Education/Educational Institutions:
Medical Colleges – Denial of renewal permission/recognition – Propriety of – On inspection of colleges by Medical Council of India (MCI) deficiencies found – Government of India/Hearing Committee directed MCI to review the recommendation and consider the compliance reported – MCI declined to review its recommendation – Thereafter Government of India denied renewal/recognition – Writ petition challenging the denial – High Court quashed the orders whereby permission was declined – Directed to admit students to the Colleges for academic year 2018-19 – Also directed MCI to carry out inspection to verify rectification of the deficiencies found at the time of earlier inspection – On appeal, held: For effective implementation of provision of s. 10A of Medical Council Act, 1999 Regulations have been made – The Regulations are binding with respect to availability of teaching faculty, infrastructural and other facilities – With the advancement of the batches, this requirement becomes more rigorous – Therefore, recommendations made by Hearing Committee to review and consider the compliance is not binding – Provisions of 8(3)(1)(a) and (b) are binding upon the Hearing Committee/Government of India and MCI – In case there are gross deficiencies, more than prescribed in the Regulation, for the concerned batch, then the compliance verification would not be considered in the same year – A decision taken by Union of India on the basis of recommendation of an expert body regarding the inadequacy of facilities cannot be interfered with lightly – Interference is permissible only when there are jurisdictional errors, ex facie perversity or mala fide – High Court has gravely erred in law in quashing Government’s order, allowing the admissions for academic session 2018-19 without there being permission by Government of India and recommendation of MCI – Such general directions without considering the provisions of the Regulations are illegal and unwarranted and on inspection decision has to be taken in accordance with law as per regulations – However, it would be appropriate that MCI and Government of India take decision at an early date i.e. by the end of February or latest by March and not by the end of the Scheduled date i.e. May – Establishment of Medical Colleges Regulations, 1999 – Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) and (b) – Judicial Review.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The Medical Council of India (MCI) has been established in order to streamline the standard of medical education. It has the power to supervise qualification and eligibility standards for admissions into medical institutions. [Para 22] [1061-E]
State of Kerala v. T. P. Roshna (1979) SCC 580; Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka (1998) 6 SCC
131 : [1998] 3 SCR 740 – relied on.
2. For effective implementation of provisions of Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 requiring prior permission from the Central Government for the establishment of medical colleges, regulations have been made in exercise of powers under Section 10A read with Section 33 of the Act. Consequently, the Establishment of Medical Colleges Regulations 1999 are binding with respect to availability of teaching faculty, infrastructural and other facilities and with the advancement of the batches this requirement becomes more rigorous as there is more requirement in the faculty than the college is recognized after fulfillment of all the conditions as apparent from the provisions contained in the Regulations. With the aforesaid objective, the provisions contained in Regulation 8(3) have been carved out and amended in 2016. In case there are gross deficiencies, more than prescribed in regulation for the concerned batch then the compliance verification would not be considered in the same academic year. [Paras 24-25] [1062D-G] Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (1999) 7 SCC 120 : [1999] 1 Suppl. SCR 249 – relied on.
3. It is apparent from regulation 8(3)(1)(a) of Regulations of 1999 that in the case of the third batch, if deficiencies of teaching faculty and/or residents are found to be more than 30% and bed occupancy less than 50%, a college cannot be given an opportunity for compliance in the same year. In the case of the 4th and 5th batch as provided in regulations 8(3)(1)(b), if the deficiencies of teaching faculty and the residents is more than 20% and bed occupancy is less than 65%, such college cannot be given opportunity of reporting compliance during the same academic year. [Paras 14 and 15] [1056-A-B]
4. Considering the deficiencies in case of S.R. Educational Trust, Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) was attracted. In Al-Azhar Medical College and P. K. Dass Institute of Medical Sciences for 5th Batch deficiencies found by the assessors were gross so as to attract the provisions contained in amended Regulation 8(3)(1)(b). [Para 16] [1056-C]
5. Therefore, the recommendations made by the Hearing Committee to review and to consider the compliance could not be said to be binding. The provisions of the regulations 8(3)(1)(a) and (b) are binding upon the Hearing Committee/Government of India and the MCI. It is only in a case when a report of the Assessors on the face of it, makes out that the same is incorrect, a reconsideration or review is called for. Otherwise, in the case of gross deficiency, the yardstick contained in regulation 8(3)(1)(a) or (b) has to be applied by the Hearing Committee, Government of India or the MCI, as the case may be. It is not open to the Government of India/ MCI or Hearing Committee to depart in a few cases and in some other to take a different stand. They have to scrupulously observe the provisions of regulations which are binding on them. [Para 26] [1036-B-D]
Royal Medical Trust (Registered) & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. (2015) 10 SCC 19; Madha Medical
College and Research Institute v. Union of India & Anr. (2017) 15 SCC 791; I.Q.City foundation and Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 249 – relied on.
6. It is high time for the MCI to ensure its functions well and eradicate all the loop-holes and decide the case within a reasonable time and not to lend the colleges in a situation with no legal remedy available once case is decided at the fag end of the academic session on 31st May. It would be appropriate that MCI and Government of India take a decision in all the cases at an early date and not by the end of May 2018. The next academic session has to commence from first of July of the Gregorian calendar year as such at least 3-4 months’ time should be available to seek judicial review of the action or re-inspection, if any, so warranted by the MCI or Government of India. Once a petition is filed and even if in some cases the Court is inclined to grant a relief of re-inspection to a college, but due to the lapse of the time schedule and the admissions having already been made, it is not considered appropriate to disturb the uniform schedule of various Universities. It would be appropriate that the MCI, as well as the Government of India, should take a final decision after inspection, by the end of February or latest by the end of March. [Para 28] [1063-G-H; 1064-A-B]
Medical Council of India v. Vedantaa Institute of Academic Excellence Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2018) 7 SCC 225; Medical Council of India v. The Principal, KMCT Medical College, and Anr. (2018) 9 SCC 766 – relied on.
