IMPORTANT POINT
Permitting college to admit students despite non-removal of deficiencies pointed out by MCI is not justified.
Making the interim order permitting admission of students subject to outcome of the writ petition is not a sufficient protection.

JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the correctness of interim order dated 29.05.2018 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No.10103/2018 whereby the High Court directed the Central Government to permit the Respondent Institute to admit 150 students in the third batch of MBBS course for the academic year 2018-2019.

3. Pursuant to appropriate recommendation having been given by Medical Council of India (‘MCI’, for short), Central Government by its letter dated 06.06.2016 granted letter of permission to the Respondent Institute to establish a Medical College from the academic year 2016-2017 with annual undertake of 150 students. It appears that after conducting due inspection and verification, MCI did not recommend renewal of permission for the next academic session 2017-2018. However, the Central Government by its letter dated 31.05.2017 granted renewal of permission to admit 2nd Batch of students for the academic year 2017-2018.

4. In Writ Petition No.432 of 2017 (N.C. Medical College and Hospital Principal v. Union of India Secretary and Another), a list of 24 Colleges who despite negative recommendation on part of MCI were accorded renewal of permission by the Central Government was extracted by this Court in its order dated 09.10.2017 and all those Institutions including the Respondent Institute were added as respondents. This Court further directed MCI to conduct surprise inspection in respect of all the Colleges. It appears that the Assessors appointed by MCI conducted physical assessment and verification on 31st October, 2017 and 1st November, 2017. The assessment report was placed before the Executive Committee of MCI in its Meeting held on 22.11.2017 where the Executive Committee observed various deficiencies of Infrastructure, Clinical Material and other physical facilities. The Executive Committee therefore decided to recommend to the Central Government not to grant renewal of permission for the 3rd Batch of students for the academic year 2018-2019. Thereafter, the Central Government afforded opportunity of hearing to the Respondent Institute and requested MCI to review the case of Respondent Institute. Aforesaid Writ Petition No.432 of 2017 was disposed of by this Court on 17.01.2018 directing MCI to take appropriate decision in respect of 25 Medical Colleges for the academic year 2018-2019 by 31.03.2018.

5. In order to verify the claims made by the Respondent Institute regarding compliance and that the deficiencies had been removed, MCI conducted compliance verification on 05.03.2018 and the report in respect thereof was placed in the Meeting of the Executive Committee of MCI held on 24.03.2018. After discussion and deliberation, the Executive Committee found that the deficiencies in respect of Infrastructure, Clinical Material and other physical facilities still persisted and therefore recommended to the Central Government not to grant renewal of permission to the Respondent Institute for academic session 2018-2019. The Central Government after due consideration of the recommendations made by MCI, vide its letter dated 01.05.2018 decided not to grant renewal of permission for admission for the academic year 2018-2019.

6. The aforesaid decision of the Central Government was challenged by the Respondent Institute by preferring D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10103 of 2018 in the High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. It appears that since the Advocates in Jaipur had gone on strike, the Chairperson of the Respondent Institute, Under Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Union of India and Law Officer of MCI who were present, were heard by the High Court on 29.05.2018. The High Court found that the inspection conducted by MCI was with predetermined mind not to renew the permission to the Respondent Institute and was of the prima facie view that the findings arrived at by MCI were required to be stayed at the interim st