1. Dispute over renewal of permission and recognition for medical colleges to admit students under the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999. (Para 1 , 4 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 38 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 1168
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, VINEET SARAN, JJ.
Medical Council of India – Appellant
Versus
The Chairman, S.R. Educational & Charitable Trust & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10372 of 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 24120 of 2018)
With
Medical Council of India – Appellant
Versus
The Chairman, Alazhar Medical College & Super Speciality Hospital & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10373 of 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 24130 of 2018)
Medical Council of India – Appellant
Versus
D.M. Education & Research Foundation & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10374 of 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 27763 of 2018 D.32809 of 2018)
And
Medical Council of India – Appellant
Versus
Dr. P. Krishna Kumar & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10375 of 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 27764 of 2018 D.32811 of 2018)
Decided On : 29-10-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
Four petitions with different facts should not be decided with a common order/judgment.
Recommendation of Hearing Committee has force of observation for conducting review. Physical verification of compliance can be done only by the MCI. Manner of verification has to be necessarily left to MCI.
In case of deficiencies more than prescribed for the concerned batch, compliance verification would not be considered in the same academic year.
Data put up by college on self-serving website portal cannot be relied to discard report of assessors, unless mala fide.
Four petitions with different facts should not be decided with a common order/judgment.
Recommendation of Hearing Committee has force of observation for conducting review. Physical verification of compliance can be done only by the MCI. Manner of verification has to be necessarily left to MCI.
In case of deficiencies more than prescribed for the concerned batch, compliance verification would not be considered in the same academic year.
Data put up by college on self-serving website portal cannot be relied to discard report of assessors, unless mala fide.
Subject
Education Law - Medical Education Regulation
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.226, Art.32
ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICAL COLLEGE REGULATIONS: Reg.8(3)(1)(a), Reg.8(3)(1), Reg.8(3)(1)(b)
MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT: S.11(2), S.10(a)(3)
ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICAL COLLEGE REGULATIONS: Reg.8(3)(1)(a), Reg.8(3)(1), Reg.8(3)(1)(b)
MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT: S.11(2), S.10(a)(3)
Headnote
(a) Constitution of India – Article 226 – High Court deciding four petitions by a common order although facts in each petition are different – Separate orders would have been appropriate. (Para 2)
(b) Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 – Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) – Precluding opportunity of re-verification – Recommendation of Hearing Committee has force of observation for conducting review – Physical verification of compliance can be done only by the MCI – Manner of verification has to be necessarily left to MCI – That too before the deadline for such verification – However, there is no prohibition in carrying out a fresh inspection – Objectivity must be maintained in decision making – MCI enjoined with responsibility of streamlining standard of medical education and conferred with power to supervise qualification and eligibility standards for admissions into medical institutions – Regulations are binding on all medical colleges and State is precluded from enacting any contrary legislation. (Para 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25)
(2018) 7 SCC 225; Civil Appeal No. 8429 of 2018; (2015) 10 SCC 19; (2017) 15 SCC 791; (2017) 16 SCC 249; (1979) SCC 580; (1998) 6 SCC 131; (1999) 7 SCC 120 – Relied upon
(c) Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 – Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) –Deficiencies more than prescribed for the concerned batch – Compliance verification would not be considered in the same academic year – There cannot be pick and chose – a
(Para 25, 26)
(2018) 7 SCC 225 – Relied upon
AIR 2014 SC 284; 2011 AIR SCW 2383 : (2011) 4 SCC 623; 2016 KHC 171 – Distinguished
(d) Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 – Regulation 8(3)(1)(b) – Renewal of permission – Deficiency in bed occupancy more than required according to the assessors – MCI refusing renewal – College not disputing report of assessors – Data put up by college on self-serving website portal cannot be relied to discard report of assessors, unless mala fide. (Para 31, 33)
Civil Appeal No.9519 of 2018; (2016) 11 SCC 530; Civil Appeal No. 8429 of 2018 – Relied upon
(e) Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 – Regulation 8(3)(1) – Recognition and admission – Renewal permission only until formal recognition of the \college is granted – Further admissions not permissible unless requirements of MCI fulfilled – Recommendations can be made only within the time frame prescribed – Compliance report for 2018-19 submitted by college on 22.5.2018 , after expiry of the due date and recognition pending – In view of deficiencies refusing admissions for 2018-19 held appropriate – The compliance report will be considered for recognition. (Para 41)
(2005) 2 SCC 65; (2012) 7 SCC 433; (2015) 10 SCC 19 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The High Court has quashed the order passed by the Government of India declining to grant renewal permission/recognition to respondents – medical colleges. The High Court has directed the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, Government of Kerala to allot students to the colleges for the academic year 2018-2019 immediately. The MCI has also been directed to carry out the inspection to verify whether the colleges had rectified the deficiencies found at the time of earlier inspection. In case they have not done so, the MCI shall be at liberty to take appropriate action against them including the enforcement of the Bank Guarantees. At the same time, it has been ordered that in case fresh deficiencies are detected, the colleges shall be given the opportunity to rectify such deficiencies within a stipulated time.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Colleges sought the right to rectify deficiencies and mandatory review; MCI contended gross deficiencies preclude compliance opportunities under Regulation 8(3). (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. The court emphasized that medical education standards are mandatory and expert assessor reports cannot be discarded based on self-serving website data. (Para 3 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 31 , 32 , 33 )
4. Where gross deficiencies exceed thresholds prescribed in Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) or (b), colleges are not entitled to compliance verification in the same academic year. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 25 , 26 )
5. Appeals allowed; High Court order set aside; admissions for 2018-2019 denied; recognition for one college to be considered based on compliance. (Para 41 , 42 )
