Madras High Court
Chennai Medical College & Hospital & vs Government Of India on 12 September, 2014
Author: K.K.Sasidharan
Bench: K.K.Sasidharan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.09.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN
W.P.(MD)Nos.13117 of 2014
and 13130 of 2014
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1,2,3,4 and 2 of 2014
W.P.(MD)No.13117/2014:
Chennai Medical College & Hospital &
Research Centre, Trichy,
Rep. by its Dean,
Irungalur, Manachanallur Taluk,
Trichy-621 105. : Petitioner
Vs.
1.Government of India,
Rep. by its under Secretary,
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department,
Nirman Bhavan,
New Delhi-110 011.
2.Medical Council of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Sector-8, Dwaraka,
New Delhi-110 077.
3.The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University,
69, Anna Salai, Guindy,
Chennai-600 032.
4.The Registrar,
The Tamil Nadu Medical Council,
No.914, Poonamallee High Road,
Arumbakkam, Chennai-600 106.
5.The Director of Medical Education,
Chennai-10. : Respondents
Prayer
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records of the first respondent in File No.U-12012/2014-ME(P-II) dated
15.07.2014 and the communication of the second respondent in File No.MCI-
No.34(41)(RG-9)/2013-Med./dated 19.03.2014 and quash the same and direct the
first respondent to grant permanent recognition for M.B.B.S.,Course in the
petitioner's college pursuant to its application dated 17.10.2013 for the
academic year 2014-15 and approval for admission of students for the 6th
Batch of students in the first year M.B.B.S. Course for the academic year
2014-15.
W.P.(MD)No.13130/2014:
1.V.Sriandaal
2.R.Prasanna Venkatesh
3.M.Nithya
4.Z.Thanveer Ahamed
5.R.Keerthana
6.S.Niveditha
7.M.Krishnaveni
8.A.C.Sharmila
9.S.Nivedhitha
10.D.Ponni
11.A.Nobel Teena
12.A.Alwin Surya
13.V.Ashish Kumar Singh
14.S.P.Shree Santhoshi
15.S.R.Veena
16.J.Rachel
17.R.Vinodha
18.J.Anto Venetia
19.L.E.Abhinaya
20.S.Abirami
21.S.Sathish
22.K.K.Sowbarnika
23.M.Santhiya Devi
24.P.Keerthana
25.P.M.Karthika Devi
26.S.Karthiga Priya
27.E.Susan Blossia
28.Sruthi Roopa, B.M.
29.M.Sangeetha
30.A.Kanmani
31.A.Evangeline
32.M.Dharini
33.S.Eniya
34.A.Shrividhya
35.Jenson Moses
36.P.Graceline Margarat Lydia
37.V.Anitha
38.Bharathi Prabakaran, N.S.
39.Balamurali, P.
40.S.Madhumitha
41.I.J.Nirmal Sujitha
42.S.R.Keerthana
43.G.Vinitha Kumari
44.Razeena Hafasal, A. : Petitioners
vs.
1.Government of India,
Rep. by its under Secretary,
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department,
Nirman Bhavan,
New Delhi-110 011.
2.Medical Council of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Sector-8, Dwaraka,
New Delhi-110 077.
3.The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University,
69, Anna Salai, Guindy,
Chennai-600 032.
4.The Registrar,
The Tamil Nadu Medical Council,
No.914, Poonamallee High Road,
Arumbakkam, Chennai-600 106.
5.Chennai Medical College & Hospital &
Research Centre, Trichy,
Rep. by its Dean,
Irungalur, Manachanallur Taluk,
Trichy-621 105. : Respondents
Prayer
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent
and the fourth respondent to treat the 2009 batch students studied in 5th
respondent college as a provisionally recognized batch and to grant
provisional registration certificate to complete the internship and permanent
registration certificate to all the petitioners in the M.B.B.S. Course.
