MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA versus JAIPUR NATIONAL UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTRE JAIPUR AND ANOTHER on 4 July 2018

[2018] 5 S.C.R. 195

MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA

v.

JAIPUR NATIONAL UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE FOR MEDICALSCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTRE JAIPUR ANDANOTHER

(Civil Appeal No. 6000 OF 2018)

JULY 04, 2018

[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]

Education/Educational Institutions – Medical education –Renewal of permission to admit students for MBBS course for nextacademic session – Grant of – On facts, interim order by High Courtdirecting the Central Government to permit the Medical institute toadmit 150 students in the third batch of MBBS course for theacademic year subject to a rider that if the Institute fails, the feeswould be refunded to the students – Propriety and correctness of –Held: There was no justification for passing interim directions andpermitting the Institute to go ahead with provisional admissions forthe academic session – Any stipulation that the admissions pursuantto such interim directions shall be subject to the result of the petitionwould not be a sufficient protection or insulation and such ordersresult in tremendous prejudice to the students – Proper course wouldbe to hear the matter finally rather than passing interim directions– Thus, the High Court not justified in passing the interim order –Order passed by the High Court set aside.

Medical Council of India v. Rajiv Gandhi University ofHealth Sciences and others (2004) 6 SCC 76 : [2004]3 SCR 1119; Medical Council of India v. JSS MedicalCollege (2012) 5 SCC 628: [2012] 1 SCR 136; MedicalCouncil of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences(KIMS) (2016) 11 SCC 530 : [2016] 4 SCR 403; DentalCouncil of India v. Dr. Hedgewar Smruti Rugna SevaMandal Hingoli and Others (2017) 13 SCC 115 –referred to.

Case Law Reference

[2004] 3 SCR 1119

195

A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

196SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 5 S.C.R.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6000Bof 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.05.2018 of the High Courtof Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in DB Civil Writs No. 10103/2018.

Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG, Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia, Advs.Cfor the Appellant.

Mr. Vivek Krishna Tankha, Sr. Adv., Ms. Bina Madhavan, VarunK. Chopra, Piyush Dwivedi, Ms. Ramandeep Kaur, Lawyer’s Knit &Co., R. Balasubramanium, Sachin Sharma, Arvind K. Sharma, Advs.for the respondents.DThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the correctness of interim order dated29.05.2018 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur inED. B. Civil Writ Petition No.10103/2018 whereby the High Court directedthe Central Government to permit the Respondent Institute to admit 150students in the third batch of MBBS course for the academic year 2018-2019.

3. Pursuant to appropriate recommendation having been given byFMedical Council of India (‘MCI’, for short), Central Government by itsletter dated 06.06.2016 granted letter of permission to the RespondentInstitute to establish a Medical College from the academic year 2016-2017 with annual undertake of 150 students. It appears that afterconducting due inspection and verification, MCI did not recommendrenewal of permission for the next academic session 2017-2018.GHowever, the Central Government by its letter dated 31.05.2017 grantedrenewal of permission to admit 2[nd] Batch of students for the academicyear 2017-2018.

4. In Writ Petition No.432 of 2017 (N.C. Medical College andHospital Principal v. Union of India Secretary and Another), a listH

of 24 Colleges who despite negative recommendation on part of MCIwere accorded renewal of permission by the Central Government wasextracted by this Court in its order dated 09.10.2017 and all thoseInstitutions including the Respondent Institute were added asrespondents. This Court further directed MCI to conduct surpriseinspection in respect of all the Colleges. It appears that the Assessorsappointed by MCI conducted physical assessment and verification on31[st] October, 2017 and 1[st] November, 2017. The assessment report wasplaced before the Executive Committee of MCI in its Meeting held on22.11.2017 where the Executive Committee observed various deficienciesof Infrastructure, Clinical Material and other physical facilities. TheExecutive Committee therefore decided to recommend to the CentralGovernment not to grant renewal of permission for the 3[rd] Batch ofstudents for the academic year 2018-2019. Thereafter, the CentralGovernment afforded opportunity of hearing to the Respondent Instituteand requested MCI to review the case of Respondent Institute. AforesaidWrit Petition No.432 of 2017 was disposed of by this Court on 17.01.2018directing MCI to take appropriate decision in respect of 25 MedicalColleges for the academic year 2018-2019 by 31.03.2018.

