Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 – Appellant sought grant of Essentiality Certificate (EC) for Academic Year 2020-2021 – Application rejected by State Government – Eventually, Single Judge inter alia set aside the said order while further giving opportunity to the appellant to apply for the Academic Year 2022-2023 instead of Academic Year 2020-2021 – Review petition filed by appellant, dismissed – Division Bench refused to grant permission for Academic Year 2020-2021, instead directed the respondents to consider appellant’s application for establishment of a Medical College for the Academic Year 2021-2022 – On appeal, held: Conditional Essentiality Certificate was first issued in 2004 subject to removal of deficiencies – Since then 17 years have elapsed and the appellant has been unsuccessful in removing the deficiencies and securing requisite permissions from MCI – Appellant has been long trying to escape its responsibility and fill up the lacuna through judicial process by getting orders from the High Court for Consent of Affiliation (CoA) and consideration of its belated half-baked applications before the MCI – In the inspections carried out in 2015 and 2020, the appellant was found lacking proper facilities – Appellant has no real interest in running a hospital and thus, cannot call foul upon rejection of EC, CoA or its applications before MCI – Further, time schedule prescribed for starting a new Medical College for the Academic Year 2020-2021 is over long back – Even the last date for the year 2021-2022 which was extended to 15.12.20, in view of Covid-19 pandemic is also over by now – Thus, the State Government or the University cannot be directed to issue EC or CoA to the appellant for the year 2020-2021 – Medical Council of India Establishment of Medical College Regulations , 1999 – Regulation 8(3) – Kerala University of Health Sciences First Statute, 2013 – Chapter XXI – Establishment of Medical College Regulations (Amendment), 2015.
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 – s.10-A – Requirement of Essentiality Certificate under – Discussed.
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 – Issuance of Essentiality Certificate, if a ministerial job – Held: Issuance/re-issuances of an essentiality certificate is not in any way a ministerial job – While dealing with a case of maintaining standards in a professional college, strict approach must be adopted – Education. Kerala University of Health Sciences First Statute, 2013 – Chapter XXI – Clause X(I) – Grant of affiliation – Discussed. Education – Establishment of new medical college – Withdrawal of Essentiality Certificate (EC) – Held: State Government has power to withdraw the EC where it is obtained by playing fraud on it or where the very substratum on which the EC was granted vanishes or for any other reason of like nature – Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 An EC is mandatorily required by a person before he receives permission for establishment of a Medical College. The Legislative scheme that imposes the requirement of the EC is prescribed in Section 10(A) of the Medical Council of India Act, which requires the previous permission of the Central Government for establishing a Medical College or opening a new course of study or training. Every person or Medical College must submit to the Central Government a scheme as prescribed. The Central Government then refers the scheme to the MCI for its recommendations. The Medical Council is required to consider the same and satisfy itself by obtaining any particulars as are necessary and after having the defects if any removed, make its recommendations to the Central Government. The Central Government, may on receipt of the scheme, approve it conditionally or disapprove the same. [Para 16][1033-D-F]
1.2 The power to permit the establishment of a Medical College is thus conferred on the Central Government by the MCI Act. The Regulations were framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 10(A) read with Section 33 of the MCI Act prescribed the qualifying criteria. These criteria lay down the eligibility to apply for permission to establish a Medical College. One of the criteria is that the person who is desirous of establishing a Medical College should obtain an Essentiality Certificate as prescribed in Form 2 of the Regulations, certifying that the State Government/Union Territory Administration has no objection for the establishment of the proposed Medical College at the proposed site and availability of adequate clinical material. Thus, the State Government is required to certify that it has decided to issue an Essentiality Certificate for the establishment of a Medical College with a specified number of seats in public interest and further such establishment is feasible. [Para 17][1033-F-H; 1034-A]
2. Form 2 in which the EC must be obtained indicates the facts which are considered relevant for determining whether the establishment of a proposed college is justified. The Essentiality Certificate in the prescribed form is crucial for avoiding cases where the colleges despite grant of initial permission could not provide the infrastructure, teaching and other facilities as a result whereof the students who had already been admitted suffered serious prejudice. Medical Council of India Regulations as well as Kerala University Health Sciences Statutes very emphatically mandate that the consent of affiliation can only be given after the Institution fulfills the essential requirements. The contention of the appellant that the absence of Essentiality Certificate is not one of the factors for consideration and is extraneous to the decision-making process cannot be accepted. Whilst granting the Essentiality Certificate, the State Government undertakes to take over the obligations of the private educational institution in the event of that institution becoming incapable of setting of the institution or imparting education therein. Such an undertaking on the part of the State Government is unequivocal and unambiguous. An Essentiality Certificate by the State Government legitimises a medical college declaring it fit to impart medical education and gives accouchement to the expectation amongst the stakeholders that the Applicant College shall fulfill basic norms specified by the MCI to start and operate a medical college. Bearing in mind that the question of justified