W.P.(MD)No.13117 of 2014:
!For Petitioner : Mr.Rajeev Dhawan,
Senior Counsel
For M/s.B.Saraswati
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan,
Assistant Solicitor General of India
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.V.P.Raman
For Respondent No.3 : Mr.C.Karthick
For Respondents 4&5 : Mr.R.Anandharaj,
Government Advocate
W.P.(MD)No.13130 of 2014:
For Petitioner : Mr.V.T.Gopalan,
Senior Counsel
For Mr.I.Velpradeep
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan,
Assistant Solicitor General of India
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.V.P.Raman
For Respondent No.3 : Mr.C.Karthick
For Respondent No.4 : Mr.R.Anandharaj,
Government Advocate
For Respondent No.5 : Mrs.B.Saraswati
:COMMON ORDER
The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.13117 of 2014 is at the instance of Chennai Medical College & Hospital & Research Centre, stated to be the Off Campus of SRM University, based at Chennai. The Medical College is primarily aggrieved by the order dated 15 July, 2014, whereby and wherender the Government of India was pleased to disapprove the scheme of recognition of M.B.B.S. course for the academic session 2014-2015.
2. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.13130 of 2014 is at the instance of the students of 2009-2010 batch of Chennai Medical College & Hospital & Research Centre, Tiruchirappalli and the prayer is to direct the Medical Council of India and the Registrar, Tamil Nadu Medical Council to treat them as provisionally recognized batch and to grant them provisional registration certificate to complete the internship and permanent registration certificate, taking into account their completion of M.B.B.S. course in a recognized institution.
3. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.13130 of 2014, though filed in the name of students, is essentially a Writ Petition filed by the Management and the same is evident from the nature of pleadings. Therefore, substantial Writ Petition which should be considered is the one that was filed by the Management.
W.P.(MD)No.13117 of 2014:
4. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the College') started functioning from the academic year 2008-2009. The College is affiliated to Dr.M.G.R. Medical University. The College submitted an application for admission of students to the sixth year batch for the academic year 2014-2015 and for permanent recognition on 17 October, 2013. The application was forwarded by the Government of India to the Medical Council of India on 21 November, 2013 for the purpose of assessment of physical and other infrastructure facilities including teaching facilities available for the purpose of recognition/approval for admission of 150 seats for the academic year 2014-2015 and for award of M.B.B.S. Degree. The inspecting team deputed by the Medical Council of India conducted inspection on 18 February, 2014 and 19 February, 2014. The assessment report was submitted to the Government of India. In the said report, the Executive Committee of Medical Council of India recommended to the Central Government not to grant recognition/approval to the College for the academic year 2014- 2015.
5. The College, on receipt of the letter dated 19 March, 2014 and the assessment form taken from the website of Medical Council of India, submitted its explanation on 23 March, 2014. The explanation in the nature of a compliance report submitted by the College to the first respondent was forwarded to the second respondent, by its forwarding letter dated 31 March, 2014. The Medical Council of India failed to act in accordance with the compliance report. The College was kept in darkness. Finally, the College came to know from the impugned order dated 15 July, 2014 that approval was not given for fresh admission and permanent recognition on completion of 4 1/2 years of M.B.B.S. Course.
6. The order dated 15 July, 2014 rejecting the application for approval and the earlier proceedings of the Medical Council of India dated 19 March, 2014, recommending to the Government of India not to grant approval are challenged on the following grounds:
(i) The first respondent rejected the Scheme in gross violation of the provisions of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The order is bad on account of violation of principles of natural justice.
(ii) The proviso to Section 10-A(4) provides that no Scheme shall be disapproved by the Central Government except after giving the person or college concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Even though the College submitted a compliance report, there was no follow-up action taken by the Medical Council of India either to inspect the institution once again or to hear the College, before passing any adverse order.
(iii) The Medical Council of India was obliged to communicate the deficiencies to the College concerned and to call for a compliance report.
The College was not called upon to submit a compliance report. Even then, the College submitted such a report. However, the said compliance report was disregarded by the Medical Council of India and a negative report was submitted to the Central Government, which is bad in law.
(iv) The College is entitled to permanent recognition on account of the successful completion of five years of M.B.B.S. Course. The defects pointed out by the second respondent does not warrant disapproval of the Scheme. The first and second respondents waited till 15 July, 2014, to take a decision in the matter and thereby, denied the College of its right to admit students for the year 2014-2015.
