Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 3060
High Court Of Madras
B.Rajendran J.
Chennai Medical College And Hospital And Research Centre, Trichy - Appellant
Versus
Government Of India Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department, New Delhi – Respondent
W.P(MD).Nos. 5903 of 2010 and 2773 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 to 4 of 2011 in W.P(MD).No.2773 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.2 to 6 of 2010 in W.P(MD).No.5903 of 2010
Decided On : Jun 30,2011
V.T.Gopalan, G.R.Swaminathan, K.K.Senthilvelan, R.Thiyagarajan, V.P.Raman, C.Karthick
The Medical Council of India has the power to interfere at any stage in regard to the admission only if there is an excess admission and not on any other grounds.
Headnote:
The Court held that the initial admission of students by the petitioner institution between 16.09.2009 to 30.09.2009 is invalid and illegal. The Medical Council of India has the power to interfere at any stage in regard to the admission only if there is an excess admission and not on any other grounds. The power of Medical Council of India is only for four years or till the regular approval is given. After four years period is completed or regular permission/recognition is granted, the Medical Council of India has the powers to interfere only if there is an excess admission as against the intake capacity after the formal approval is given. The affiliation of the university is mandatory. The admission made by the petitioner for the first year i.e. for the year 2009-2010 without affiliation by the university is bad in law. The retrospective affiliation granted by the university will not cure the original defects when they were admitted. The second batch of students who are admitted in the year 2010-2011 and those students are admittedly admitted not by the college but by the entire 140 seats admitted in Government quota and only 10 seats are taken by the University. Therefore, the second admission is valid admission for the second batch. The petitioner college can claim a valid admission subsequent to 2010. The Medical Council of India also will consider in this angle sympathetically.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner institution, which is already an existing institution with the Deemed University status, is running Medical College at Madras. The petitioner institution had applied for permission to start a new Medical College at Trichy. In that application itself, they have categorically included Form No.III, a consent letter to be accompanied as per the Medical Council of India Act with the application for affiliation from any one of the Universities. As per the consent letter, dated 25.05.2009, they have accepted to start the Medical College under the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University. Thereafter, the application was submitted anywhere between 26.05.2009 because the first inspection of the Medical Council of India took place on 05.06.2009 and 06.06.2009. The Medical Council of India, on finding some discrepancies, directed the petitioner to rectify the mistakes and that was rectified. The second inspection was conducted by the Medical Council of India on 01.07.2009 and ultimately, the Executive Committee or the Board of the Medical Council of India, on subjective satisfaction about the infrastructural and other facilities, recommended to the Government of India for grant of letter of indent and permission. At this point, it should be noted that in the Executive Committee/Board Meeting, which was held to give concurrence or acceptance to the Government of India, the word SRM University was used by the Medical Council of India. The Medical Council of India had categorically given the recommendation to start a new Medical College by SRM University and not under the auspices of the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University. When this recommendation was forwarded to the Union Government by letter dated 13.07.2009, the letter of indent was given by the Government of India and pursuant to the letter of indent on 13.07.2009 and 14.07.2009. Further, the intention of the petitioner is very clear that they will have to go before the counseling to be conducted by the Government of Tamil Nadu and they have to surrender 65% seats and only 35% seats is available to them to accommodate or fill up at that point of time.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the initial admission of students by the petitioner institution between 16.09.2009 to 30.09.2009 is invalid and illegal. The Medical Council of India has the power to interfere at any stage in regard to the admission only if there is an excess admission and not on any other grounds. The power of Medical Council of India is only for four years or till the regular approval is given. After four years period is completed or regular permission/recognition is granted, the Medical Council of India has the powers to interfere only if there is an excess admission as against the intake capacity after the formal approval is given. The affiliation of the university is mandatory. The admission made by the petitioner for the first year i.e. for the year 2009-2010 without affiliation by the university is bad in law. The retrospective affiliation granted by the university will not cure the original defects when they were admitted. The second batch of students who are admitted in the year 2010-2011 and those students are admittedly admitted not by the college but by the entire 140 seats admitted in Government quota and only 10 seats are taken by the University. Therefore, the second admission is valid admission for the second batch. The petitioner college can claim a valid admission subsequent to 2010. The Medical Council of India also will consider in this angle sympathetically.
