State Cannot Cancel Medical College's Essentiality Certificate Under Regulator's 'Diktat,' Rules Andhra Pradesh High Court

AMARAVATI - The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling on administrative law and medical education, has quashed the state government's 2019 order cancelling the Essentiality Certificate (EC) of RVS Institute of Medical Sciences. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R Raghunandan Rao held that the state's action was vitiated as it was taken under the "diktat" of the then medical regulatory body, the Board of Governors (in supersession of the Medical Council of India).

The court underscored the principle that a statutory authority must exercise its discretion independently and not succumb to pressure or instructions from another entity.

Case Background

The case involved a series of writ petitions filed by Srinivasa Educational Academy, which runs the RVS Institute of Medical Sciences in Chittoor. The college was granted an Essentiality Certificate in 2013 and received a Letter of Permission (LoP) for the 2016-17 academic year, admitting 150 MBBS students.

However, subsequent inspections by the Medical Council of India (MCI) and later the National Medical Commission (NMC) revealed significant deficiencies in faculty, residents, infrastructure, and patient load. This led to the college being debarred from making admissions for the 2017-18 and 2018-19 academic years. Consequently, the 150 students from the first batch had to be relocated to other government medical colleges.

The central issue arose when the Board of Governors (MCI) made the approval for relocating the students conditional upon the State of Andhra Pradesh withdrawing the college's Essentiality Certificate. Following this, the state government issued a show-cause notice and subsequently cancelled the certificate on March 27, 2019, citing gross deficiencies found during its own inspection.

Key Arguments and Legal Principles

Petitioner's Stance: Senior Counsel Mr. P. Sri Raghu Ram, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the state government lacked the power to withdraw the EC once it was granted, except in cases of fraud. He contended that the cancellation was not an independent decision but was done at the behest of the medical regulator to facilitate the transfer of students.

Court's Analysis: Acting Under Dictation The High Court found merit in the petitioner's argument, relying heavily on the Supreme Court's judgment in Chintpurni Medical College and Hospital v. State of Punjab . The bench noted the clear sequence of events: the Board of Governors' communication explicitly linked the student relocation to the withdrawal of the EC, which was followed by the state's show-cause notice and cancellation order.

The Court quoted from the Chintpurni judgment and principles of administrative law, stating:

“Closely akin to delegation... is any arrangement by which a power conferred upon one authority is in substance exercised by another... The effect then is that the discretion conferred by Parliament is exercised, at least in part, by the wrong authority, and the resulting decision is ultra vires and void.”

The bench concluded that the state government had "succumbed to that pressure," thereby vitiating the cancellation order.

Distinction Between Fraud and Non-Functioning The court also discussed the Supreme Court's ruling in Sukh Sagar Medical College , which expanded the grounds for cancellation to include cases where the "very substratum" on which the EC was granted disappears. While acknowledging this principle, the High Court held that in the present case, the primary flaw in the cancellation order was the element of external dictation, rendering it legally unsustainable on that ground alone.

Judgment and Future Implications

The High Court allowed the main writ petition (W.P. No. 4484 of 2019) and quashed the state's cancellation order dated March 27, 2019. However, the bench clarified that this does not preclude the government from reconsidering the issue independently in the future.

The court laid down several factors for the government to consider if it re-examines whether the "substratum" for the EC is lost, including state policy on the number of medical colleges, other pending applications, and the actual need in the region.

On Fake Patients and Faculty In a stern observation, the bench commented on the widespread problem of medical colleges allegedly hiring "ghost faculty" and "fake patients" to clear inspections. The court noted the inspection report's findings that patients in the petitioner's hospital appeared healthy and had been brought in on the day of assessment.

The judgment called for stricter verification by the NMC to identify and take action against doctors who lend their names for such fraudulent practices and recommended that colleges found guilty of misrepresentation be "permanently barred" from future consideration.

“A non-functional hospital... would not only defeat the very purpose of establishing a medical college... but such doctors, if produced from such medical colleges by playing deceit or fraud, would produce only half baked and ill-trained doctors...”

With the academic year 2024-25 already over, the petition challenging the disapproval for that year was rendered infructuous. The college, now armed with a reinstated Essentiality Certificate, may apply for permission for the upcoming academic year 2025-26, subject to fresh inspections by the NMC.