1. Challenge to order rejecting establishment of medical college, debarring admissions, and encashing bank guarantee following reports of deficiencies under the Medical Council Act, 1956. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 799
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, CJI., A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.
Shri Gangajali Education Society & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Ors. – Respondents
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.709 OF 2017 (With I.A. No.74584 of 2017)
Decided On : 31-08-2017
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
* A cryptic decision without analyzing relevant factors cannot be sustained.
* Recommendation of the Oversight Committee may not be stricto sensu binding on competent Authority, but it cannot be completely disregarded.
* A cryptic decision without analyzing relevant factors cannot be sustained.
* Recommendation of the Oversight Committee may not be stricto sensu binding on competent Authority, but it cannot be completely disregarded.
Subject
Education Law - Medical Education
Act Referred
Headnote
Medical education – Application for permission for admitting students – Competent authority dismissing application by a cryptic order – Not analyzing factors noticed by Oversight Committee – Recommendation of OC not stricto sensu binding on competent Authority – But it cannot be completely disregarded – Impugned decision quashed – Directions issued. (Paras 12, 14))
Dr. Jagat Narain Subharti Charitable Trust – Relied upon
2017 (8) SCALE 356 – Referred
Facts of the case:
This case pertains to establishment of a medical college.
The respondents Union of India have rejected the petitioners’ application for establishment of a medical college and debarred them from admitting students to the college for two years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19 and also directed that the petitioners’ bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crore be encashed.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned decision cannot be sustained.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners allege non-application of mind and disregard of Oversight Committee recommendations; respondents maintain the rejection was justified due to pronounced deficiencies in clinical material and infrastructure. (Para 10 , 11 )
3. The authority passed a cryptic order failing to provide tangible reasons for disregarding the Oversight Committee's findings or analyzing the college's explanations regarding permissible deficiency norms. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. Administrative decisions must be based on an objective assessment of the entire record rather than stray lapses, and deviations from expert recommendations require tangible, recorded reasons. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
5. Impugned order quashed to the extent of admission bar; respondents directed to permit college in counselling process for the current academic session. (Para 15 )
6. What is the requirement for a competent authority when disagreeing with the recommendations of an expert oversight committee?
While not strictly binding, the authority cannot completely disregard such recommendations. It must advert to relevant factors and record clear, tangible reasons for disagreeing with the findings based on the available record. (Para 12 )
7. Should the grant of permission for a medical college be revoked based on isolated instances of deficiency?
No. An objective assessment must be based on information gathered from the entire record pertaining to the relevant period, rather than one stray lapse or mistake, unless a pattern of practice is established. (Para 13 , 14 )
8. Under what circumstances can the Court exercise plenary powers under Article 142 to direct admissions in a medical college?
The Court may exercise these powers in peculiar facts to do complete justice and in the larger public interest, ensuring aspiring students get admission opportunities based on merit. (Para 15 )
JUDGMENT
A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.
1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the order of respondent No.1 dated 14th August, 2017, whereby respondent No.1, relying upon the recommendations made by respondent No.2, rejected the petitioners’ application for establishment of a medical college and debarred the petitioners from admitting students to the said college for two years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19 and also directed that the petitioners’ bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crore be encashed.
2. Petitioner No.1 Shri Gangajali Education Society had made an application to the respondent No.1 Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India (for short “MHFW”) for establishment of a new medical college at Bhilai, Chhatisgarh in the name and style of ‘Shri Shankaracharya Institute of Medical Sciences’ from the academic session 2016-17 onwards. That application was forwarded to respondent No.2 Medical Council of India (for short “MCI”) for evaluation and making recommendations to the MHFW under Section 10-A of Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short “1956 Act”), which then opined that several deficiencies existed in the proposed college and submitted its negative recommendation to MHFW vide its letter dated 14th May, 2016. Based on the recommendations made by MCI, the MHFW disapproved the proposal vide order dated 10th June, 2016 but nevertheless, granted liberty to the petitioners to apply for the next academic session.
3. Soon thereafter, the Oversight Committee (for short “OC”) constituted by this Court, adopted a resolution to permit all applicant colleges, including the petitioners, to furnish compliance reports in relation to the deficiencies communicated by MCI. MCI would then forward such compliance reports to the MHFW which, in turn, would take a decision on the said reports and forward its decision along with the applications and the reports to the OC. After considering the petitioners’ case, the OC passed an order on 11th August, 2016.
4. Pursuant to the OC’s aforestated order, the MHFW issued a conditional Letter of Permission to the petitioners dated 20th August, 2016, which was subject to certain criteria being fulfilled, including an inspection by the OC for verification of the compliance report issued by the petitioners.
5. Thereafter, a compliance verification inspection was conducted by the MCI on 16th/17th December, 2016, and after considering the assessment report of the said inspection, the Executive Committee of the MCI noted several deficiencies in the petitioners’ college. The MCI then submitted its negative recommendation to the MHFW vide letter dated 15th January, 2017, inter alia to revoke the Letter of Permission granted to the petitioners. After receipt of the aforestated recommendation, the MHFW/Director General of Health Services (for short “DGHS”) granted the petitioners an opportunity for personal hearing on 8th February, 2017. The Hearing Committee noted as follows:
| Srl. No. | Deficiencies reported by MCI | Observations of hearing committee |
| i. | Deficiency of faculty is 10.60 % as detailed in the report. | No satisfactory justification for deficiencies. |
| ii. | Shortage of Residents is 15.21 % as detailed in the report. | |
| iii. | In General Medicine ward, some patients did not require hospitalization; E.g. Bodyache, Dyspepsia, Giddiness, etc. In General Surgery ward, some patients are such who do not require hospitalization; E.g. Simple would dressing, etc. One patient who required Dental Intervention was admitted in General Surgery ward. | |
| iv. | OPD attendance was 540 at 2 p.m. on day of assessment against requirement of 600 as per Regulations. | |
| v. | There was NIL Minor Operation on day of assessment | |
| vi. | Radiological investigations workload is grossly inadequate. USG workload was NIL on day of assessment. | |
| vii. | Laboratory investigations workload inadequate. There was NIL M | |