Issues: 1. Whether the institution can admit the students without an affiliation from any University even though they have a letter of indent and permission from the Central Government.? 2. Whether initial admission of the students without affiliation is an illegality or irregularity? 3. By virtue of a ratification or retrospective affiliation granted by the University whether the invalid admission is cured? 4. Whether the Medical Council of India has power to question authority of the institution to admit students when they have admitted the students within the strength granted to them? 5. Whether the Medical Council of India has got any power to issue directions to discharge the students only on the ground that there is no affiliation when all other infrastructural facilities are provided?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the initial admission of students by the petitioner institution between 16.09.2009 to 30.09.2009 is invalid and illegal. The Medical Council of India has the power to interfere at any stage in regard to the admission only if there is an excess admission and not on any other grounds. The power of Medical Council of India is only for four years or till the regular approval is given. After four years period is completed or regular permission/recognition is granted, the Medical Council of India has the powers to interfere only if there is an excess admission as against the intake capacity after the formal approval is given. The affiliation of the university is mandatory. The admission made by the petitioner for the first year i.e. for the year 2009-2010 without affiliation by the university is bad in law. The retrospective affiliation granted by the university will not cure the original defects when they were admitted. The second batch of students who are admitted in the year 2010-2011 and those students are admittedly admitted not by the college but by the entire 140 seats admitted in Government quota and only 10 seats are taken by the University. Therefore, the second admission is valid admission for the second batch. The petitioner college can claim a valid admission subsequent to 2010. The Medical Council of India also will consider in this angle sympathetically.
Final Decision: The Court held that the initial admission of students by the petitioner institution between 16.09.2009 to 30.09.2009 is invalid and illegal. The Medical Council of India has the power to interfere at any stage in regard to the admission only if there is an excess admission and not on any other grounds. The power of Medical Council of India is only for four years or till the regular approval is given. After four years period is completed or regular permission/recognition is granted, the Medical Council of India has the powers to interfere only if there is an excess admission as against the intake capacity after the formal approval is given. The affiliation of the university is mandatory. The admission made by the petitioner for the first year i.e. for the year 2009-2010 without affiliation by the university is bad in law. The retrospective affiliation granted by the university will not cure the original defects when they were admitted. The second batch of students who are admitted in the year 2010-2011 and those students are admittedly admitted not by the college but by the entire 140 seats admitted in Government quota and only 10 seats are taken by the University. Therefore, the second admission is valid admission for the second batch. The petitioner college can claim a valid admission subsequent to 2010. The Medical Council of India also will consider in this angle sympathetically.
( 1. ) THESE Writ Petitions are disposed of by this common order since the issues in these Writ Petitions are one and the same
( 2. ) THE petitioner in both the Writ Petitions has challenged the orders of the Medical Council of India. THE main case of the petitioner is that their institution had applied for permission to start the Medical College in Trichy. THEy have already a University which is also running a separate Medical College at Madras. Initially, they wanted an Off Campus permission and they applied to the Central Government for Off Campus permission. Since, it was not materialising, pending that application, they filed a separate application in the name of the petitioner herein to start a Medical College, which is to be affiliated with the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, together with the consent letter from the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University dated 25.05.2009. Subsequently, an inspection was made by the Medical Council of India on 05.06.2009 and 06.06.2009 and after rectifying the mistakes, which were pointed out by the Medical Council of India, a letter of indent was given by the Government of India on 13.07.2009. THE permission to start the college was granted by the Central Government on 14.07.2009. THEreafter, on 29.07.2009, the petitioner forwarded the letter of indent and letter of permission to the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University and sought affiliation from the said University.
The contention of the petitioner is that even though the letter of indent and letter of permission were granted and the Government has stated that college would be started by the SRM University, without mentioning the fact that it was under the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, the petitioners have also accepted that it was to be started under Dr. M.G.R. University only. As they did not want to fight over this aspect, accepting that they should only go under the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, they sought affiliation even as early on 29.07.2009. Thereafter, the application for affiliation of the petitioner was returned / rejected on 12.09.2009 by the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University stating that the order purported to have been given from the Central Government is only to start the college under the S.R.M. University and therefore, one University cannot give affiliation to another University.
( 3. ) IN the interregnum period, even on 30.07.2009, the Central Government, by a corrigendum, stated that on the advice of the Medical Council of INdia that instead of SRM University it should be read as the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University. The Central Government have sent the corrigendum to read as Dr. M.G.R. University, but noted only as the endorsee No.3 in the order. Therefore, the petitioner would mainly contend that there was no substantial change in the original content of the letter and what was intended and what was mentioned was only marking the copy addressed to the proper and correct person. They would further contend that they came to know that this corrigendum was communicated to the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University only much later, after the rejection of the application dated 12.09.2009. But even then, they also did not inform the University about the corrigendum. Therefore, as on 12.09.2009 when the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University returned / rejected the affiliation on the ground that SRM University is the one who can start the college and admit the students as per the letter of indent and permission, they started the admission process. Further, according to the petitioner, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in (MridulDhar (Minor) (5) and another vs. Union of INdia and others) (2005) 2 SCC 65, as all admission should be concluded on or before 30.07.2009 otherwise one year would be lost, they started admitting students from 16.09.2009 to 30.09.2009.
( 4. ) PURSUANT to the admission granted to various persons on the basis of selection conducted by the SRM
