MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA versus N.C. MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL AND ORS. on 4 July 2018

184

[2018] 5 S.C.R.

AMEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA

v.

N.C. MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL AND ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 6001 of 2018)

BJULY 04, 2018

[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]

Education/Educational Institutions – Medical education –MBBS course – On facts, respondent applied for establishment ofmedical college – Deficiencies found and scheme not approved byCMCI and the Central Government – Approval accorded by theSupreme Court mandated Oversight Committee that the college waspermitted to make admissions for the academic year – However,conditions subject to which approval accorded, not complied with– Repeated failure on the part of the College to remove theDdeficiencies – On physical verification again deficiencies found –During pendency of the matter before the Central Government, filingof writ petition – Interim order by the High Court permitting theMedical College to grant provisional admissions for the AcademicSession – Justification of – Held: Not justified – Permission to makeadmissions for the current academic session could not have beenEgranted unless and until on physical verification everything wasfound to be in order – Condition of making students aware aboutthe pendency of the matter and stating that their admissions wouldbe subject to the result of pending litigation, not a sufficientinsulation – Provisional admission and making them subject to theFresult of the petition may entail tremendous adverse consequencesand prejudice to students – Thus, the interim order passed by theHigh Court set aside.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: In the face of repeated failures on part of theGRespondent College to remove the deficiencies, no permissionto make admissions for the current academic session could havebeen granted unless and until on physical verification everythingwas found to be in order. A condition such as making studentsaware about the pendency of the matter and stating that their H

admissions would be subject to the result of pending litigation, isnot a sufficient insulation. There have been cases where aftermaking such provisional admissions the Colleges have beendenied permission upon physical verification. Questions thencome up as to what is the status of such students and how besttheir interest can be protected. Theoretically, in terms ofconditions of Essentiality Certificate the concerned StateGovernment is obliged to take care of interest of such students.But the harsh reality is such students cannot be accommodatedbecause in normal circumstances all the seats in every MedicalCollege are filled up. It then becomes a case of impossibility ofaccommodating such students in any existing College. The entireexercise may thus result in great hardship and wastage ofacademic years of the concerned students. It is for this reasonthat while granting any interim relief very cautious approach needsto be adopted. It may be possible to expedite the process ofphysical verification in a given case but to allow provisionaladmissions and make them subject to the result of the petitionmay entail tremendous adverse consequences and prejudice tostudents. Thus, the High Court was not justified in passing interimdirections and permitting the College to go ahead with provisionaladmissions for the Academic Session. The interim order is setaside. [Paras 12, 14][190-F-H; 191-A-B; 194-B]

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 and another (2012) 5 SCC 628 : [2012] 1 SCR136; Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute ofMedical Sciences (KIMS) and ors. (2016) 11 SCC 530: [2016] 4 SCR 403; Dental Council of India v. DrHedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal Hingoli andOthers (2017) 13 SCC 115 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

ACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6001of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.05.2018 of the High Courtof Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No.13366 of 2018.

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

Govind Goel, Ankit Goel, Alok Kumar Dwivedi, R.Balasubramanium, Sachin Sharma, Arvind K. Sharma, Advs. for theRespondents.

CThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal questions the correctness of interim order dated29.05.2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CivilWrit Petition No.13366 of 2018 and thereby permitting the RespondentDMedical College to go ahead with admissions to first MBBS Course forthe Academic Session 2018-19.

3. Shanti Devi Charitable Trust made an application forestablishment of a new Medical College in the name and style of NCMedical College and Hospital, Panipat for the Academic Sessions 2016-E17. An assessment was accordingly undertaken by the assessorsappointed by Medical Council of India (MCI, for short) who found asmany as 25 deficiencies. By its letter dated 30.12.2015, MCIrecommended to the Central Government not to issue letter of permissionfor establishment of said college for the Academic Year 2016-17. InFcompliance verification carried out by MCI on 01.04.2016 the deficiencieswere still found to be existing and as such MCI vide letter dated14.05.2016 again recommended disapproval of the scheme for theAcademic Year 2016-17.