existence of a college and irregular/illegal functioning of an existing college belong to a different order of things and cannot be mixed up, this Court comes to the conclusion that the issuance/re-issuances of an essentiality certificate is not in any way a ministerial job and while dealing with a case of maintaining standards in a professional college, strict approach must be adopted as these colleges are responsible for ensuring that medical graduate has the required skill set to work as a doctor in the country. Poor assessment system; exploding number of medical colleges; shortage of patients/clinical materials; devaluation of merit in admission, particularly in private institutions; increasing capitation fees; a debilitated assessment and accreditation system, are problems plaguing the Medical Education system. Allowing such deficient colleges to continue to function jeopardizes the future of the student community and leading to incompetent doctors to graduate from such colleges and ultimately pose a bigger risk to the society at large defeating the very purpose of the Essentiality Certificate issued by the State. The State would be deterring from its duty if it did not conduct an inspection from time to time to ensure that the requisite standards as set by the MCI are met before issuing/renewing the Essentiality certificate. That is by no stretch of imagination ‘merely a ministerial job’. Considering especially that while issuing the Essentiality Certificate the State Govt undertakes that should the Medical College fail to provide the requisite infrastructure and fresh admissions are stopped by the Central Government, the State Government shall take over the responsibility of the students already admitted in the College. Same is the position with respect to CoA by the University. The First Statute of KUHS prescribes that the University may appoint a Commission to inspect the proposed site to make a physical verification of the existing facilities and suitability of the proposed site. The grant of affiliation is dependent upon fulfilment of all the conditions that are specified in Clause X(I) of First Statues or that may be specified which includes staff, infrastructure facility, hospital, internet, library, playground, hostel, etc. Thus, even grant of CoA by the University also cannot be said to be merely a ministerial act. [Paras 18, 19][1034-B; 1035-D-H; 1036-A-G]
3. The State Government has power to withdraw the EC where it is obtained by playing fraud on it or where the very substratum on which the EC was granted vanishes or any other reason of like nature. [Para 23][1039-C]
Chintpurni Medical College & Hospital & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2018) 15 SCC 1 : [ 2018] 5 SCR
147 – distinguished.
Sukh Sagar Medical College and Hospital Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors (2020) SCC Online SC 851 – relied on.
4. In the case at hand, even though initially a conditional EC was granted in the year 2004 subject to removal of deficiencies and since then 17 years elapsed, the appellant has been unsuccessful in removing the deficiencies and is not in a position to secure requisite permissions from the MCI. Reference may be made to the last joint inspection carried out on 7th November, 2020, wherein a number of deficiencies were noted and the facilities were found inadequate for consideration of an application for the year 2021-2022. What is true in case of vanishing of substratum applies with equal force where the substratum is missing right from the very inception. The Appellant Institution has been long trying to escape its responsibility and fill up the lacuna through judicial process by getting Orders from the High Court for consent of affiliation and consideration of its belated half-baked applications before the MCI. In both the inspections in 2015 and 2020, it was found that the Appellant Institution lacks proper facilities. Even though the Appellant claims to be running a hospital since 2006 neither adequate amenities nor infrastructure on inspection was found to be in existence. This lackadaisical attitude is testament to the fact that the Appellant has no real interest in running a Hospital in that place and has no ground to call foul upon rejection of EC, CoA or its applications before MCI. Further, not only proper facilities and infrastructure including teaching faculty is absolutely necessary but adherence to time schedule is also equally important. Regulation 8(3) of the 1999 Regulations provides a schedule for the receipt of applications for establishment of new Medical Colleges and processing of the applications by the Central Government and the Medical Council of India. Initial time schedule fixed under the Regulations for establishment of a new Medical College was amended in 2015 vide Establishment of Medical College Regulations (Amendment), 2015. Time and again, this Court has emphasized that time schedule either for establishment of new Medical College or to increase intake in existing colleges shall be adhered to strictly by all concerned. There is no manner of doubt that the time schedule prescribed in receipt of starting a new Medical College for the year 2020- 2021 is already over long back. Even the last date for the Academic Year 2021-2022 which was extended to 15.12.2020, in view of prevailing Covid19 Pandemic is also over by now. Thus the State Government or the University cannot be directed to issue EC or CoA to the appellant for the year 2020-2021 even notionally. The relief prayed for by the appellant for the Academic Year 2020-2021, is not liable to be granted. [Paras 24, 28-33][1039-D-E; 1041-B-E, F-G; 1042-D-F]
Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2005) 2 SCC 65 : [2005] 1 SCR 380 – relied on.
Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Sawmigal Medical Educational & Charitable Trust Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 15 : [1996] 2 SCR 422; Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Medwin Educational Society & Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 86 : [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 408; Medical Council of India Vs. Principal, KMCT Medical College & Anr. (2018) 9 SCC 766 : 2018 (8 ) JT 179; Medical Council of India Vs. The Chairman, S.R. Educational and Charitable Trust and Another (2018) SCC Online SC 2276 –
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.