Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rekha Palli, J.
Santosh Trust & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
National Medical Commission & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 1958 of 2022; 15.03.2022
Decided On : 15.03.2022
MEDICAL COLLEGE - INCREASE IN SEATS - APPROVAL - REJECTION - GROUNDS - COMPLAINTS - COURT CASES - FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES - COVID-19 PANDEMIC - INSPECTION - DEFICIENCY IN CLINICAL MATERIAL - MoU WITH OTHER HOSPITALS - DISAPPROVAL LETTERS - VALIDITY - PUBLIC INTEREST - SUBSEQUENT MATERIAL - EXAMINATION - CONDITIONS - ARBITRARINESS - PERVERSE - NATURAL JUSTICE - VIOLATION - QUASHING OF ORDERS - DIRECTIONS TO GRANT PERMISSION - PARTICIPATION IN COUNSELLING.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a medical college, sought an increase in seats in MBBS and PG courses. The respondents, National Medical Commission (NMC) and Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB), rejected the request citing complaints, pending court cases, financial irregularities, and low bed occupancy due to COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner challenged the disapproval letters, arguing that the grounds were not mentioned in the impugned orders, new grounds were being raised, and the complaints and court cases were motivated and did not affect the financial capacity of the institute.
Finding of the Court:
1. The respondents can rely on subsequent material to support the impugned orders when larger public interest is involved. However, a pre-requisite for examining subsequent material is the likely impact of the impugned orders on public interest. 2. The pendency of complaints and court cases against the petitioner, without any restraint orders, cannot be a ground to hold the institution as not meeting the eligibility criteria under Section 29 of the NMC Act. 3. The respondents' decision to reject the petitioner's request on the ground of pending complaints and court cases, without considering all relevant aspects and without following the principles of natural justice, is perverse. 4. The respondents' plea that the petitioner institute did not have adequate clinical material and the bed occupancy was highly insufficient, is not justified as the petitioner was declared as a dedicated Covid L-3 hospital and was not allowed to admit any other patients except for those suffering from Covid-19. 5. The respondents acted in a discriminatory manner by ignoring the similar deficiencies in clinical material in respect of various similarly placed Covid dedicated hospitals/colleges, while holding the petitioners ineligible on this very ground.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondents can defend the impugned orders by raising additional grounds other than those mentioned in the impugned orders? 2. Whether in the light of the admitted position that the petitioner institute was declared as a dedicated Covid hospital, denial of permission for enhancement of seats in the two post graduate medical courses on the ground of insufficiency of clinical material was justified? 3. Whether the pendency of some Court cases and receipt of complaints against the petitioner institute would be a sufficient ground to reject its request for an increase in seats in MBBS as also in MS (Obstetrics and Gynaecology) and MS (Paediatrics)?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. In Mohinder Singh Gill (supra), the Supreme Court laid down the broad principle that the validity of an order must be tested by the reasons mentioned therein and the authority cannot be allowed to supplement new reasons to defend the same. However, when public interest is involved, facts emerging from subsequent events can be looked into. 2. There is an element of public interest in the decision taken by the respondents. It is clearly in public interest that, permission for enhancement of seats is given only after the due satisfaction of the respondent no.1, that the petitioner is meeting the eligibility criteria as per procedure laid down in law. 3. The mere pendency of some Court cases against a medical institution at the behest of banks/financial institutions, in the absence of any restraint orders passed by a Competent Court, cannot perse be a ground to hold the institution as not meeting the eligibility criteria under Section 29 of the Act. 4. The respondents' decision to reject the petitioner's request on the ground of pending complaints and court cases, without considering all relevant aspects and without following the principles of natural justice, is perverse.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner institute to increase the seats from 4 to 7 in MS (Obstetrics & Gynaecology), from 3 to 7 in MS (Orthopaedics), and from 100-150 in the MBBS course. The petitioner was also granted permission to participate in the remaining rounds of counselling with the increased seats.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the disapproval letters issued by the respondent no. 1/National Medical Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'NMC') rejecting the petitioners' request for grant of permission for increase of seats in the petitioner no.2 college in the Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (hereinafter referred to as 'MBBS') course as also in post-graduate courses of MS (Obstetrics & Gynaecology) and MS (Orthopaedics). The petitioners also assail the order dated 22.12.2021 vide which the respondents have directed an interim inspection of the petitioner no.2 college for continuation of its existing recognition for 100 MBBS seats.
2. The petitioner no.1 (formerly known as the Maharaji Educational Trust) is a trust which runs and manages a group of medical, dental, paramedical, and paradental colleges/institutions in the National Capital Region, including the petitioner no.2, a medical educational institute, offering MBBS course and post-graduate courses like MD, MS, M.Sc. and Ph.D. On 13.06.2007, the petitioner no.2, along with the Santosh Dental College, Ghaziabad, which college is also managed by the petitioner no. 1 trust, was on the recommendations of the University Grants Commission ('UGC'), granted the status of a 'Deemed to be University' by the Central Government, which university is known as the Santosh University.
3. The respondent no.1/NMC, constituted under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NMC Act'), was set up in place of the erstwhile Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as 'MCI') with an aim to inter alia improve access to quality and affordable medical education, ensure availability of adequate and high-quality medical professionals in all parts of the country, and objectively assess the medical institutions periodically in a transparent manner. The respondent no.2/Medical Assessment and Rating Board (hereinafter referred to as 'MARB') is an autonomous board set up by the NMC for the purpose of assessing and rating medical institutions to ensure compliance with the standards laid down by the Under Graduate ('UG') as well as the Post Graduate (PG) Medical Education Boards constituted as per the regulations under the NMC Act.
4. Based upon the permission granted to the petitioner no.1 trust on 15.01.1996 by the Government of India to establish a medical college for conducting MBBS course with a strength of 50 students, the petitioner no.2 college was set up. On 26.06.2001,the petitioner institute was granted recognition by the MCI for 50 seats in MBBS and thereafter for 3 seats in MD (Paediatrics) on 16.02.2004. The seats in MBBS were subsequently increased from 50 to 100 and the petitioner institute was also granted permission by the MCI for conducting PG courses in 18 disciplines.
5. The petitioner no.2 being desirous of seeking a further increase in the MBBS seats, applied to the MCI, pursuant whereto, an inspection was carried out on 13.12.2018. As during the inspection, certain deficiencies were found by the assessors, a further inspection was carried out on 16.04.2019 where again, some deficiencies were reported. Consequently, the petitioner institute was, on 30.05.2019, issued a show cause notice under clause 8 (3)(1)(C) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations (Amendment), 2010 (Part-II) by the MCI. This led to further inspections being carried out in the petitioner institute on 27.08.2019, 01.12.2019 and 03.12.2019. As all the deficiencies were found to have been rectified in these inspections, the show cause notice issued to the petitioner institute was withdrawn on 15.01.2020 and the petitioner institute was granted recognition for a period of 5 years.
6. While the petitioners' application seeking increase of seats in MBBS was pending, the world was in March, 2020 hit with the pandemic of Covid-19. The petitioner institute, the first private medical college in the Sta
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
