Chintpurni Medical College And … vs Union Of India on 28 January, 2021


Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Supreme Court of India

Chintpurni Medical College And … vs Union Of India on 28 January, 2021

Author: L. Nageswara Rao

Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, S. Abdul Nazeer, Hon’Ble Ms. Malhotra

                                               Non-Reportable

         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

               Civil Appeal No. 155 of 2021

Chintpurni Medical College and Hospital & Anr.
                                            .... Appellant(s)
                           Versus

Union of India & Anr.
                                          …. Respondent (s)

                      JUDGMENT

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

1. The Appellants requested the Medical Council of India

for permission to admit 150 students in MBBS course for the

academic year 2019-2020. The Board of Governors in

supersession of Medical Council of India rejected the request

on 21.05.2019. The Appellants filed a Writ Petition in the

High Court of Delhi questioning the correctness of the

proceeding dated 21.05.2019. The High Court dismissed the

Writ Petition by its judgment dated 09.12.2020. This Appeal

is filed challenging the said judgment.

2. The first Respondent granted letter of permission to the

first Appellant-College on 30.06.2011 for intake of 150

students in the MBBS course for the academic year 2011-

1 | Page
2012. As the inspections carried out by the assessors of the

Medical Council of India revealed gross deficiencies of the

teaching faculty, clinical material and the other physical

facilities in the medical college, the Board of Governors

recommended that the renewal of permission should not be

granted to the first Appellant-College for the academic years

2012-2013 and 2013-2014. The Writ Petition filed by the first

Appellant-College was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana

High Court pursuant to which no admission could be made

for the academic years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014.

3. The first Appellant-College sought renewal of

permission for the academic year 2014-2015. In view of the

deficiencies in teaching faculty, clinical material and the

other physical facilities in the college, recommendation was

made by the Executive Committee of the Medical Council of

India not to renew the permission for the academic year

2014-2015 which was accepted by the first Respondent. The

first Respondent informed the Appellant-College on

15.07.2014 that the request for renewal of permission for

admitting 150 medical students for the academic year 2014-

2015 was rejected.

4. Orders were issued by this Court on 18.09.2014 and

20.09.2014 in Writ Petition (C) No.469 of 2014 titled as

2 | Page
Hind Charitable Trust Shekhar Hospital Private

Limited v. Union of India & Ors.” by which private

medical colleges whose application for renewal of permission

was disapproved were permitted to make admissions, subject

to the undertaking by the President/Chairman and Secretary

of the Medical College that there is no deficiency existing in

the medical college. This Court held that if the undertaking

was found to be incorrect at the time of next physical

inspection of the medical college, the bank guarantee of

Rupees Ten Crores, furnished by the medical college shall be

forfeited by way of penalty. The second Appellant-College

submitted an undertaking on 28.09.2014 that there is no

deficiency existing in the facilities and that in the event of

any deficiency being found in the inspection, the bank

guarantee of Rs.9.5 Crores shall be forfeited. Consequent

upon the undertaking, the first Appellant-College was

permitted to admit students for the academic year 2014-

2015.

5. Renewal of permission for admission of 150 students for

the academic year 2015-2016 was rejected after an

inspection was conducted and it was found that there were

gross deficiencies of infrastructure, clinical material, teaching

faculty and other physical facilities. The first Respondent

3 | Page
accepted the recommendations of the Medical Council of

India and rejected the request of the Appellant College to

grant renewal of permission for admissions for the academic

year 2015-2016 by its letter dated 15.06.2015.

6. On 16.12.2015 physical assessment for grant of

recognition was carried out. Another physical assessment

was held on 25/26th February, 2016 as there were allegations

against the first Appellant-College relating to arranging fake

faculty doctors, residents, patients etc. only for the purpose

of Medical Council of India’s assessment. It was decided by

the Medical Council of India to conduct another surprise

physical inspection. In the surprise inspection which was

conducted on 16.03.2016, deficiencies were found on the

basis of which the Medical Council of India recommended to

the Central Government not to grant recognition to the

Appellant College under Section 11 (2) of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956. The first Respondent accepted the

recommendations made by the Medical Council of India and

decided not to renew the permission for admission for the

academic year 2016-2017.

