1. Application for establishment of medical college — Disapproval due to deficiencies — Conditional approval by Oversight Committee — Subsequent debarment and bank guarantee encashment under Indian Medical Council Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 926
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, CJI., Amitava Roy, A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.
Varunarjun Trust and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Ors. – Respondents
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 787 OF 2017
Decided On : 12-09-2017
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
When there is significant deficiency of faculty and residents, permission cannot be granted.
Hearing committee not specifically referring to opinion of Oversight Committee, does not follow that the issue has not been considered.
When there is significant deficiency of faculty and residents, permission cannot be granted.
Hearing committee not specifically referring to opinion of Oversight Committee, does not follow that the issue has not been considered.
Subject
Administrative Law - Medical Education
Act Referred
MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT: S.10(a), S.19(a)
Headnote
(a) Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 – Section 10-A and 19-A – Significant deficiency of faculty and residents at head count – Permission denied – No dispute about requisite number of faculty and residents being on pay rolls – MCI directed to conduct verification inspection. (Para 15, 16, 19)
Writ Petition (C) No. 514 of 2017 – Relied upon
2017 (8) SCALE 356; Writ Petition (C) No. 513 of 2017; Writ Petition (C) No.709 of 2017; Writ Petition (C) No. 515 of 2017; Writ Petition (C) No. 515 of 2017 – Referred
(b) Interpretation – Documents – Hearing committee not specifically referring to opinion of Oversight Committee – Does not follow that the issue has not been considered. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was granted approval-cum-Letter of Permission for establishing a new medical college.
Subsequently, in view of deficiencies, the college was debarred from admitting students for two years i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19, and the MCI was authorised to encash the bank guarantee.
Finding of the Court:
MCI should conduct reverification.
Result: Writ petition disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners claim marginal deficiencies and binding nature of Oversight Committee's opinion — Respondents assert failure to meet minimum standards and lack of supporting evidence. (Para 9 , 10 )
3. Oversight Committee's opinion is relevant but not binding on statutory authority — Absence of staff on inspection day requires verification of actual employment. (Para 12 , 13 , 17 , 18 )
4. Statutory authority under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act prevails over non-binding committee opinions — Inspection-day absence is not per se proof of non-employment. (Para 12 , 18 )
5. Students permitted to continue — Fresh inspection ordered — Bank guarantee encashment stayed pending final decision — Renewal application rescheduled. (Para 19 , 20 )
6. Is the opinion of a court-constituted Oversight Committee binding on the Central Government regarding the establishment of a medical college?
No. While the opinion of an Oversight Committee is a relevant matter that must receive due attention, it does not bind the Central Government when discharging its statutory duties under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act. (Para 12 )
7. Does the absence of faculty or residents on the day of inspection automatically prove a deficiency in the college's staffing?
No. Absence on a specific day does not necessarily mean the faculty and residents are not on the payroll or in the employment of the college. Such findings require proper verification to determine overall efficiency. (Para 18 )
8. Can the Central Government overlook significant deficiencies in faculty and residents to grant permission for a medical college?
No. Pre-conditions to maintain high academic standards for imparting medical education cannot be undermined. Significant deficiencies in faculty and residents are not considered trivial or unrelated to the maintenance of high standards. (Para 13 )
JUDGMENT
A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.
1. The petitioners made an application for establishment of a new medical college at Banthra, Shahjahanpur, U.P., in the name and style of Varunarjun Medical College from academic session 2016-17 onwards, to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. The Ministry forwarded that application to the Medical Council of India (for short “MCI”) for evaluation and making recommendations under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short “the 1956 Act”). The MCI conducted an assessment of the petitioner college on 12th and 13th January, 2016. On the basis of the assessment report, the Executive Committee of MCI, in its meeting held on 30th January, 2016, decided to make negative recommendations, in view of a large number of deficiencies noticed in the assessment report. A formal communication in that behalf was sent to the Central Government by MCI vide letter dated 31st January, 2016. The Ministry then afforded an opportunity of hearing to the college before a Hearing Committee on 25th February, 2016. The Hearing Committee concurred with the recommendation of MCI and submitted its observations to the Ministry to disapprove the proposal. Later on, compliance verification assessment was done by MCI on 30th March, 2016, which report was duly considered by the Executive Committee of MCI in its meeting held on 13th May, 2016. Once again, MCI in its meeting held on 13th May, 2016 decided to give negative recommendations in view of the deficiencies noticed in the compliance verification assessment. That opinion was formally communicated by the MCI to the Ministry vide letter dated 14th May, 2016. The Ministry accepted the recommendation of MCI and disapproved the application for establishment of a new medical college for academic session 2016-17 vide letter dated 8th June, 2016.
2. The Oversight Committee (for short “OC”) constituted by this Court, however, issued a directive to the Ministry to obtain fresh compliance from the college and forward it to MCI. Pursuant to the said directive, MCI submitted its compliance to the Ministry citing various reasons. However, the OC approved the scheme of establishment of a new medical college with annual intake of 150 students for the academic year 2016-17, on certain conditions. The Central Government, therefore, issued a formal approval-cum-Letter of Permission (for short “LOP”) on 12th September, 2016 incorporating the conditions imposed by the OC.
3. As per the conditions noted in the said LOP, an assessment with regard to verification compliance submitted by the college was conducted by the MCI on 18th & 19th November, 2016. During the said verification, certain deficiencies were noticed which were mentioned in the assessment report. The assessment report was duly considered by the Executive Committee of MCI in its meeting held on 22nd December, 2016. In view of the deficiencies, MCI decided to send a negative recommendation to the Ministry. The deficiencies noticed were as follows:
“i. Deficiency of faculty is 16.79% as detailed in the report.
ii. Shortage of Residents was 21.73% as detailed in the report.
iii. There was only 1 Minor Operation on day of assessment.
iv. There was 1 normal Delivery & NIL Caesarean Section on day of assessment.
v. ICUs: There was only 1 patient each in MICU & SICU and 2 patients each in ICCU & PICU/NICU on day of assessment.
vi. Details of Paramedical & Non-teaching staff available in the Institute are not provided.
vii. MRD: ICD X classification of diseases is not followed for indexing.
viii. Central Library: It is not air-conditioned.”
4. The decision of the MCI was formally communicated to the Ministry vide letter dated 26th December, 2016. After receipt of the recommendation from the MCI, the Ministry decided to afford a personal hearing to the college on 17th January, 2017 before the Director General of Health Services (DGHS). The Hearing Committee considered the oral and written submissions of
