Medical Council Of India vs N.C. Medical College And Hospital

1 Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6001 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14972 of 2018)

Medical Council of India ……Appellant

Versus

N.C. Medical College and Hospital and Ors. ..…. Respondents

JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal questions the correctness of interim order dated

29.05.2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Writ

Petition No.13366 of 2018 and thereby permitting the Respondent Medical

College to go ahead with admissions to first MBBS Course for the Academic

Session 2018-19.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR RAKHEJA

3. Shanti Devi Charitable Trust made an application for establishment of Date: 2018.07.04 15:08:36 IST Reason:

a new Medical College in the name and style of NC Medical College and 2 Hospital, Panipat for the Academic Sessions 2016-17. An assessment was

accordingly undertaken by the assessors appointed by Medical Council of

India (MCI, for short) who found as many as 25 deficiencies. By its letter

dated 30.12.2015, MCI recommended to the Central Government not to

issue letter of permission for establishment of said college for the Academic

Year 2016-17. In compliance verification carried out by MCI on 01.04.2016

the deficiencies were still found to be existing and as such MCI vide letter

dated 14.05.2016 again recommended disapproval of the scheme for the

Academic Year 2016-17.

4. The Central Government accepted such negative recommendation and

disapproved the scheme so proposed. However, the Supreme Court

mandated Oversight Committee vide letter dated 11.08.2016 approved the

scheme and as such admissions to 1st MBBS Course for the Academic Year

2016-17 with intake of 150 seats could be made by the Respondent College.

Since such approval was subject to certain conditions, a further verification

was undertaken by MCI on 7/8.11.2016 to assess whether those conditions

were complied with or not. This assessment was again considered by the

Executive Committee of MCI and in its noting dated 22.12.2016, the

deficiencies were still found to be persisting. MCI by its letter dated 3 26.12.2016 informed the Central Government that since the Respondent

College had failed to abide by the undertaking, it be debarred from admitting

students for two academic sessions namely 2017-18 and 2018-19 and the

bank guarantee be encashed. The Central Government approved the report

submitted by MCI. The matter was again placed before the Supreme Court

mandated Oversight Committee which directed that a further opportunity be

given to the Respondent College and an assessment be made whether the

Respondent College had complied with the conditions. The matter was

again considered and the Central Government accepted the

recommendations of MCI, and by its order dated 09.06.2017 debarred the

Respondent College from admitting students for two years namely 2017-18

and 2018-19 and authorized MCI to encash the bank guarantee of Rs.2

crores.

5. The aforesaid order dated 09.06.2017 was questioned in this Court by

way of Writ Petition No.432 of 2017 and by its order dated 01.08.2017 this

Court directed the Central Government to re-consider the case and pass a

reasoned order. Pursuant thereto, the Central Government by its reasoned

order dated 10.08.2017 reiterated its earlier decision dated 09.06.2017.

When aforesaid Writ Petition No.423 of 2017 was again listed on 4 09.10.2017, MCI was directed to conduct physical inspection for grant of

permission for the Academic Session 2018-2019 as per MCI regulations. In

compliance, the physical assessment was carried out by the assessors of MCI

on 17/18.11.2017 and the report found various deficiencies of Infrastructure,

Teaching Faculty, Clinical Material and other physical facilities. Executive

Council of MCI therefore by its decision dated 14.12.2017 decided to

recommend to the Central Government not to grant renewal permission for

admitting students for the academic year 2018-2019. Said writ petition

No.432 of 2017 was thereafter disposed of by this Court on 17.01.2018

directing MCI to take proper decision on or before 31.03.2018.

6. It appears that according to the Respondent College it had complied

with and removed the deficiencies. The Central Government therefore

directed MCI to review the case. The papers and documents submitted by

the Respondent College were duly considered and on the strength of those

documents themselves, it was found that deficiencies 3, 6 and 7 were still

not rectified. This assessment was made by the Sub-Committee of MCI

without inspection and purely on the strength of documentation submitted by

the respondent. The Respondent College was therefore called upon vide

letter dated 07.03.2018 to submit satisfactory compliance in respect of said 5 deficiencies at Serial Nos.3, 6 and 7. The Respondent College by its letter

dated 24.03.2018 claimed to have rectified all the deficiencies and

accordingly a compliance verification was carried out by the assessors of

MCI on 13.04.2018. This verification found that the deficiencies continued

to persist and therefore the Executive Committee in its Meeting held on

26.04.2018 decided to recommend to the Central Government not to grant

renewal of permission for admitting students for the academic year 2018-

2019. This decision was squarely put in challenge by filing writ petition

No.400 of 2018 in this Court which was dismissed on 01.05.2018 leaving all

questions open.