7. The Over-Sight Committee recommended grant of

conditional recognitions to private medical colleges which

was accepted by the first Respondent by a notification dated

4 | Page
26.09.2016. Conditional recognition was granted to the

MBBS degree awarded to the students admitted in the first

Appellant College on the following two conditions:

I. “An undertaking on affidavit from the Dean/Principal

and the Chairman of the Trust affirming that the

deficiencies pointed out by the assessors of the Council

in the compliance verification assessment stands

rectified;

II. A bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.2 crores in favour of

the Council which shall be valid for a period of one year

or till such time the first renewal inspection takes place,

whichever is later.”

8. A verification assessment was held on 07.03.2017 to

verify the claims of the first Appellant College that they

have all the minimum requirements necessary for

recognition. In the verification, the following deficiencies

were found:

I. “Deficiency of faculty is 87.12% as detailed in the

report.

II. Shortage of Residents is 82.35% as detailed in the

report.

III. OPD attendance was 401 at 2 p.m. on day of

assessment against requirement of 1,200. Very few

patients were seen in OPD at the time of visit.
IV. Bed Occupancy was NIL on day of assessment. There

was NIL admitted patient seen during the round.

5 | Page
V. There was only 1 Major & NIL Minor Operation on day

of assessment.

VI. There was NIL Normal Delivery & NIL Caesarean

Section on day of assessment.

VII. CT Scan workload is NIL on day of assessment.
VIII. Histopathology workload is NIL on day of assessment.
IX. ICUs: Except 1 patient in SICU, there was NIL patient in

ICCU, MICU, PICU, NICU.

X. Labor Room: There was no woman in Labour Room. It

appears that data in the Register is falsified.
XI. Data of Number of Admissions & Discharge,

Radiological & Laboratory investigations as provided

by institute are grossly inflated.

XII. Casualty: There was NIL patient at time of round”.
XIII. Speech Therapist is not available. Only space is

provided for Speech Therapy.

XIV. Nursing Staff: Very few Nurses were seen in the

hospital during the round.

XV. Paramedical Staff: Very few paramedical staff were

seen during the round.

XVI. Orthopaedics ward was locked during the round.
XVII. O.T.s : Some 0.Ts were locked during the round. Some

are not properly equipped.

XVIII. Examination Halls: These are temporary structures

without light & fan. Deficiency remains as it is.
XIX. Central Library: It is not air-conditioned. Capacity of

Students’ reading Room (Outside) is only 32 against

requirement of 150. Available Internet Nodes are 32

against requirement of 40. Deficiency remains as it is.

6 | Page
XX. Students’ Hostels: Available accommodation is for 453

students against requirement of 565. Ancillary

facilities are inadequate as detailed in the report.
XXI. Interns’ Hostel: Available accommodation is for 42

Interns against requirement of 150.

XXII. Residents’ Hostel: Total 40 rooms are available against

requirement of 85. They are partially furnished.

Deficiency remains as it is.

XXIII. Residential Quarters: Only 5 quarters are available for

faculty against requirement of 26. NIL quarters are

available for Non-teaching staff.”

9. The Medical Council of India recommended to the

Central Government that the first Appellant-College should

be debarred for two years i.e. 2017-2018 and 2018-2019

from admitting students and to encash the bank guarantee

furnished. A decision was also taken not to consider the first

Appellant for processing applications for Postgraduate

courses for the academic year 2017-2018. There was also a

recommendation to initiate proceedings for withdrawal of the

recognition of the courses pursuant to which a show cause

notice was given to the college on 24.03.2017. The first

Respondent accepted the recommendations of the Medical

Council of India and debarred the first Appellant-College from

making admissions to MBBS course for the academic years

2017-2018 and 2018-2019. The first Respondent also

7 | Page
permitted the Medical Council of India to encash the bank

guarantee.

10. Pursuant to a direction given by this Court by its order

dated 01.08.2017 the status of ratification of deficiencies in

the first Appellant-College was reconsidered and a decision

was taken by the Executive Committee of the Medical Council

of India not to recognise/approve the first Appellant-College

for the award of MBBS degree granted by Baba Farid

University of Health Sciences.

11. In the meanwhile, students who were admitted in the

first Appellant-College during the years 2011-2012, 2014-

2015 and 2016-2017 were shifted to other colleges.

