Medical Council of India vs Lord Buddha Educational Society & Ors.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 In view of the gross deficiencies found, no compliance verification could have been made in view of regulation 8(3)(1)(a). It was already a case of conditional permission which was granted subject to removal of deficiencies and in successive inspections, it was found that the college was not compliant and had not removed the deficiencies. When Supreme Court passed order on 13.11.2017, no doubt about it was observed that inspection should be carried out and college should be given an opportunity to make compliance of deficiencies. In concluding portion it was observed that the decision has to be in accordance with law. This court never decided the question in case deficiencies were found to be gross as contained in regulation 8(3)(1)(a) whether the said regulation has to be ignored. The observations which were made by this court were obviously based upon the main provision which requires an opportunity to be given unless the deficiencies are such which can be termed to be “gross” as contemplated in proviso (a) to regulation 8(3)(1)(a) that has been amended. [Para 23] [942-G-H; 943-A-B]

1.2 Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) provides that if the deficiencies of teaching faculty and/or residents are found to be more than 30% and/or bed occupancy less than 50%, College shall not be entitled to make them good and compliance of deficiencies will not be considered for issuance of letter of permission for same academic year. The College had filed successive writ applications in the High Court of Delhi in 2018 but did not pray for fresh inspection in terms of the order passed by this Court knowing fully well that the MCI and the Oversight Committee had decided and again reiterated their decision that due to gross deficiencies found as per Regulation 8(3)(1)(a), compliance verification could not have been made. It was incumbent upon the College to timely press for the relief of considering compliance which it did not insist and thereafter it was too late in the day to order it by the High Court vide impugned order dated 1.8.2018 passed by the High Court even if it was permissible. [Paras 24, 25] [943-C-D]

1.3 What this Court intended by passing the order on 13.11.2017 was that the College be inspected afresh for the academic year 2018-19 but it was not even in contemplation of this Court at the time what would be the nature of deficiencies to be found on fresh inspection. The observation has to be considered only with respect to when deficiencies have been found to be such, more than 30% of faculty and of residents and/or the bed occupancy is less than 50%, no further compliance verification opportunity has to be given. The decision of this Court cannot be taken to be a decision with respect to it when deficiencies are found to be gross where the proviso to Regulation 8(3)(1) comes into play. The decision of this Court was based on the main provision that ordinarily an opportunity has to be given to removing the deficiencies which are removable not falling within the aforesaid percentage in Regulation 8(3)(1)(a). Thus, Court never intended to bye-pass the provision of Regulation 8(3)(1)(a). It was not ordered that notwithstanding the provision of Regulation 8(3)(1)(a), compliance opportunity is to be afforded. A decision is an authority for the question considered and decided. This Court had not decided the aforesaid aspect nor was it germane as fresh inspection had not been carried out by 13.11.2017. Thus, the observations made by this Court cannot be taken to mean that though deficiencies are found to be more than 30% of faculty and residents and bed occupancy is 50% and notwithstanding the provisions contained in Regulation 8(3)(1)(a), compliance opportunity should be given. Thus, the High Court has erred in law in considering purport of the order of this Court. [Para 26] [945-A-E]

1.4 Considering the nature of the deficiencies that had been found on fresh assessment and also the fact that the College had in fact never been granted clear recognition by the Government of India or MCI, it was only on the insistence of the Oversight Committee appointed by this Court that conditional permission was granted and gross deficiencies were found. Thus, the College was not entitled to any further indulgence; more so, in view of Regulation 8(3)(1)(a). No case for quashing order dated 31.5.2018 passed by the Government of India had been made out. The judgment and order passed by the High Court are thus liable to be set aside. [Paras 27, 28] [945-F, G; 946-A-B] Medical Council of India & Ors. v. Vedantaa Institute of Academic Excellence Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2018) 7 SCC

225 ; Medical Council of India v. Malla Reddy Institute of Medical Sciences & Ors. Civil Appeal

No.4812/2016 decided by Supreme Court on

27.04.2016 ; Royal Medical Trust (Registered) & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. (2015) 10 SCC 19 - referred to.

Case Law Refrence

(2018) 7 SCC 225

referred to

Para 13

(2015) 10 SCC 19

referred to

Para 24