Subharti Medical College vs Union Of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 426 OF 2017

Subharti Medical College ….Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and Ors. ....Respondents

JUDGMENT

A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

1. The petitioner college made an application for grant of

recognition in respect of MBBS seats (100-150) to the Ministry of

Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. That

application was forwarded to the Medical Council of India (for

short “MCI”) for assessment of requisite physical and other

teaching facilities for enhancing the intake capacity from 100 to

150 MBBS seats. Pursuant thereto, the MCI deputed its

Signature Not VerifiedInspection Team who, in turn, submitted an assessment report Digitally signed by GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA Date: 2017.09.08 15:55:13 IST Reason: dated 27th March, 2017. The report has noted deficiencies inter

alia regarding the bed occupancy which was stated to be only 2

55.27% at 10.00 A.M. on the date of assessment. The said report

noted as follows:

“1. Medical college & hospital are part of University campus alongwith other Institutions of the University. No clear-cut boundary of the medical college campus is shown in the compliance.

2. Shortage of Residents is 5.81% as detailed in the report.

3. Bed occupancy is 55.27% at 10 a.m. on day of assessment.

4. There was NIL Normal Delivery & 1 Caesarean Section on day of assessment.

5. Data of clinical material & Casualty attendance provided by Institute appear to be inflated.

6. Casualty: There was NIL patient in Triage area at 10:30 a.m. on day of assessment.

7. In Tb & Chest ward # 11, Nursing Station is blank without any medicines or papers. Deficiency remains the same.

8. Wards: All the corners of the ward are not completely visible from Nursing Stations due to pillars.

Sterilized treatment trays are not available in all the wards.”

2. On that basis a negative recommendation was submitted by

the MCI to the Central Government. That report was placed

before the Hearing Committee. The petitioner college was

afforded personal hearing before the Hearing Committee on 22 nd

May, 2017. The Hearing Committee observed that there was no

deficiency with regard to the clinical material, faculty or residents

as the same was within the permissible limits. However, the

Hearing Committee did not comment on the factum of bed 3

occupancy noticed in the assessment report, as can be discerned

from the extracted chart available in the impugned decision

dated 29th August, 2016. The said chart reads thus:

Srl. Deficiencies reported Observations No. by MCI of hearing committee

I. Medical college & hospital are part of The Medical College exists University campus alongwith other in the University campus Institutions of the University. No and has been recognized clear-cut boundary of the medical as such by MCI. college campus is shown in the compliance. The Shortage of residents is II. Shortage of Residents is 5.81% as only marginal at 5.81% with detailed in the report. the submission rendered by III Bed Occupancy is 55.27% at 10 a.m. the college it seems to be on day of assessment. brought under the permissible limit.

I There was NIL Normal Delivery & 1 Adequency of clinical Caesarean Section on day of material may have to be assessment. verified. II Data of clinical material & Casualty In view of the Committee, attendance provided by Institute apparently there is no appear to be inflated. deficiency of faculty and III Casualty: There was NIL patient in residents, however the Triage area at 10:30 a.m. on day of same cannot be said of assessment. clinical material. In the IV In Tb & Chest ward # 11, Nursing given facts, debarring the Station is blank without any college for 2 year seem too medicines or papers. Deficiency strict. remains the same. V Wards: All the corners of the ward are not completely visible from Nursing Stations due to pillars. Sterilized treatment trays are not available in all the wards. 4

3. Presumably, because of the deficiencies amongst other

regarding bed occupancy, the Competent Authority of the Central

Government passed an order on 31 st May, 2017, debarring the

petitioner college from admitting students for two academic years

2017-18 & 2018-19 and authorising the MCI to encash the bank

guarantee of Rs.2 crore offered by the petitioner. Since the order

passed by the Competent Authority on 31st May, 2017 was bereft

of reasons, this Court vide order dated 1 st August, 2017 directed

the Competent Authority of the Central Government to give fresh

opportunity to the petitioner college and then pass a reasoned

order. Pursuant thereto, the Competent Authority of the Central

Government has passed a fresh order on 29th August, 2017,

which, however, is founded on the recommendation made by the

Hearing Committee. It appears that the Central Government had

placed the matter before the Hearing Committee in which a

member of the newly constituted Oversight Committee (for short,

“OC”), constituted by this Court was present. The Hearing

Committee could not arrive at any conclusive opinion concerning

the bed occupancy deficiency, for it was of the view that physical

verification was essential in that regard. Despite such

inconclusive findings submitted by the Hearing Committee, the 5

Competent Authority mechanically proceeded to pass the

impugned order dated 29th August, 2017. It may be apposite to

reproduce the said order:

“13. Whereas in compliance with the above direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 1.8.2017, the Ministry granted hearing to the college on 22.8.2017. A Member of the newly constituted Oversight Committee also attended the Hearing Committee Meeting. The Hearing Committee submitted its second and final report after reviewing all facets of the case on 29.08.2017 to the Ministry with the following conclusion:-

‘The Hearing Committee is of the view that the bed occupancy as claimed by the college cannot be validated by this Committee and requires physical verification.’

A copy of the Hearing Committee report containing their observations is enclosed.

14. Now, considering the findings of the Hearing Committee, the Ministry reiterates its earlier decision dated 31.5.2017 to debar the Subharti Medical College, Meerut from admitting students against increased intake i.e. from 100-150 for two academic years i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19 and authorize the MCI to encash the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 2.00 Crore.”

4. We have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior

counsel appearing for the petitioner college, Mr. Vikas Singh,

learned senior counsel appearing for MCI and Mr. Maninder

Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for

Union of India. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner

has made diverse submissions, including that there is 6

serious doubt about the manner in which the matter

proceeded before the Hearing Committee. In that, the

Hearing Committee had already concluded the hearing on

22nd August, 2017 but submitted its second and final report

after reviewing all facts of the case on 29 th August, 2017.

This contention has been justly refuted by the learned

counsel for the respondents by pointing out that the hearing

was concluded on 22nd August, 2017. On that date there was

no OC in place. Soon thereafter, the OC was re-constituted

by this Court and for that reason, the Competent Authority

thought it appropriate to submit the second and final report

after reviewing all facets of the case on 29th August, 2017, to

which a member of the newly constituted OC was party.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner college also

invited our attention to the relevant record, in particular, the

averments in paragraph 18 of the I.A., to buttress his

contention that bed occupancy in the petitioner college has

never been in doubt. The occupancy position noted in

assessment report of March, 2017 was, therefore, unreliable.

This argument though attractive at the first blush does not 7

take the matter any further, inasmuch as on the earlier

occasion also, the Hearing Committee did not note any

finding or observation regarding the bed occupancy

deficiency one way or the other. That deficiency being

beyond permissible limit, it will not be safe to accede to the

request of the petitioner to grant any relief or justify issue of

directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to

increase the intake capacity of the college for academic

session 2017-18 without proper verification.

6. In another case decided today i.e. Melmaruvathur

Adhiparasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research

Vs. Union of India and Anr.1, we have come across a similar

situation where the Hearing Committee did not give a conclusive

opinion/finding regarding the deficiency pertaining to bed

occupancy noticed in the assessment report dated 21 st March,

2017. For the same reasons, we may observe that even though

the impugned order cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny,

however, the appropriate course would be to direct the

respondents, in particular the MCI, to send its Inspecting Team

to the petitioner college within a period of three months and

1 W.P.(C) No.680 of 2017 8

inform the petitioner college about the deficiencies if any, with

option to remove the same within the time limit as may be

specified in that regard. The petitioner college shall then report

its compliance and communicate the removal of deficiencies to

MCI, whereafter it will be open to the MCI to verify the position

and then prepare its report to be placed before the Competent

Authority for being processed further in accordance with law.

Final decision be taken by the Competent Authority within one

month from receipt of the report from MCI. In the event the final

decision is adverse to the petitioner, it will be open to them to

take recourse to further remedies as may be available in law.

7. We make it clear that the inspection to be done will be for

considering the proposal for enhancement of intake capacity

from 100 MBBS seats to 150 seats and if approved, the same be

given effect to in academic session 2018-19. In other words, the

proposal/application submitted by the petitioner for the

academic session 2017-18 be treated as if having been made for

academic session 2018-19. The bank guarantee furnished by the

petitioner shall not be encashed but the same shall be kept alive

until further orders to be passed by the Competent Authority of

the Central Government in that behalf.

9

8. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms. No

order as to costs.

……………………………….CJI.

(Dipak Misra)

………………………………….J. (A.M. Khanwilkar)

.………………………………...J. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud) New Delhi, Dated: September 8, 2017.