7. On 07.05.2018 and 09.05.2018 the Respondent College requested the

Central Government to grant personal hearing before any adverse order

could be passed. The request was however declined by the Central

Government on 17.05.2018, as the Respondent College was already granted

personal hearing in the matter. The respondent being aggrieved, challenged

the decision dated 17.05.2018 by filing civil writ petition No.13366 of 2018

in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

6

8. By its order dated 29.05.2018, the High Court directed MCI to

undertake another inspection within two weeks and permitted the

Respondent College to go ahead with provisional admissions for the

academic session 2018-2019. One of the conditions stipulated by the High

Court was that all the students would be put to notice while granting

admission about the pendency of the writ petition. The High Court was of

the view that only three deficiencies were found to be persisting by MCI on

07.03.2018 and as such the report of the Verification Inspection undertaken

on 13.04.2018 was not justified. The observations of the High Court in that

behalf were as under:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that once on 07.03.2018 the deficiencies had been narrowed down to only 3 which he has since removed, the report by the Verification Committee of Inspection on 13.04.2018 can not be said to be justified for the simple reason that barely a month back they themselves on an Inspection in March, 2018 established only 3 deficiencies.”

9. This direction of allowing the Respondent College to go ahead with

admissions to first MBBS course for the academic session 2018-2019 has

been challenged in the present matter by MCI. Appearing for the Appellant,

Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the

compliance verification undertaken on 07.03.2018 was purely on the basis of 7 documentation submitted by the Respondent College and there was no

physical verification whether the assertions made by the respondent about

alleged compliance were correct or not. In his submission the actual

physical verification was undertaken on 13.04.2018 where such assertions

were found to be completely unsustainable. As such, the report of the

Verification Committee on 13.04.2018 was fully justified and there was no

reason for the High Court to entertain any prayer for any interim direction.

In any case according to him the law laid down by this Court is very clear

that admissions ought not to be allowed to be effected on the strength of

interim directions.

Mr. Govind Goel, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent

College sought to support the order passed by the High Court. In his

submission several safeguards were put by the High Court while passing

such interim directions.

10. On 14.06.2018 this matter was heard alongwith another matter where

similar interim order was passed by the High Court of Rajasthan. Both the

matters were reserved for judgment and following order was passed:-

“Heard learned counsel. In both these matters, the High Courts have permitted the concerned medical colleges to go ahead with admissions. The correctness of those orders passed at an interim stage is under challenge at the instance of the Medical College of India. We have been given to understand 8 by the learned counsel appearing for both the medical colleges that till this date, no admissions have been effected despite the interim orders passed by the High Court in their favour. The statement is taken on record.

We reserve the judgment and till the judgment is pronounced, no admission shall take place in respect of both the institutions to the course of 1 st MBBS for the ensuing academic session 2018-2019.

Permission is granted to place on record requisite documents by 16.06.2018.”

11. The facts on record disclose:-

a) Even at the initial stage, the physical inspection was undertaken

twice and since the deficiencies were found, the scheme was not approved

by MCI and the Central Government. It was only because of the approval

accorded by the Supreme Court mandated Oversight Committee that the

Respondent College was permitted to make admissions for the academic

year 2016-2017.

b) The conditions subject to which said approval was accorded

were not found to have been complied and the deficiencies were found to be

persisting. The matter was considered twice by MCI and the Central

Government and it was decided to debar the Respondent College for two

years.

9

c) The physical verification in compliance of the order of this

Court again found deficiencies. The matter was again considered but

resulted in negative recommendation.

d) The assertion that there had been compliance was, on the

strength of documentation itself, found to be inaccurate and wanting in three

areas. The subsequent inspection found such assertion completely

inaccurate and therefore resulted in negative recommendation.

e) While the contest was pending at the level of the Central

Government, the present Writ Petition was filed in which the interim

direction has been issued.

12. In the face of repeated failures on part of the Respondent College to

remove the deficiencies, no permission to make admissions for the current

academic session could have been granted unless and until on physical

verification everything was found to be in order. A condition such as making

students aware about the pendency of the matter and stating that their

admissions would be subject to the result of pending litigation, is not a

sufficient insulation. We have repeatedly seen cases where after making

such provisional admissions the Colleges have been denied permission upon

physical verification. Questions then come up as to what is the status of

such students and how best their interest can be protected. Theoretically, in 10 terms of conditions of Essentiality Certificate the concerned State

Government is obliged to take care of interest of such students. But the

harsh reality is such students cannot be accommodated because in normal

circumstances all the seats in every Medical College are filled up. It then

becomes a case of impossibility of accommodating such students in any

existing College. The entire exercise may thus result in great hardship and

wastage of academic years of the concerned students. It is for this reason

that while granting any interim relief very cautious approach needs to be

adopted. It may be possible to expedite the process of physical verification

in a given case but to allow provisional admissions and make them subject

to the result of the petition may entail tremendous adverse consequences and

prejudice to students.

13. At this juncture we may advert to certain decisions of this Court

where the issues regarding propriety and correctness of similar such interim

order were put in question.

