IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that attendance for faculty must be evaluated over the entire academic year, and excess faculty in higher categories can compensate for deficiencies in lower categories.

JUDGMENT :

N.NAGARESH, J.

The petitioner, who is Principal of a Self Financing Medical College, is before this Court seeking to quash Ext.P23 order of disapproval issued by the 1^st respondent to start M.D. (Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy) for the Academic Year 2024-2025 in the petitioner's College and to issue approval to start course in this Academic Year.

2. The petitioner states that the Medical College was established in the year 2014-2015. It is a “minority institution”. The College was started with the Letter of Permission (LoP) of the Central Government. The LoP was recommended by the Medical Council of India. The College has been affiliated with the University. The College was granted recognition by including the name of the College in the First Schedule of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

3. For the year 2024-2025, the petitioner applied for permission to start PG Courses, including M.D. (Dermatology). The National Medical Commission (NMC) issued Ext.P2 public notice directing the applicant-Colleges to produce bank guarantees for the courses applied for. The ₹ College provided Bank guarantee for an amount of 85 lakhs, as evidenced by Ext.P3. Thereafter, the NMC issued Ext.P5 Show-cause Notice directing the College to rectify the remarks noted by the NMC. The College submitted Ext.P6 explanation.

4. In Ext.P5, the NMC had noted that the Essentiality Certificate was inadequate. No other serious deficiency was noted by the NMC. The College submitted new Essentiality Certificate. To the surprise of the petitioner, without considering the facts, the NMC issued Ext.P7 letter of disapproval. The deficiency noted in Ext.P7 is that as per AEBAS, the attendance of a Professor is less than 75% and that there is deficiency in faculty.

5. The petitioner states that the objection as to deficiency of faculty is unsustainable because rule specifically permits that if there is any excess qualified faculty in any higher category, that can be counted to make up the deficiency, if any, in the lower category. The disapproval is, therefore, unsustainable.

6. The NMC considered the First Appeal filed by the College. The College attended the hearing and relevant facts were apprised to the Appellate Authority. However, without considering any of the contentions, the appeal was rejected as per Ext.P15. In Ext.P15, the reasons advanced for rejection was that there is no Associate Professor and the attendance of one Professor is less than 75% as per AEBAS. Against the rejection of the First Appeal, the petitioner filed Ext.P16 Second Appeal under Section 28(6) of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. The College submitted their explanation along with details. Later, Ext.P19 order was issued by the NMC declining approval to start M.D. (Dermatology). In Ext.P19, the only reason advanced by the 1^st respondent for rejection was that there is non-availability of sufficient faculty in the Department and that attendance of one Professor was found to be short.

7. The petitioner states that the shortage of attendance was alleged taking into consideration the attendance of the faculty concerned only for two months, which was unjustified. The petitioner, therefore, filed W.P.(C) No.43746/2024. This Court by Ext.P20 judgment held that the attendance requirement should be based on the whole Academic Year and cutting out two months out of the Academic Year and alleging shortage of attendance cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order was set aside with a direction to reconsider the matter.

8. The petitioner states that the 1^st respondent, without considering any of the points highlighted in Ext.P20 judgment, rejected the appeal on another ground as per Ext.P23. In Ext.P23, it has been stated that the petitioner failed to make available Form-16 and Salary Slips of all faculties working in the Department. The petitioner would urge that the said allegation is incorrect. The communication requiring production of Form-16 was not received in the office of t