5. In order to verify the claims made by the Respondent Instituteregarding compliance and that the deficiencies had been removed, MCIconducted compliance verification on 05.03.2018 and the report in respectthereof was placed in the Meeting of the Executive Committee of MCIheld on 24.03.2018. After discussion and deliberation, the ExecutiveCommittee found that the deficiencies in respect of Infrastructure, ClinicalMaterial and other physical facilities still persisted and thereforerecommended to the Central Government not to grant renewal ofpermission to the Respondent Institute for academic session 2018-2019.The Central Government after due consideration of the recommendationsmade by MCI, vide its letter dated 01.05.2018 decided not to grantrenewal of permission for admission for the academic year 2018-2019.

6. The aforesaid decision of the Central Government waschallenged by the Respondent Institute by preferring D.B. Civil WritPetition No.10103 of 2018 in the High Court of Rajasthan, Bench atJaipur. It appears that since the Advocates in Jaipur had gone on strike,the Chairperson of the Respondent Institute, Under Secretary, Ministryof Health and Family Welfare, Union of India and Law Officer of MCIwho were present, were heard by the High Court on 29.05.2018. The AB

CD

E

F

G

H

AHigh Court found that the inspection conducted by MCI was withpredetermined mind not to renew the permission to the RespondentInstitute and was of the prima facie view that the findings arrived at byMCI were required to be stayed at the interim stage. The High Courtthus while admitting the petition fixed the matter for final hearing on09.07.2018 but proceeded to pass following order:-B

“6.2 The matter is fixed for final hearing on 09.07.2018.

6.3 In the meantime and till disposal of the petition, the orderdated 01.05.2018 as well as dated 28.03.2018 both are stayedand respondent No.1 is directed to allow the petitioner College toCadmit 150 students in the third batch for the academic year 2018-2019 subject to a rider that if ultimately the petitioner fails in thispetition, he will refund all the fees to the students who are admittedpursuant to the order of this court.

6.4 The stay application is accordingly disposed of.

D The Central Government will act upon this order”.

7. This appeal questioning the aforesaid interim direction dated29.05.2018 was listed along with a similar matter where by way of aninterim direction the concerned College was allowed to go ahead withadmissions to 1[st] MBBS course for the academic session 2018-2019.EAfter having heard Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional SolicitorGeneral of India in support of the appeal and Mr. Vivek Krishna Tankha,Senior Advocate for the respondent in the present matter in whosesubmission there were no deficiencies at all, this Court on 14.06.2018had reserved the matters for judgment and passed following order:- F

F“Heard learned counsel. In both these matters, the High Courtshave permitted the concerned medical colleges to go ahead withadmissions. The correctness of those orders passed at an interimstage is under challenge at the instance of the Medical College ofIndia. We have been given to understand by the learned counselappearing for both the medical colleges that till this date, noGadmissions have been effected despite the interim orders passedby the High Court in their favour. The statement is taken onrecord.

We reserve the judgment and till the judgment is pronounced, noadmission shall take place in respect of both the institutions to theHcourse of 1[st] MBBS for the ensuing academic session 2018-2019.

Permission is granted to place on record requisite documents by16.06.2018.”

8. In the companion matter namely Civil Appeal arising out ofSpecial Leave Petition (Civil) No.14972 of 2018, we have adverted tocertain decisions of this Court where the propriety and correctness ofsimilar such interim directions had been questioned before this Court.Relying upon the decisions in (i) Medical Council of India v. RajivGandhi University of Health Sciences and others[1], (ii) MedicalCouncil of India v. JSS Medical College[2], (iii) Medical Council ofIndia v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS)[3], (iv) DentalCouncil of India v. Dr. Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva MandalHingoli and Others[4], we have held in the companion matter that therewas no justification for passing interim directions and permitting theconcerned College to go ahead with provisional admissions for theacademic session 2018-2019. We have further held that any stipulationthat the admissions pursuant to such interim directions shall be subject tothe result of the petition would not be a sufficient protection or insulationand such orders result in tremendous prejudice to the students. Wehave further held that if a case is made out the proper course is to hearthe matter finally rather than passing interim directions as have beenpassed in the present matter. Based on same reasoning, we hold thatthe High Court was not justified in passing the order under challenge.

9. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order dated29.05.2018 passed by the High Court. Since the matter is to come up on09.07.2018 before the High Court, the entire controversy can be goneinto. We have not dealt with factual controversy in the present matterand the facts that have been set out in the preceding paragraphs areonly by way of narration of events. We are sure that the pending matterwill be considered purely on merits.

10. With these observations, the present appeal is allowed and theorder under appeal is set aside. No costs.

Nidhi Jain

Appeal allowed.

1 (2004) 6 SCC 76

2 (2012) 5 SCC 628

3 (2016) 11 SCC 530

4 (2017) 13 SCC 115

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H