1. Challenge to an order debarring a medical college from admitting students and encashing a bank guarantee following a dispute over inspection compliance under the Indian Medical Council Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 802
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, CJI., A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.
Saraswati Educational Charitable Trust and Anr. – Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union of India and Anr. – Respondents
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.515 OF 2017 (With I.A. No.76155 of 2017)
Decided On : 01-09-2017
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Carrying out second surprise inspection during pendency of the first report, that too after cut-off date is not proper.
Carrying out second surprise inspection during pendency of the first report, that too after cut-off date is not proper.
Subject
Education Law - Medical Education
Act Referred
Headnote
Medical education – Permission for new college – Inspection carried out on 18 and 19th November, 2016 – Personal hearing granted to the college on 8th February, 2017 – No deficiency noted vide OC letter dated 14th May, 2017 – Recommending confirmation of LoP – Purpose for second surprise inspection while first inspection report was pending consideration, that too after cut-off date, not explained – Held, inspection for issuance of Letter of Permission for academic session 2017-18 was duly carried – Debarring the college from admitting students not justified. (Para 11, 12)
Dr. Jagat Narain Subharti Charitable Trust v. Union of India – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The petitioner Saraswati Educational Charitable Trust, Lucknow, made an application to the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, for establishment of a new medical college for academic session 2016-17.
The application was rejected and the Union of India debarred the petitioner from admitting students in MBBS course for the academic sessions 2017-18 and 2018-19 and further permitting respondent No.2 Medical Council of India to encash Bank Guarantee of Rs.2 crores furnished by the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned order cannot be sustained.
Result: Petition partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- education law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contends first inspection showed no major deficiencies and second was impermissible; respondents argue fresh inspection was mandatory for new academic sessions. (Para 7 , 8 )
3. The decision to debar the college was mechanical and lacked justification for a second surprise inspection when a comprehensive report showed only marginal, permissible deficiencies. (Para 9 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
4. Administrative decisions to penalize institutions based on refused inspections must be justified, especially when prior comprehensive reports indicate compliance with statutory norms. (Para 14 )
5. Order quashed to the extent of barring admissions; college permitted to participate in counselling for the current academic session under Article 142. (Para 16 )
6. Can a medical college be penalized for refusing a surprise inspection if a prior comprehensive inspection showed compliance?
The authority must justify the necessity of a second inspection, especially if a recent comprehensive report exists and the refusal was based on established cut-off dates rather than obstructing entry. (Para 12 , 14 )
7. What is the legal effect of marginal deficiencies in faculty and resident staff during medical college inspections?
Deficiencies that fall within acceptable or permissible limits are not considered critical or major and should not be the sole basis for debarring a college from admitting students. (Para 9 , 14 )
8. Under what circumstances can the Supreme Court permit admissions beyond the standard cut-off date?
The Court may exercise its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to extend admission deadlines in the larger public interest to ensure aspiring students are not deprived of opportunities. (Para 16 )
JUDGMENT
A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.
1. The petitioner Saraswati Educational Charitable Trust, Lucknow, made an application to the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, for establishment of a new medical college at Unnao, Uttar Pradesh, in the name and style of “Saraswati Medical College, Unnao, Uttar Pradesh”, for the academic session 2016-17. That application was forwarded to the Medical Council of India for evaluation and making recommendations to the Ministry under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, for academic session 2016-17.
2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 31st May, 2017, passed by the Union of India, respondent No.1 herein, whereby the petitioner college has been debarred from admitting students in MBBS course for the academic sessions 2017-18 and 2018-19 and further permitting respondent No.2 Medical Council of India to encash Bank Guarantee of Rs.2 crores furnished by the petitioners. This Court pronounced its judgment on 1st August, 2017 in group of cases involving similar issues, in the following terms:
“24. Having regard to the fact that the Oversight Committee has been constituted by this Court and is also empowered to oversee all statutory functions under the Act, and further all policy decisions of the MCI would require its approval, its recommendations, to state the least, on the issue of establishment of a medical college, as in this case, can by no means be disregarded or left out of consideration. Noticeably, this Court did also empower the Oversight Committee to issue appropriate remedial directions. In our view, in the overall perspective, the materials on record bearing on the claim of the petitioner institutions/colleges for confirmation of the conditional letters of permission granted to them require a fresh consideration to obviate the possibility of any injustice in the process.
25. In the above persuasive premise, the Central Government is hereby ordered to consider afresh the materials on record pertaining to the issue of confirmation or otherwise of the letter of permission granted to the petitioner colleges/institutions. We make it clear that in undertaking this exercise, the Central Government would re-evaluate the recommendations/views of the MCI, Hearing Committee, DGHS and the Oversight Committee, as available on records. It would also afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner colleges/institutions to the extent necessary. The process of hearing and final reasoned decision thereon, as ordered, would be completed peremptorily within a period of 10 days from today. The parties would unfailingly co-operate in compliance of this direction to meet the time frame fixed.”
3. Pursuant to the liberty granted to the petitioners by the aforementioned order, the petitioners submitted a fresh detailed representation to respondent No.1, pointing out that the petitioners have complied with all the conditions specified by the Oversight Committee (“OC” for short) constituted by this Court, as noted in the letter granting permission for academic session 2016-17. The petitioner college was given an opportunity of being heard by the Hearing Committee on 3rd August, 2017. During the hearing, the petitioners pointed out the observations made by the OC as noted in its letter dated 14.5.2017:
“The EC did not bring out any deficiency either from assessment reports dated 18th – 19th Nov. 2016 or 21st – 22nd Dec. 2016, though they had considered both the reports in their meeting on 13.01.2017.
Even then the College had represented against the observations made by the assessors in their assessment report dated 18th -19th Nov. 2016.
The deficiencies reported in the assessment report in respect of faculty is 1.5% and residents is 6.52% and are within acceptable limits. The other deficiencies are subjective. No MSR.
LOP Confirmed.”
4. The petitioners had demonstrated before the Hearing Committee that the