4. The Central Government accepted such negativeGrecommendation and disapproved the scheme so proposed. However,the Supreme Court mandated Oversight Committee vide letter dated11.08.2016 approved the scheme and as such admissions to 1[st] MBBSCourse for the Academic Year 2016-17 with intake of 150 seats couldbe made by the Respondent College. Since such approval was subject H

to certain conditions, a further verification was undertaken by MCI on7/8.11.2016 to assess whether those conditions were complied with ornot. This assessment was again considered by the Executive Committeeof MCI and in its noting dated 22.12.2016, the deficiencies were stillfound to be persisting. MCI by its letter dated 26.12.2016 informed theCentral Government that since the Respondent College had failed toabide by the undertaking, it be debarred from admitting students for twoacademic sessions namely 2017-18 and 2018-19 and the bank guaranteebe encashed. The Central Government approved the report submittedby MCI. The matter was again placed before the Supreme Courtmandated Oversight Committee which directed that a further opportunitybe given to the Respondent College and an assessment be made whetherthe Respondent College had complied with the conditions. The matterwas again considered and the Central Government accepted therecommendations of MCI, and by its order dated 09.06.2017 debarredthe Respondent College from admitting students for two years namely2017-18 and 2018-19 and authorized MCI to encash the bank guaranteeof Rs.2 crores.

5. The aforesaid order dated 09.06.2017 was questioned in thisCourt by way of Writ Petition No.432 of 2017 and by its order dated01.08.2017 this Court directed the Central Government to re-considerthe case and pass a reasoned order. Pursuant thereto, the CentralGovernment by its reasoned order dated 10.08.2017 reiterated its earlierdecision dated 09.06.2017. When aforesaid Writ Petition No.423 of2017 was again listed on 09.10.2017, MCI was directed to conductphysical inspection for grant of permission for the Academic Session2018-2019 as per MCI regulations. In compliance, the physicalassessment was carried out by the assessors of MCI on 17/18.11.2017and the report found various deficiencies of Infrastructure, TeachingFaculty, Clinical Material and other physical facilities. Executive Councilof MCI therefore by its decision dated 14.12.2017 decided to recommendto the Central Government not to grant renewal permission for admittingstudents for the academic year 2018-2019. Said writ petition No.432 of2017 was thereafter disposed of by this Court on 17.01.2018 directingMCI to take proper decision on or before 31.03.2018.

6. It appears that according to the Respondent College it hadcomplied with and removed the deficiencies. The Central Governmenttherefore directed MCI to review the case. The papers and documents AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Asubmitted by the Respondent College were duly considered and on thestrength of those documents themselves, it was found that deficiencies3, 6 and 7 were still not rectified. This assessment was made by theSub-Committee of MCI without inspection and purely on the strength ofdocumentation submitted by the respondent. The Respondent Collegewas therefore called upon vide letter dated 07.03.2018 to submitBsatisfactory compliance in respect of said deficiencies at Serial Nos.3, 6and 7. The Respondent College by its letter dated 24.03.2018 claimedto have rectified all the deficiencies and accordingly a complianceverification was carried out by the assessors of MCI on 13.04.2018.This verification found that the deficiencies continued to persist andCtherefore the Executive Committee in its Meeting held on 26.04.2018decided to recommend to the Central Government not to grant renewalof permission for admitting students for the academic year 2018-2019.This decision was squarely put in challenge by filing writ petition No.400of 2018 in this Court which was dismissed on 01.05.2018 leaving allquestions open.D

7. On 07.05.2018 and 09.05.2018 the Respondent Collegerequested the Central Government to grant personal hearing before anyadverse order could be passed. The request was however declined bythe Central Government on 17.05.2018, as the Respondent College wasalready granted personal hearing in the matter. The respondent beingEaggrieved, challenged the decision dated 17.05.2018 by filing civil writpetition No.13366 of 2018 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

8. By its order dated 29.05.2018, the High Court directed MCI toundertake another inspection within two weeks and permitted theRespondent College to go ahead with provisional admissions for theFacademic session 2018-2019. One of the conditions stipulated by theHigh Court was that all the students would be put to notice while grantingadmission about the pendency of the writ petition. The High Court wasof the view that only three deficiencies were found to be persisting byMCI on 07.03.2018 and as such the report of the Verification InspectionGundertaken on 13.04.2018 was not justified. The observations of theHigh Court in that behalf were as under:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that onceon 07.03.2018 the deficiencies had been narrowed down to only 3which he has since removed, the report by the VerificationHCommittee of Inspection on 13.04.2018 can not be said to be justified for the simple reason that barely a month back theythemselves on an Inspection in March, 2018 established only 3deficiencies.”