W.P.(MD)No.13130 of 2014:
7. The students of the institution have also taken up similar contentions as found in W.P.(MD)No.13117 of 2014. The grounds are one and the same and as such, there is no need for narrating the background facts once again.
THE STAND TAKEN BY THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA:
8. The Medical Council of India filed a counter-affidavit in W.P.(MD)No.13117 of 2014. The Medical Council of India, in its counter- affidavit, contended that the deficiencies pointed out by the inspecting team are all fundamental in nature and as such, a decision was taken not to approve the Scheme submitted by the College.
SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS:
9. Thiru.Rajeev Dhawan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.13117 of 2014 made the following submissions:
(i) The impugned recommendation given by the Medical Council of India and the subsequent order passed by the Central Government disapproving the Scheme are bad in law, as the same were made without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
(ii) The College submitted a Scheme for approval. The proviso to Section 10-A(4) contemplates an opportunity of hearing to the applicant. This is nothing but following the principles of natural justice. The College was not given any notice before passing the impugned orders and as such, the report submitted by the Medical Council of India and the final order passed by the Central Government are liable to be quashed.
(iii) The assessment report contains certain defects. Those defects are all minor in nature. The College was established long back and given the status of the institution, opportunity should have been given to rectify the defects.
(iv) The defects pointed out by the inspecting team, like the inpatient occupancy and the OPD attendance, are all matters, which are routine in any hospital and as such, approval cannot be rejected on that ground.
(v) The Central Government waited till the cut off date to reject the application submitted by the College. Since the Medical Council of India and the Central Government failed to follow the mandatory provisions of law, it is open to this Court to interfere with the order, even after the cut off date prescribed for issuance of approval viz., 15 July, 2014.
10. Thiru.V.T.Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.13130 of 2014, made the following submissions:
(i) The students have completed the course. During the currency of their study, there was valid approval and as such, the students are entitled for registration and for provisional registration certificate to complete the internship and for issuance of permanent registration certificate.
(ii) The cut off date was fixed without any basis. The cut off date has nothing to do with the completion of admission. This Court is having every right and jurisdiction to interfere in the illegal order and remit the matter to the Central Government for fresh consideration.
11. Thiru.V.P.Raman, learned Standing Counsel for the Medical Council of India contended that the inspecting team found various deficiencies which goes to the root of the matter and that was the reason for recommending to the Central Government not to approve the Scheme. According to the learned Standing Counsel, Writ Petition challenging the recommendation given by the Medical Council of India, is not maintainable. It is his further contention that the time frame prescribed by the Medical Council of India and approved by the Supreme Court would apply to everybody and as such, the only remedy is to submit a fresh Scheme for the next academic year.
12. Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India contended that the Government, having found that the Medical Council of India inspection revealed certain fundamental deficiencies, rightly rejected the application for approval.
13. Thiru.Rajeev Dhawan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the College placed reliance on the following decisions:
(i) Al-Karim Educational Trust v. State of Bihar [1996(8) SCC 330].
(ii) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978(1) SCC 248].
(iii) Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [1978(1) SCC 405].
(iv) Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society v. Union of India [1992(4) SCC 477].
(v) Selvi Travels v. Union of India [AIR 1993 Madras 216].
(vi) A.K.Kraipak v. Union of India [1969(2) SCC 262].
14. Thiru.V.T.Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the students placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contention that in case the Supreme Court failed to consider certain vital aspects, while fixing the cut off date and the decision caused prejudice to a party, it would give jurisdiction even to the High Court to pass appropriate orders on merits to do complete justice:
(i) R.B.Shreeram Durga Prasad v. Settlement Commission [1989(1) SCC 628].
(ii) Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Pramod Gupta [2003(3) SCC 272].
(iii) Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty [2007(7) SCC 394]
(iv) Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania [2010(9) SCC 437]
15. Thiru.V.P.Raman, learned Standing Counsel for Medical Council of India cited the following judgments:
(i) Order dated 13 August, 2014 in W.P.No.19253 of 2014 [Sri Muthukumaran Educational Trust vs. Secretary to Government and others].
(ii) Order dated 13 August, 2014 in W.P.No.19453 of 2014 [Tagore Medical College and Hospital vs. Union of India and another].