7. In the case of P.K. Dass Institute of Medical Sciences, as per the Assessors, the bed occupancy was 40.30% i.e. 262 patients out of 650 patients which were required. Whereas college claimed that 493 indoor patients were there at 10.00 am on 31.10.2017. There was 80% bed occupancy on 30-31.10.2017 and 1.11.2017. The College has drawn support from the website portal. Whatever college says is not a gospel truth. There is no case wherein college does not dispute the report of the Assessors and contend that there were no such deficiencies. It is clearly disputed fact. Firstly, the report of the Assessors cannot be lightly disbelieved. It is not open to examining the case set up by the college as facts found by Assessors are at great variance; secondly, in the judicial review, the report cannot be discarded relying on data put up by the college on self-serving website portal. The High Court was right in discarding the explanation offered by the colleges with respect to deficiencies. Even the Hearing Committee with respect to the College did not doubt the report of Assessors as to bed occupancy. It is not what the institution asserts on website but what is actually found on inspection, that has to be considered by the court and while exercising judicial review it is settled law that court cannot sit in appeal over the report of the assessors. It was also observed that at the time of inspection faculty should be present barring certain exceptions otherwise the very purpose of the inspection would be defeated. The Report of the Assessors cannot be lightly faulted and the court cannot sit in an appeal and go into disputed facts. There were other deficiencies too but due to the aforesaid gross deficiencies, the provisions of regulations 8(3)(1)(b) were clearly attracted. [Paras 30-31] [1065-A-D, G-H; 1066-E-F]
Medical Council of India v. N.C. Medical College & Hospital and Ors. 2018 (9) JT 204; Medical Council of India vs. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) & Ors. (2016) 11 SCC 530 : [2016] 4 SCR 403 – relied on.
8. A decision taken by the Union of India on the basis of a recommendation of an expert body regarding the inadequacy of facilities in medical colleges cannot be interfered with lightly. Interference is permissible only when the colleges demonstrate jurisdictional errors, ex facie perversity or mala fide. It is not open to the court in judicial review to accept tenuous objections as to bed occupancy in the absence of mala fide. [Para 32] [1067B-C]
Medical Council of India v. The Principal, KMCT Medical College, and Anr. (2018) 9 SCC 766 – relied on.
9. The High Court has gravely erred in law while passing the impugned judgment and order in quashing Government’s order, allowing the admissions for the academic session 20182019 without there being Government of India’s permission and the recommendation of the MCI. The High Court has issued direction for fresh inspection and thereafter the MCI to consider the report after the grant of opportunity to remove defects if any. Firstly, it could not have issued such a direction in view of regulations and also the blanket direction that college should be permitted to remove the deficiencies if any found. Deficiencies can be removed, if found, within the permissible limits as provided in regulation 8(3), not in a case Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) or (b) is attracted. Thus, such kind of general direction issued without considering the provisions of the Regulations are wholly illegal and unwarranted and on inspection, the decision has to be taken in accordance with law as per regulations. [Para 33] [1067-C-F]
10. The case of D.M. Education and Research Institute of Medical Sciences is of recognition and admission. For the purpose of recognition, the Regulations of 1999 contains the provisions in Regulation 8(3)(1) wherein the 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 of the medical college is granted. Further admissions shall not be made at any stage unless the requirements of the Council are fulfilled. The Central Government may at any stage convey the deficiencies to the applicant and provide him an opportunity and time to rectify the deficiencies. It is the stand of the MCI also that the matter of recognition is under consideration and shall be considered in terms of said regulation after giving the opportunity to make good deficiency. However, with respect to admissions in 2018-19, the recommendation was made not to admit the students. [Paras 34 and 39] [1068-C-D; 1071-H; 1072A-B]
11. It was clearly mentioned by the MCI in its letter dated 25.5.2018 that the matter could not be considered for renewal of permission for admission for the academic year 2018-2019, but compliance of the medical college for the purpose of recognition/approval under Section 11(2) of the Act was under consideration of the MCI and compliance verification/assessment and recommendations of the MCI would be sent to Central Government in due course of time. The matter was under consideration before the MCI for recognition, renewal of permission for admission had been declined by the MCI on 28.5.2018. Thereafter, the Government of India has passed the order on 31.5.2018 declining admission for 2018-19. [Para 40] [1072-D-F]
12. In view of the deficiencies of faculty and of bed occupancy, the decision not to grant permission for admission in the year 2018-2019 was appropriate. However, the compliance that had been submitted by the college on 22.5.2018 will be considered for the purpose of recognition by the MCI as provided under the regulation 8(3). Let the MCI consider the matter for the purpose of recognition duly considering the compliance unfettered by the order passed by the Government of India on 31.5.2018. The Government of India also to consider the matter of recognition in accordance with the law. Let the decision be taken by the respondents- MCI and Government of India as expeditiously as possible. [Para 41] [1072-F-H]
Mridul Dhar v. Union of India (2005) 2 SCC 65 : [2005]
1 SCR 380; Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012)
(7) SCC 433 : [2012] 5 SCR 768 – relied on.
Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital & Dental College v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2014 SC 284 : [2013] 14 SCR 105; Priyadarshini Dental College and Hospital v. Union of India & Ors. 2011 AIR SCW 2383 : (2011) 4 SCC 623 : [2011]
2 SCR 945; D.M. Education and Research Foundation v. Union of India [2016 KHC 171] 5 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.