9. This direction of allowing the Respondent College to go aheadwith admissions to first MBBS course for the academic session 2018-2019 has been challenged in the present matter by MCI. Appearing forthe Appellant, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor Generalsubmitted that the compliance verification undertaken on 07.03.2018 waspurely on the basis of documentation submitted by the Respondent Collegeand there was no physical verification whether the assertions made bythe respondent about alleged compliance were correct or not. In hissubmission the actual physical verification was undertaken on 13.04.2018where such assertions were found to be completely unsustainable. Assuch, the report of the Verification Committee on 13.04.2018 was fullyjustified and there was no reason for the High Court to entertain anyprayer for any interim direction. In any case according to him the lawlaid down by this Court is very clear that admissions ought not to beallowed to be effected on the strength of interim directions.

Mr. Govind Goel, learned Advocate appearing for the RespondentCollege sought to support the order passed by the High Court. In hissubmission several safeguards were put by the High Court while passingsuch interim directions.

10. On 14.06.2018 this matter was heard alongwith another matterwhere similar interim order was passed by the High Court of Rajasthan.Both the matters were reserved for judgment and following order waspassed:- “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, noadmissions have been effected despite the interim orders passedby the High Court in their favour. The statement is taken on record.

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

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

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

11. The facts on record disclose:-

a) Even at the initial stage, the physical inspection was undertakentwice and since the deficiencies were found, the scheme was notBapproved by MCI and the Central Government. It was only because ofthe approval accorded by the Supreme Court mandated OversightCommittee that the Respondent College was permitted to makeadmissions for the academic year 2016-2017.

b) The conditions subject to which said approval was accordedCwere not found to have been complied and the deficiencies were foundto be persisting. The matter was considered twice by MCI and the CentralGovernment and it was decided to debar the Respondent College fortwo years.

c) The physical verification in compliance of the order of thisDCourt again found deficiencies. The matter was again considered butresulted in negative recommendation.

d) The assertion that there had been compliance was, on thestrength of documentation itself, found to be inaccurate and wanting inthree areas. The subsequent inspection found such assertion completelyEinaccurate and therefore resulted in negative recommendation.

e) While the contest was pending at the level of the CentralGovernment, the present Writ Petition was filed in which the interimdirection has been issued.

12. In the face of repeated failures on part of the RespondentFCollege to remove the deficiencies, no permission to make admissionsfor the current academic session could have been granted unless anduntil on physical verification everything was found to be in order. Acondition such as making students aware about the pendency of thematter and stating that their admissions would be subject to the result ofGpending litigation, is not a sufficient insulation. We have repeatedly seencases where after making such provisional admissions the Colleges havebeen denied permission upon physical verification. Questions then comeup as to what is the status of such students and how best their interestcan be protected. Theoretically, in terms of conditions of EssentialityCertificate the concerned State Government is obliged to take care ofH

interest of such students. But the harsh reality is such students cannotbe accommodated because in normal circumstances all the seats in everyMedical College are filled up. It then becomes a case of impossibility ofaccommodating such students in any existing College. The entire exercisemay thus result in great hardship and wastage of academic years of theconcerned students. It is for this reason that while granting any interimrelief very cautious approach needs to be adopted. It may be possible toexpedite the process of physical verification in a given case but to allowprovisional admissions and make them subject to the result of the petitionmay entail tremendous adverse consequences and prejudice to students.

13. At this juncture we may advert to certain decisions of thisCourt where the issues regarding propriety and correctness of similarsuch interim order were put in question.

A. In Medical Council of India v. Rajiv Gandhi University ofHealth Sciences and others[1], it was observed :- :

“14. In the normal circumstances, the High Court ought not toissue an interim order when for the earlier year itself permissionhad not been granted by the Council. Indeed, by grant of suchinterim orders students who have been admitted in such institutionswould be put to serious jeopardy, apart from the fact whethersuch institutions could run the medical college without followingthe law. Therefore, we make it clear that the High Court oughtnot to grant such interim orders in any of the cases where theCouncil has not granted permission in terms of Section 10-A ofthe Medical Council Act. If interim orders are granted to thoseinstitutions which have been established without fulfilling theprescribed conditions to admit students, it will lead to seriousjeopardy to the students admitted in these institutions.”

B. In Medical Council of India v. JSS Medical College andanother[2], this Court stated :- “…..12. Without adverting to the aforesaid issues and many otherissues which may arise for determination, the High Court, in ouropinion, erred in permitting increase in seats by an interim order.In normal circumstances the High Court should not issue interimorder granting permission for increase of the seats. The High 1 (2004) 6 SCC 76

2 (2012) 5 SCC 628

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

ACourt ought to realise that granting such permission by an interimorder has a cascading effect. By virtue of such order studentsare admitted as in the present case and though many of them hadtaken the risk knowingly but few may be ignorant. In most ofsuch cases when finally the issue is decided against the Collegethe welfare and plight of the students are ultimately projected toBarouse sympathy of the Court. It results in a very awkward anddifficult situation. If on ultimate analysis it is found that the College’sclaim for increase of seats is untenable, in such an event theadmission of students with reference to the increased seats shallbe illegal. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of theCrule of law than a direction by the Court to allow continuance ofsuch students, whose admissions is found illegal in the ultimateanalysis.