(iii) Order dated 13 August, 2014 in W.P.No.19131 of 2014 [Madha Medical College and Research Institute vs. The Union of India and another].
DISCUSSION:
16. The College is stated to be the Off Campus Centre of SRM University. The College started functioning from the academic year 2008-2009. The College submitted a Scheme for approval for the academic year 2014-2015. The application was given well within the time prescribed by the Medical Council of India and duly approved by the Supreme Court. The Medical Council of India, on receipt of the Scheme, through the Government of India, conducted statutory inspection by deputing a team. The team reported the following deficiencies:
"1. OPD attendance on the day of assessment was 960 against the requirement of 1200.
2. Bed occupancy was 60% on the day of assessment.
3. Total X-rays done are only 99 which is inadequate.
4. Number of deliveries is less (<1/day).
5. Occupancy in RICU is 60% & in PICU & NICU is 20%.
6. In CSSD, bowl sterilizer & instrument washing machine are not available.
7. RHTC is taken on lease. No delivery or Copper T insertion records or family planning service records are available at RHTC immunization services are not provided.
8. UHC is taken on lease. No delivery or Copper T insertion records or family planning service records are available at UHC. Immunization services are not provided.
9. Department wise attendance registers are not maintained properly.
10. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the inspection report."
17. The College, on receipt of a copy of the assessment report, submitted a compliance report on 23 March, 2014. It is the grievance of the College that before recommending to the Central Government to disapprove the Scheme, the Medical Council of India failed to give them an opportunity either to submit a detailed compliance report or a hearing to substantiate their contention, as provided under the proviso to Section 10-A(4) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
18. The core question that arises for consideration is as to whether the fundamental defects noticed by the inspecting team would require an opportunity to the College to rectify the defects.
19. The College was expected to maintain the OPD attendance at 1200. Similarly, there is a prescribed bed occupancy which should be maintained by the hospital. The team inspected the institution on 18th and 19th February, 2014. The team found that the OPD attendance on the day of assessment was 960 as against the statutory requirement of 1200. Similarly, the bed occupancy was 60% on the day of assessment. These two deficiencies are found to be major in nature. It is true that proviso to Section 10-A(4) provides for an opportunity of hearing before disapproving the Scheme by the Central Government. Such an opportunity is contemplated only for the purpose of rectifying the mistake. The deficiencies noted by the inspecting team and more particularly, deficiencies 1 and 2 are substantial in nature and it cannot be rectified by giving an opportunity. So long as it is clear that the attendance on the day was only 960 as against the statutory requirement of 1200 and bed occupancy was only 60% on the day of assessment, the College cannot be heard to say that in case opportunity is given, they would rectify the deficiencies.
20. The College in question is a Medical College. The students should be taught not only in theory. They should also be given practical training. The requirement regarding prescribed OPD attendance and bed occupancy were all made with a laudable purpose. The students should be in a position to examine patients as part of their curriculum.
21. The College, in its compliance report, stated that patients were shifted to the examination hall. Similarly, patients were sent for investigation, like X-ray. Nothing prevented the Dean or representatives of the Management to inform the inspecting team on the day of inspection that there were sufficient patients on the day of inspection. In fact, the inspection continued for two days. It is not the case of the College that patients, who were sent for investigation, failed to return to the hospital till the examiners completed the assessment and left the College. The assessment continued for two days and at no point of time, the authorities informed the inspecting team that patients have gone for medical examination and they would return shortly and as such, once again, assessment should be made with regard to OPD attendance and bed occupancy. The compliance report, therefore, was cooked up only for the purpose of showing that the assessment report was not factually correct.
