Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
DR. MGR EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY – Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - Respondents
WP(C) 7855/2015
Decided on : 17.09.2015
The court held that the MCI was required to conduct a compliance inspection pursuant to two compliance reports submitted by the petitioner dated 28.05.2015 and 22.07.2015. The court further held that the stand taken by the MCI and the UOI that since provisions of clause 8(3)(1)(b) of the 2010 Regulations had been invoked, it was not required to carry out verification of assertions made in the compliance report, was contrary to the provisions of Section 10A of the IMC Act and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Swami Devi Dayal Hospital and Dental College Vs. Union of India, (2014) 13 SCC 506 and by way of judgment dated 20.08.2015, passed in WP(C) 705/14, titled: Royal Medical Trust (Regd.) and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a deemed university, was desirous of setting up a medical college by the name of ACS Medical College and Hospital (hereafter referred to as the ‘ACS Medical College’) as a constituent college. The respondent no.3 i.e. University Grants Commission (hereafter referred to as ‘UGC’) granted its in-principle, no objection to the proposal made for establishing a medical college under the ambit of the petitioner, provided it fulfilled the norms indicated therein, which included, the recognition / approval of the MCI; as also, the adherence to norms fixed by the MCI and the UGC. By virtue of this communication, it was also conveyed that the proposal submitted for this purpose would be examined by the UGC, with the help of a duly constituted committee, and that, the final decision taken in this behalf would be notified by the Government of India, on its advice in the matter.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the MCI was required to conduct a compliance inspection pursuant to two compliance reports submitted by the petitioner dated 28.05.2015 and 22.07.2015. The court further held that the stand taken by the MCI and the UOI that since provisions of clause 8(3)(1)(b) of the 2010 Regulations had been invoked, it was not required to carry out verification of assertions made in the compliance report, was contrary to the provisions of Section 10A of the IMC Act and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Swami Devi Dayal Hospital and Dental College Vs. Union of India, (2014) 13 SCC 506 and by way of judgment dated 20.08.2015, passed in WP(C) 705/14, titled: Royal Medical Trust (Regd.) and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr.
Issues: Whether the MCI was required to conduct a compliance inspection pursuant to two compliance reports submitted by the petitioner dated 28.05.2015 and 22.07.2015.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the MCI was required to conduct a compliance inspection pursuant to two compliance reports submitted by the petitioner dated 28.05.2015 and 22.07.2015. The court further held that the stand taken by the MCI and the UOI that since provisions of clause 8(3)(1)(b) of the 2010 Regulations had been invoked, it was not required to carry out verification of assertions made in the compliance report, was contrary to the provisions of Section 10A of the IMC Act and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Swami Devi Dayal Hospital and Dental College Vs. Union of India, (2014) 13 SCC 506 and by way of judgment dated 20.08.2015, passed in WP(C) 705/14, titled: Royal Medical Trust (Regd.) and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr.
Final Decision: The court held that the MCI was required to conduct a compliance inspection pursuant to two compliance reports submitted by the petitioner dated 28.05.2015 and 22.07.2015. The court further held that the stand taken by the MCI and the UOI that since provisions of clause 8(3)(1)(b) of the 2010 Regulations had been invoked, it was not required to carry out verification of assertions made in the compliance report, was contrary to the provisions of Section 10A of the IMC Act and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Swami Devi Dayal Hospital and Dental College Vs. Union of India, (2014) 13 SCC 506 and by way of judgment dated 20.08.2015, passed in WP(C) 705/14, titled: Royal Medical Trust (Regd.) and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
1. This writ petition is directed against the communication dated 11.05.2015 issued by respondent no.2 i.e. the Medical Council of India (hereafter referred to as MCI) and communication dated 15.06.2015 issued by respondent no.1 i.e. the Union of India (hereafter referred to as UOI).
1.1 By virtue of the impugned communications, in effect, the petitioner’s scheme for admittance of students to the MBBS Course upto a maximum extent of 150 candidates, for the academic year 2015-2016, has been rejected.
1.2 Pertinently, UOI’s communication dated 15.06.2015 is pivoted on the recommendation of MCI contained in its letter dated 11.05.2015.
2. The challenge raised by the petitioner arises in the background of the following broad facts :-
2.1 The petitioner, which is constituted as a deemed university, was desirous of setting up a medical college by the name of ACS Medical College and Hospital (hereafter referred to as the ‘ACS Medical College’) as a constituent college. The respondent no.3 i.e. University Grants Commission (hereafter referred to as ‘UGC’) granted its in-principle, no objection to the proposal made for establishing a medical college under the ambit of the petitioner, provided it fulfilled the norms indicated therein, which included, the recognition / approval of the MCI; as also, the adherence to norms fixed by the MCI and the UGC. By virtue of this communication, it was also conveyed that the proposal submitted for this purpose would be examined by the UGC, with the help of a duly constituted committee, and that, the final decision taken in this behalf would be notified by the Government of India, on its advice in the matter.
2.2 It appears that the petitioner established the ACS Medical College and commenced admissions for the academic year 2008-2009, albeit without the prior approval of either the UGC or the Ministry of Human Resources and Development (hereafter referred to as the ‘MHRD’).
2.3 Consequently, explanation was sought, to which, justification was supplied by the petitioner. Based on the justification given, ex post facto approval was given by the UGC, based on the recommendations of the expert committee set up by it to consider the said issue. Resultantly, the petitioner was given approval to bring ACS Medical College within its ambit for the academic year 2008-2009, with a caveat, that its performance would be reviewed annually for a period of three years, and thereafter, every five years. This decision of the UGC is reflected in the communication dated 30.09.2009 addressed to the MHRD.
2.4 The, no objection, given by the UGC was preceded by a letter of intent dated 20.06.2008 and a letter of permission dated 04.07.2008, issued by the UOI.
2.5 As a result of the above, ACS Medical College admitted students for the academic year 2008-2009. The students admitted in the academic year 2008-2009, since then, have completed their course, and those, amongst others, who qualified, have been issued degrees in that behalf.
2.6 I may only note that in a writ petition filed directly in the Supreme Court, being : WP (C) No.142/2006 titled, Viplav Sharma Vs. Union of India and Ors., a challenge has been laid to the petitioner’s status as a deemed university alongwith other similarly circumstanced entities. The Supreme Court pending adjudication of the said writ petition has, I am told, directed status quo to be maintained vis-à-vis 44 institutions (which includes the petitioner) vide order dated 25.01.2010. I am further informed that this order continues to obtain to date.
2.7 Continuing with the narrative, it appears that the MHRD (i.e. respondent no.4) vide communication dated 31.08.2010 rejected the UGC’s recommendation for bringing ACS Medical College within the ambit of a deemed university due to pendency of proceedings in the Viplav Sharma’s case. This communication was assailed by the petitioner by filing a writ petition directly in the Supreme Court, which, however, was withdrawn
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
