of the Competent Authority that
requisite number of faculty members and residents was not employed in
the petitioner college or. that· the claim of the petitioner college in that
H
VARUNARJUN TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 773
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

behalf was bogus. The noting is about the absence of such large number A
of faculty and residents on the day of inspection and during the duty
hours. Assuming that the college could not secure the presence of those
persons at the time of inspection, it does not follow that those faculty
members and residents were not on the pay roll and in the employment
of the petitioner college. This aspect certainly requires proper verification
B
and consideration by the concerned authority.
19. A priori, we may adopt the course as in the case of World
College of Medical Sciences & Research Vi·. Union of India 6 , by
directing the respondents to allow the students already admitted in the
petitioner college on the basis of conditional LOP forthe academic session
2016-17, to continue their studies.· The MCI shall send its Inspection c
Team within a period of three months to submitan assessment report
regarding the overall performance and efficiency of the petitioner college
and deficiencies, if any, and give time to the petitioner college to remove
those deficiencies within the time specified in that regard. The petitioner
medical college shall then report its compliance and communicate the D
removal of deficiencies to MCI, whereafter it will be open to the MCI to
verify the position and then submit its recommendation to the Central ·
Government. The Ministry shall take a final decision within one month
of the receipt of the recommendation from the MCI. Until such decision
is taken and communicated to the petitioners, the Bank Guarantee offered
by the petitioners in the sum of Rs. Two Crore shall not be encashed by E
the MCI but the petitioners shall keep the same alive. In the event the
final decision of the Competent Authority of the Central Government is
adverse to the petitioners, it will be open to them to take recourse to
such remedies as may be available in law.
20. Be it noted that the purpose of the stated inspection would be F
to consider the confirmation of LOP in favour of petitioner college for
the academic session 2016-2017. We further direct the respondents to
treat the renewal application submitted by the petitioner college for the
academic session 2017-18 as having been made for the academic session
20 l 8-19 and process the same in accordance with law with promptitude. G
21. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms. No
order as to costs.

Divya Pandey Writ Petition disposed of.
.H