22. The issue as to whether the institution should be given an opportunity to rectify the defects, in case the assessing team found certain fundamental deficiencies, came up for consideration before the Principal Bench in Sri Muthukumaran Educational Trust vs. Secretary to Government and others (order dated 13 August, 2014 in W.P.No.19253 of 2014). The learned Judge was of the view that major deficiencies could not have been rectified and as such, it cannot be said that by not giving personal hearing, the Central Government violated the mandatory provisions of law. Paragraph 52 of the order reads thus:
52. But the above contention does not appeal to me. The material on the basis of which the Medical Council of India decided to recommend refusal, are sufficient for the Central Government to arrive at the decision that they have done in this case. The petitioner was granted an opportunity of personal hearing. Though the last part of sub-section (4) of Section 10A enables the Central Government to give a chance to the institution to rectify the defect, it is not to be understood as mandatory for the same academic year especially when the time schedule is tight. First, there is no room for such interpretation in view of the strict time schedule which the respondents are legally obliged to adhere. Second, some of the deficiencies in this case could not have been rectified at all in this academic year, before the time schedule fixed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now claim that an opportunity could have been granted to them to rectify the defect."
23. The Management was well aware that the last date of grant of approval was on 15th of July, 2014. In case there was delay, nothing prevented the College from taking up the matter with the Central Government or Medical Council of India. Similarly, the College could have approached the Court for directing the authorities to take an early decision in the matter. The College is part of a deemed University running several similar colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu and elsewhere. The College waited indefinitely without taking any action. The College now wanted the impugned orders to be quashed and a direction to be issued to the respondents to consider the matter afresh, notwithstanding the time schedule.
DECISIONS:
24. The Supreme Court in Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhatishgarh [2012 (5) Scale 328] very clearly held that all concerned with medical education are mandatorily required to implement the time schedule in its true spirit and substance. The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
"(i) The commencement of new courses or increases in seats of existing courses of MBBS/BDS are to be approved/recognised by the Government of India by 15th July of each calendar year for the relevant academic sessions of that year.
(ii) The Medical Council of India shall, immediately thereafter, issue appropriate directions and ensure the implementation and commencement of admission process within one week thereafter.
(iii) After 15th July of each year, neither the Union of India nor the Medical or Dental Council of India shall issue any recognition or approval for the current academic year. If any such approval is granted after 15th July of any year, it shall only be operative for the next academic year and not in the current academic year. Once the sanction/approval is granted on or before 15th July of the relevant year, the name of that college and all seats shall be included in both the first and the second counseling, in accordance with the Rules.
(iv) Any medical or dental college, or seats thereof, to which the recognition/approval is issued subsequent to 15th July of the respective year shall not be included in the counseling to be conducted by the concerned authority and that college would have no right to make admissions in the current academic year against such seats.
(v) The admission to the medical or dental colleges shall be granted only through the respective entrance tests conducted by the competitive authority in the State or the body of the private colleges. These two are the methods of selection and grant of admission to these courses. However, where there is a single Board conducting the state examination and there is a single medical college, then in terms of clause 5.1 of the Medical Council of India Eligibility Certificate Regulations, 2002 the admission can be given on the basis of 10+2 exam marks, strictly in order of merit.
(vi) All admissions through any of the stated selection processes have to be effected only after due publicity and in consonance with the directions issued by this Court. We vehemently deprecate the practice of giving admissions on 30th September of the academic year. In fact, that is the date by which, in exceptional circumstances, a candidate duly selected as per the prescribed selection process is to join the academic course of MBBS/BDS.
Under the directions of this Court, second counseling should be the final counseling, as this Court has already held in the case of Ms.Neelu Arora & Anr. v. UOI & Ors. [(2003) 3 SCC 366] and third counseling is not contemplated or permitted under the entire process of selection/grant of admission to these professional courses.
(vii) If any seats remain vacant or are surrendered from All India Quota, they should positively be allotted and admission granted strictly as per the merit by 15th September of the relevant year and not by holding an extended counseling. The remaining time will be limited to the filling up of the vacant seats resulting from exceptional circumstances or surrender of seats. All candidates should join the academic courses by 30th September of the academic year.
(viii) No college may grant admissions without duly advertising the vacancies available and by publicizing the same through the internet, newspaper, on the notice board of the respective feeder schools and colleges, etc. Every effort has to be made by all concerned to ensure that the admissions are given on merit and after due publicity and not in a manner which is ex-facie arbitrary and casts the shadow of favouritism.