6. When is a medical college denied the opportunity to rectify deficiencies in the same academic year?
Under Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) and (b), if deficiencies in teaching faculty or residents exceed 30% (for 3rd batch) or 20% (for 4th/5th batch), or bed occupancy falls below 50% or 65% respectively, compliance cannot be considered for that academic year. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 25 , 26 )
7. Can a court substitute the findings of MCI assessors with data from a college's website during judicial review?
No. Reports of expert assessors cannot be lightly disbelieved or discarded based on self-serving website portals. In judicial review, courts cannot sit in appeal over the report of assessors unless there is evidence of mala fide or ex facie perversity. (Para 31 , 32 )
8. Is the recommendation of a Hearing Committee to review a case binding on the MCI?
No. Recommendations of the Hearing Committee are suggestions. The MCI is not bound to review if the statutory regulations mandate a denial of permission due to gross deficiencies, as the regulations are binding upon the Hearing Committee, Government, and MCI. (Para 18 , 26 )
9. What is the standard of judicial review regarding the adequacy of facilities in medical colleges?
Courts should not interfere with the assessment of an expert body like the MCI regarding inadequate facilities unless the colleges demonstrate jurisdictional errors, ex facie perversity, or mala fide. (Para 17 , 31 , 32 )
JUDGMENT :
Arun Mishra, J.
1. The Medical Council of India (for short, “the MCI”) is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.8.2018 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The High Court has quashed the order passed by the Government of India declining to grant renewal permission/recognition to respondents – medical colleges. The High Court has directed the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, Government of Kerala to allot students to the colleges for the academic year 2018-2019 immediately. The MCI has also been directed to carry out the inspection to verify whether the colleges had rectified the deficiencies found at the time of earlier inspection. In case they have not done so, the MCI shall be at liberty to take appropriate action against them including the enforcement of the Bank Guarantees. At the same time, it has been ordered that in case fresh deficiencies are detected, the colleges shall be given the opportunity to rectify such deficiencies within a stipulated time.
2. The High Court has decided the petitions of the four colleges by the common order. Probably, High Court had felt that the question on which it decided the matters was common, however, the facts of each and every college are different, the deficiencies found obviously varies and the order of the High Court is subject to further judicial review. It would have been appropriate for the High Court to decide the matter by separate orders duly reflecting the facts of each case and the deficiencies found. Clubbing of matters in the method and manner it had been done may indicate non-serious approach. In three of the matters, question was that of admissions in the academic session 2018-2019 and in one of the matters, the question pertains to the grant of recognition as well as admissions.
3. The High Court has observed that there are many serious deficiencies and the lack of patients would result in a lack of exposure of the students in so far as treatment of patients was concerned. The deficiencies, such as lack of teaching faculty, residents, lack of a sufficient number of surgical procedures, though, are of nature which would have a serious impact on the quality of education, the explanation offered by the colleges on the deficiencies has not been found to be genuine to impress the court. Notwithstanding the aforesaid observations, the High Court has proceeded to grant the relief to the medical colleges.
4. The colleges had contended that they had rectified the deficiencies and the Hearing Committee had recommended the MCI to review the case. Accordingly, the Central Government had required the MCI to review its earlier stand. However, the Executive Committee of MCI refused to reconsider its earlier stand in view of the provisions contained in the Regulations 8(3)(1)(a) of the ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICAL COLLEGE REGULATIONS , 1999 (for short, “the Regulations”). The MCI declined to review the order on the ground that the time for the MCI to send its recommendations to Central Government had already expired on 30th April 2018 and the schedule was required to be strictly adhered to.
5. The High Court had observed that opportunity of hearing would mean to make a representation. Timely assessment is integral to the scheme and such an opportunity is to be given not only when permission for the establishment of a new college is under consideration but even in cases of subsequent renewal of such permission. The High Court had referred to the decisions in Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital & Dental College v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2014 SC 284 and Priyadarshini Dental College and Hospital v. Union of India & Ors., 2011 AIR SCW 2383 : 2011 (4) SCC 623. At the time of renewal what is required to be considered is whether the prescribed faculty and infrastructure is available. There is some difference between the renewal and the parameters prescribed for the establishment. The High Court has relied upon the decision in D.M. Education and Research Foundation v. Union