12. Thereafter, the first Appellant requested the Medical

Council of India to permit admission of 150 students in the

MBBS course for the academic year 2019-2020. The Medical

Council of India rejected the request of the first Appellant-

College. According to the Medical Council of India, the

conditional recognition granted to the first Appellant-College

has become invalid in view of the failure of the first

Appellant-College to comply with the conditions stipulated

therein. It was mentioned in the letter dated 21.05.2019

that proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice dated

24.03.2017 are underway. The first Appellant-College was

8 | Page
advised to make an application/scheme under Section 10 (A)

of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 for grant of

permission to admit students for the academic year 2020-

2021. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.05.2019, the

Appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi which

was dismissed.

13. The High Court held that there is no merit in the

contention of the Appellants that admissions for the

academic year 2019-2020 should be considered without any

further inspection as the debarment by the notification dated

26.09.2016 was only for a period of two years. As the relief

claimed by the Appellants for the year 2019-2020 cannot be

granted, the High Court rightly considered whether any relief

can be granted to the Appellants for the academic year

2020-2021. The High Court took note of the fact that there

are admittedly no students in the first Appellant-College as

those admitted for the academic years 2011-2012, 2014-

2015 and 2016-2017 have been shifted to the other colleges.

The request made by the Appellants that there should be a

direction for inspection was refused by the High Court as the

last date for granting permission for the academic year 2020-

2021 was 31.08.2020. As the recognition of the college has

9 | Page
not been cancelled, the Appellants were given liberty to

make an application for renewal of recognition.

14. We have heard Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned Senior

Counsel for the Appellant, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned

Additional Solicitor General for the first Respondent and Mr. T.

Singhdev learned counsel for the second Respondent. The

contention of the Appellants that the ban for admitting

students imposed by the first Respondent on 26.09.2016 is

only for a period of two years i.e. 2017-2018 and 2018-2019

was rightly rejected by the High Court on the ground that

they were not entitled to make admissions for the academic

years 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 without any inspection.

Reliance placed by the Appellants on the order dated

10.05.2018 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.423 of

2017 is misplaced. In the said Writ Petition, request of the

Appellants that they should be permitted to make admission

for the years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 was rejected. While

dismissing the Writ Petition, an observation was made that

the Appellants would be entitled to pursue their request for

permission for the academic years 2019-2020 and 2020-

2021. It does not mean that the Appellants are entitled to

admit students for the academic year 2019-2020 without an

inspection. A bare look of the inspections conducted from

10 | P a g e
the years 2011-2012 makes it clear that the Appellants have

not utilized the opportunities given to them to rectify the

deficiencies in the past. The Medical Council of India has

even recommended cancellation of the recognition granted

to the Appellants in view of lack of infrastructure, clinical,

teaching faculty and other facilities.

15. We find no merit in the contention of the Appellants

that the Medical Council of India committed an error in not

permitting admission of students for the academic year

2019-2020. Having found that the request made by the

Appellants for permitting MBBS course for the academic year

2019-2020 had become infructuous, the High Court rightly

considered the entitlement of the Appellant-College for the

academic year 2020-2021. In accordance with the time

schedule fixed in respect of permissions to be granted to the

medical colleges for admission to students, the last date for

granting permission for the academic year 2020-2021 was

31.08.2020. As per the schedule an application for renewal

of permission should have been made by the Appellants on

07.07.2020. We find no fault committed by the High Court in

refusing permission to the Appellant-College for making

admissions for the academic year 2020-2021.

11 | P a g e

16. We are in agreement with the High Court that the

Appellant-College is a recognised College and that it is open

to the second Respondent to take appropriate steps under

Section 19 of the Indian Medical Council Act. As the

recognition was for a period of five years which ends in the

year 2021, it is open to the Appellants to apply for renewal of

the recognition. Any application preferred by the Appellants

shall be considered in accordance with law by the second

Respondent. We make it clear that the Appellant-College

shall be entitled for admissions for the academic year 2021-

2022 only if renewal of the recognition is granted to the first

Appellant-College and it is found that there are no

deficiencies like infrastructure, clinical, teaching faculty and

other facilities.

17. For the above-mentioned reasons, we see no merit in

the Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

……………………………J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]

…………………………J.

[S. ABDUL NAZEER]

…………………………J.

[INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi,
January 28, 2021.

12 | P a g e



Source link