(ix) The admissions to all government colleges have to be on merit obtained in the entrance examination conducted by the nominated authority, while in the case of private colleges, the colleges should choose their opinion by 30th April of the relevant year, as to whether they wish to grant admission on the basis of the merit obtained in the test conducted by the nominated State authority or they wish to follow the merit list/rank obtained by the candidates in the competitive examination collectively held by the nominated agency for the private colleges. The option exercised by 30th April shall not be subject to change. This choice should also be given by the colleges which are anticipating grant of recognition, in compliance with the date specified in these directions."
25. The Supreme Court in Priya Gupta's case, while directing all the parties to comply with the directions, made it clear that any default would invite penal actions. The consequential directions read thus:
"(a) Every body, officer or authority who disobeys or avoids or fails to strictly comply with these directions stricto sensu shall be liable for action under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Liberty is granted to any interested party to take out the contempt proceedings before the High Court having jurisdiction over such Institution/State, etc.
(b) The person, member or authority found responsible for any violation shall be departmentally proceeded against and punished in accordance with the Rules. We make it clear that violation of these directions or overreaching them by any process shall tantamount to indiscipline, insubordination, misconduct and being unworthy of becoming a public servant.
(c) Such defaulting authority, member or body shall also be liable for action by and personal liability to third parties who might have suffered losses as a result of such default.
(d) There shall be due channelization of selection and admission process with full co-operation and coordination between the Government of India, State Government, Universities, Medical Council of India or Dental Council of India and the colleges concerned. They shall act in tandem and strictly as per the prescribed schedule. In other words, there should be complete harmonisation with a view to form a uniform pattern for concerted action, according to the framed scheme, schedule for admission and regulations framed in this behalf.
(e) The college which grants admission for the current academic year, where its recognition/approval is granted subsequent to 15th July of the current academic year, shall be liable for withdrawal of recognition/approval on this ground, in addition to being liable to indemnify such students who are denied admission or who are wrongfully given admission in the college.
(f) Upon the expiry of one week after holding of the second counseling, the unfilled seats from all quotas shall be deemed to have been surrendered in favour of the respective States and shall be filled thereafter strictly on the basis of merit obtained in the competitive entrance test.
(g) It shall be mandatory on the part of each college and University to inform the State and the Central Government/competent authority of the seats which are lying vacant after each counseling and they shall furnish the complete details, list of seats filled and vacant in the respective states, immediately after each counseling.
(h) No college shall fill up its seats in any other manner."
26. The Supreme Court in Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital & Dental College vs. U.O.I. [2013(10) Scale 608] found that the Dental Council of India failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 10 of the Dental Council of India Act, 1948 and the same caused prejudice to the institution. Even then, the Supreme Court refused to give relief to the petitioner therein for the academic session 2013-2014 on account of the time schedule prescribed for grant of approval and admission. The following paragraphs would make the position clear:
"28. Notwithstanding the aforesaid discussion clarifying the position in law on this aspect which goes in favour of the petitioner, other circumstances appearing in this case desist us from giving the relief to the petitioner that is claimed by it in so far academic session 2013-2014 is concerned. The effect of the aforesaid view taken by us would be to set aside the orders dated 30th March, 2013 passed by the Central Government rejecting the request of renewal. However, from that it would not automatically follow that direction can be issued to the Central Government to accord such a permission. This Court could only remit the case to the Central Government to pass appropriate orders after giving hearing to the petitioner. However, it is too late for the Central Government to re-examine the issue for the current academic session. Fact remains that as per the report of the DCI, there are deficiencies.
............................................................................. ............................................
29. ...................................................... Thus, DCI reported that despite repeated inspections, the deficiencies have been found. In respect of Ortho scheme as well similar deficiencies are pointed out. Therefore, this Court cannot issue any mandamus straightaway and the petitioner is required to give its satisfactory explanation qua the aforesaid deficiencies to the Central Government. However, the time has run out in so far current year is concerned. The session in respect of PG streams started on 15th July, 2013. The necessary admissions have already been given to the students in different colleges. On remitting the matter, some time will have to be given to the Central Government as well for taking a fresh decision. If that is also taken into account, by the time decision is taken, the present academic session would have progressed significantly. This Court in number of cases highlighted the importance of the cut off date for starting of courses impressing upon that such deadline should not be extended. (See: Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 7 SCC 433 and Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya vs. State of U.P. (2013) 2 SCC 617).
30. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that in so far as the academic session 2013-14 is concerned, it is not possible to put the clock back. Thus, while setting aside the impugned orders and remitting the case back to the Central Government for taking fresh decision, we make it clear that it would not relate to the academic session 2013-14. However, the case can be considered for renewal of permission for the next academic session on the basis of existing materials. For this, hearing should be given to the petitioner to demonstrate that they have overcome the deficiencies and they no longer exist. If the Central Government is satisfied on these aspects, it may grant renewal permission for the next academic session 2014-15. In case the renewal of permission is rejected, the petitioner will have to undergo the process of seeking fresh permission for next academic session i.e. 2014- 15 by submitting fresh scheme/proposal to the DCI for that year, as per the procedure prescribed in the Act & Regulations."
27. The Supreme Court in Educare Charitable Trust vs. U.O.I. [2013(11) Scale 569] refused to accede to the request of the petitioner therein to change the time schedule for making admission.
28. Since the Supreme Court in Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhatishgarh [2012 (5) Scale 328] made it very clear that after 15th July of each year, neither the Union of India nor the Medical Council shall issue any recognition or approval for the current academic year and in view of the latest order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 31 July, 2014 in Priya Gupta, rejecting the request made by the Central Government for extension of time, I do not consider it necessary to deal with the judgments relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for petitioners or respondents.
29. The learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent has taken up a contention that a Writ Petition challenging the recommendation given by the Medical Council of India is not maintainable. I am not in a position to accept the said contention. The basis for taking a decision by the Central Government is the report submitted by the Medical Council of India. The recommendation given by the Medical Council of India not to approve the Scheme was accepted by the Central Government, resulting in passing the impugned order, disapproving the Scheme. The recommendation made by the Medical Council of India would involve civil consequences to the College. The Central Government has no right to sit in appeal over the decision taken by the Medical Council of India. Therefore, I am of the view that Writ Petition is maintainable against the proceedings of the Medical Council of India, recommending to the Central Government not to approve the Scheme.
30. The Central Government made it very clear that the disapproval of Scheme for 2014-2015 would not prevent the College from submitting a fresh Scheme for the subsequent academic year. As per the Schedule, time for approval for the year 2014-2015 expired on 15 July, 2014. The time schedule is applicable equally to the College, Medical Council of India, and Central Government. In fact, application submitted by the Central Government requesting extension of time to complete the process regarding approval was rejected by the Supreme Court, by order dated 31 July, 2014 in Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh. The judgment of the Supreme Court is binding on all the authorities in India. The Court cannot issue a direction to the Medical Council of India and the Central Government to violate the law.
31. The students have come up with a grievance that they have studied in a recognized institution and as such, they are entitled for recognition and they should be permitted to complete the internship. The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 very clearly provides that for the purpose of granting permanent recognition, the institution must satisfy the essential conditions. The assessors appointed by the Medical Council of India would inspect the institution every year till permanent recognition is given. The inspection report submitted by the team after conducting inspection on 18th and 19th February, 2014 proved that the College lacked required OPD attendance and bed occupancy, which would go to the root of the matter. It is true that the students are not at fault. However, in a matter of this nature, involving medical education, the Court cannot direct the Medical Council of India to flout its own regulations and to grant recognition to the institution, thereby enabling the students to undergo internship and finally, to issue them permanent registration certificates. There is no legal duty cast on the Medical Council of India to grant recognition to the institution and permit the students to complete the internship, in view of the serious deficiencies found by the inspecting team and the ultimate decision taken by the Central Government not to approve the Scheme for the year 2014-2015.
RESULT:
32. In the upshot, I dismiss the Writ Petitions. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs.
To
1.The Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi-110 011.
2.The Secretary, Medical Council of India, Sector-8, Dwaraka, New Delhi-110 077.
3.The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, 69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
4.The Registrar, The Tamil Nadu Medical Council, No.914, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai-600 106.
5.The Director of Medical Education, Chennai-10.
6.The Dean, Chennai Medical College & Hospital & Research Centre, Trichy, Irungalur, Manachanallur Taluk, Trichy-621 105.