IMPORTANT POINT
High Court ought not to grant 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.

Headnote:Medical Council Act-Section 10A -Grant of permission to an institution-Non-renewal-Interim orders by Courts-Justifiability-A permission had been granted to 1st and 2nd respondent s institution and also renewed for subsequent year-Non renewal of permission for academic year 2002-03 -Writ petition-As renewal for permission was not granted to the institution, MBBS seats of the institution not included in seat matrix-No admissions done-High Court by an order directed the Government to include seats of respondent s institution in seat matrix-Students permitted to appear for 1st year examination-Matters still pending before the High Court-Whether High Court was justified in passing interim orders in such matters-(No).
       Held : interim order should not be granted as a matter of course, particularly in relation to matter where standards of institutions are involved and the permission to be granted to such institutions is subject to certain provisions of law and regulations applicable to the same, unless the same are complied with. Even if the High Court gives certain directions in relation to consideration of the applications filed by concerned educational institutions for grant of permission or manner in which the same should be processed should not form a basis to direct the admission of students in these institutions which are yet to get approval from the concerned authorities or permission has not been granted by the Council. Now, in the present case such orders have led to a stage on which the examination was to take place and students have appeared in such examination and matters are still pending final consideration by the High Court, we do not think it necessary to say anything further in this matter. (Paras 5 and 6)
       Law is well settled that Section 10-A of the Medical Council Act which provides for terms and conditions have to be fulfilled before starting or establishing a medical college or starting higher courses making it clear that what is postulated thereunder is evaluation of application made by the institution concerned by the Central Government in the first instance and then forwarding the same to the Medical Council of India for its further examination. There are various steps envisaged under the Scheme such as (a) issuance of letter of intent by the Central Government on the recommendation of the Council; (b) issuance of letter of permission by the Central Government on the recommendation of the Council for starting admissions; (c) issuance of annual renewal to be granted by the Central Government on the recommendation of the Council; (d) at the stage of 1st batch of students admitted in MBBS course go for final year examination, grant of formal recognition by the Central Government on the recommendation of the Council; (e) if at any stage after the grant of initial permission entitling permission of 1st batch of students any college fails to fulfil the minimum norms in any successive year, as per the statutory regulations, further admissions are liable to be stopped at any stage. 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 such institutions would be put to serious jeopardy, apart from the fact that 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. (Paras 14 and 15)

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-

Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 21390-21442 of 2003, Special Leave Petitions Nos. 21464-21552/2003

A writ petition bearing No. 39772/2002 is filed before the High Court of Karnataka for a direction that the Union of India should be directed to grant renewal of permission to the institution run by the first and second respondents. They also sought for direction to make selection for admissions into the institution for the academic session 2002-03 and to allocate students to enable continuation of imparting education in the said institution.

2. A permission has been granted to the first and second respondent s institution in terms of Section 10-A of the Medical Council Act and also renewed for the subsequent year. As it was not renewed in time for the academic year 2002-03, they filed writ petition No. 39772/2002. The High Court by an interim order dated 4.11.2002 directed the Medical Council of India (for short Council ) to complete the inspection by 11.11.2002 and send a report/recommendation immediately to the Central Government for passing appropriate orders. In pursuance of the above said order, the Council had sent its report to the Central Government on 11.11.2002. However, till 15.11.2002, no order had been made by the Central Government. As the renewal for permission was not granted to the institution concerned, MBBS seats of the institution were not included in the seat matrix which had to end on 15.11.2002 and, therefore, in the absence of the institution not being notified no admission had been done. Having regard to the fact that the permission had been granted earlier and renewed for the previous years, the Council had also sent a report regarding renewal for the current year, but unfortunately, the Central Government did not act with necessary expedition as was needed in the said case. As the counselling of Common Entrance Test is coming to end on 15.11.2002 and even if renewal was granted by the Central Government after that date, 100 seats would go waste. The High Court, by an order made on 15.11.2002, directed the Government to include the seats of the respondent s institution in the seat matrix to allocate the same to the deserving students in accordance with rules. By another order made on 3.12.2002, after adverting to the decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Era Educational Trust & Anr., 2000(5) SCC 57, the learned single Judge of the High Court passed further orders imposing conditions to the following effect:-

(i) The Central Government on consideration of the recommendations of the Medical Council of India would grant the renewal of permission if the petitioner-institution satisfies all the legal requirements within seven days from the date of receipt of such recommendations.

(ii) Pending receipt of such permission being granted, the 4th respondent-State Government is directed to issue seat matrix for 50 seats for the petitioner-institution for the academic year 2002-2003 forthwith.

(iii) The 5th respondent CET Cell shall issue necessary advertisement and complete the counselling and allot 50 seats included in the seat matrix to the eligible students on or before 20th of December, 2002.

(iv) As the students are admitted to the college in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court, even before the permission is granted by the Central Government, it is made clear that this will not give any right to the students or the college to claim credit for the classes conducted after the commencement of the course till the permission from the Central Government under Section 10-A is accorded.

(v) Students are not entitled to appear in any examination until they complete the prescribed minimum period of studies after the permission is granted under Section 10-A.

(vi) No further admission would be made to the first batch of MBBS course of the petitioner institution except on vac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 464

IMPORTANT POINTHigh Court ought not to grant 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.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court ought not to grant 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.