A. In Medical Council of India v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and others1, it was observed :- :

“14. In the normal circumstances, the High Court ought not to issue an interim order when for the earlier year itself permission had not been granted by the Council. Indeed, by grant of such interim orders students who have been admitted in

1 (2004) 6 SCC 76 11 such institutions would be put to serious jeopardy, apart from the fact whether such institutions could run the medical college without following the law. Therefore, we make it clear that the High Court ought not to grant such interim orders in any of the cases where the Council has not granted permission in terms of Section 10-A of the Medical Council Act. If interim orders are granted to those institutions which have been established without fulfilling the prescribed conditions to admit students, it will lead to serious jeopardy to the students admitted in these institutions.”

B. In Medical Council of India v. JSS Medical College and 2 another , this Court stated :-

“…..12. Without adverting to the aforesaid issues and many other issues which may arise for determination, the High Court, in our opinion, erred in permitting increase in seats by an interim order. In normal circumstances the High Court should not issue interim order granting permission for increase of the seats. The High Court ought to realise that granting such permission by an interim order has a cascading effect. By virtue of such order students are admitted as in the present case and though many of them had taken the risk knowingly but few may be ignorant. In most of such cases when finally the issue is decided against the College the welfare and plight of the students are ultimately projected to arouse sympathy of the Court. It results in a very awkward and difficult situation. If on ultimate analysis it is found that the College’s claim for increase of seats is untenable, in such an event the admission of students with reference to the increased seats shall be illegal. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the Court to allow continuance of such students, whose admissions is found illegal in the ultimate analysis.

13. This Court is entrusted with the task to administer law and uphold its majesty. Courts cannot by its fiat increase the

2 (2012) 5 SCC 628 12 seats, a task entrusted to the Board of Governors and that too by interim order ….”

C. The observations in Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) and others3, were

“27. That apart, we are of the opinion that the High Court ought to have been more circumspect in directing the admission of students by its order dated 25-9-20154. There was no need for the High Court to rush into an area that MCI feared to tread.

Granting admission to students in an educational institution when there is a serious doubt whether admission should at all be granted is not a matter to be taken lightly. First of all the career of a student is involved — what would a student do if his admission is found to be illegal or is quashed? Is it not a huge waste of time for him or her? Is it enough to say that the student will not claim any equity in his or her favour? Is it enough for student to be told that his or her admission is subject to the outcome of a pending litigation? These are all questions that arise and for which there is no easy answer. Generally speaking, it is better to err on the side of caution and deny admission to a student rather than have the sword of Damocles hanging over him or her. There would at least be some certainty.

28. Whichever way the matter is looked at, we find no justification for the orders passed by the High Court, particularly the order dated 25-9-2015 and order dated 4-3- 20165.”

D. Further, in Dental Council of India v. Dr Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal Hingoli and Others6, it was observed :- 3

(2016) 11 SCC 530 4 Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences v. Unions of India, WP (C) No.15685 of 2015, order dated 25.09.2015 (ori).

5

Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences v. Union of India, 2016 SCC Online Ori 134 6 (2017) 13 SCC 115 13 “22. From the aforesaid authorities, it is perspicuous that the court should not pass such interim orders in the matters of admission, more so, when the institution had not been accorded approval. Such kind of interim orders are likely to cause chaos, anarchy and uncertainty. And, there is no reason for creating such situations. There is no justification or requirement. The High Court may feel that while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution, it can pass such orders with certain qualifiers as has been done by the impugned order, but it really does not save the situation. It is because an institution which has not been given approval for the course, gets a premium. That apart, by virtue of interim order, the Court grants approval in a way which is the subject-matter of final adjudication before it. The anxiety of the students to get admission reigns supreme as they feel that the institution is granting admission on the basis of an order passed by the High Court. The institution might be directed to inform the students that the matter is sub judice, but the career oriented students get into the college with the hope and aspiration that in the ultimate eventuate everything shall be correct for them and they will be saved. It can be thought of from another perspective, that is, the students had deliberately got into such a situation. But it is seemly to note that it is the institution that had approached the High Court and sought a relief of the present nature. By saying that the institution may give admission at its own risk invites further chaotic and unfortunate situations.

23. The High Court has to realise the nature of the lis or the controversy. It is quite different. It is not a construction which is built at the risk of a plaintiff or the defendant which can be demolished or redeemed by grant of compensation. It is a situation where the order has the potentiality to play with the career and life of young peoples. One may say, “… life is a foreign language; all mispronounce it”, but it has to be borne in mind that artificial or contrived accident is not the goal of life. …….” 14

14. In the backdrop of the law laid down by this Court, the High Court

was not justified in passing interim directions and permitting the Respondent

College to go ahead with provisional admissions for the Academic Session

2018-19. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order dated

29.05.2018 passed by the High Court.

15. We have stated the facts only by way of pure narration of events.

Since the matter is pending in the High Court we make it clear that we have

not and shall not be taken to have dealt with factual controversy in any

manner and the matter shall be considered purely on merits in the pending

writ petition. The order under appeal directed that the matter be listed on

11.07.2018. If the case is made out, the High Court may expedite the matter

and hear it finally.

16. With these observations the present appeal is allowed and the order

under appeal is set aside without any order as to costs.

…………………..……J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)

..………………………J. (Deepak Gupta) New Delhi, July 04, 2018