13. This Court is entrusted with the task to administer law anduphold its majesty. Courts cannot by its fiat increase the seats, aDtask entrusted to the Board of Governors and that too by interimorder ….”

C. The observations in Medical Council of India v. KalingaInstitute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) and others[3], were “27. That apart, we are of the opinion that the High Court oughtto have been more circumspect in directing the admission ofEstudents by its order dated 25-9-2015[4]. There was no need forthe High Court to rush into an area that MCI feared to tread.Granting admission to students in an educational institution whenthere is a serious doubt whether admission should at all be grantedis not a matter to be taken lightly. First of all the career of aFstudent is involved — what would a student do if his admission isfound to be illegal or is quashed? Is it not a huge waste of time forhim or her? Is it enough to say that the student will not claim anyequity in his or her favour? Is it enough for student to be told thathis or her admission is subject to the outcome of a pending litigation?These are all questions that arise and for which there is no easyGanswer. Generally speaking, it is better to err on the side of cautionand deny admission to a student rather than have the sword ofDamocles hanging over him or her. There would at least be somecertainty.

3 (2016) 11 SCC 530 4 Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences v. Unions of India, WP (C) No.15685 of 2015,Horder dated 25.09.2015 (ori).

28. Whichever way the matter is looked at, we find no justificationfor the orders passed by the High Court, particularly the orderdated 25-9-2015 and order dated 4-3-2016[5].”

D. Further, in Dental Council of India v. Dr Hedgewar SmrutiRugna Seva Mandal Hingoli and Others[6], it was observed :-

“22. From the aforesaid authorities, it is perspicuous that thecourt should not pass such interim orders in the matters ofadmission, more so, when the institution had not been accordedapproval. Such kind of interim orders are likely to cause chaos,anarchy and uncertainty. And, there is no reason for creating suchsituations. There is no justification or requirement. The High Courtmay feel that while exercising power under Article 226 of theConstitution, it can pass such orders with certain qualifiers as hasbeen done by the impugned order, but it really does not save thesituation. It is because an institution which has not been givenapproval for the course, gets a premium. That apart, by virtue ofinterim order, the Court grants approval in a way which is thesubject-matter of final adjudication before it. The anxiety of thestudents to get admission reigns supreme as they feel that theinstitution is granting admission on the basis of an order passed bythe High Court. The institution might be directed to inform thestudents that the matter is sub judice, but the career orientedstudents get into the college with the hope and aspiration that inthe ultimate eventuate everything shall be correct for them andthey will be saved. It can be thought of from another perspective,that is, the students had deliberately got into such a situation. Butit is seemly to note that it is the institution that had approached theHigh Court and sought a relief of the present nature. By sayingthat the institution may give admission at its own risk invites furtherchaotic and unfortunate situations.

23. The High Court has to realise the nature of the lis or thecontroversy. It is quite different. It is not a construction which isbuilt at the risk of a plaintiff or the defendant which can bedemolished or redeemed by grant of compensation. It is a situationwhere the order has the potentiality to play with the career and 5 Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences v. Union of India, 2016 SCC Online Ori 134

6 (2017) 13 SCC 115

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

[2018] 5 S.C.R.

Alife of young peoples. One may say, “… life is a foreign language;all mispronounce it”, but it has to be borne in mind that artificial orcontrived accident is not the goal of life.

…….”

14. In the backdrop of the law laid down by this Court, the HighBCourt was not justified in passing interim directions and permitting theRespondent College to go ahead with provisional admissions for theAcademic Session 2018-19. We, therefore, allow this appeal and setaside the order dated 29.05.2018 passed by the High Court.

15. We have stated the facts only by way of pure narration ofCevents. Since the matter is pending in the High Court we make it clearthat we have not and shall not be taken to have dealt with factualcontroversy in any manner and the matter shall be considered purely onmerits in the pending writ petition. The order under appeal directed thatthe matter be listed on 11.07.2018. If the case is made out, the HighDCourt may expedite the matter and hear it finally.

16. With these observations the present appeal is allowed and theorder under appeal is set aside without any order as to costs.

Nidhi JainE

Appeal allowed.

F

G

H