Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mahatma Gandhi Medical Anr vs Board Of Governors And Ors on 29 May, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER Mahatma Gandhi Medical College & another Vs. Board of Governors & others. SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5474/2012. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Date of Order: 29th May, 2012. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, senior advocate with Mr. S.P. Sharma, senior advocate with Mr. J.S. Bhasin for the petitioner. Mr. A.K. Sharma, senior advocate with Mr. Angad Mirdha for the respondents. Mr. G.N. Mishra Manav, Dy.G.C. for the State. BY THE COURT:
REPORTABLE Being aggrieved of the refusal by the Board of Governors to increase seats in M.D. (Paediatrics) course, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. The petitioners had sought increase in the seats of MD (Paediatrics) from 2 to 7. But the respondents had decided not to issue letter of intent in view of inadequate infrastructure and equipment and issued impugned communication dated 26.3.2012 (Annexure-6) and also the impugned order dated 31.3.2012 (Annexure-7), after compliance. Therefore, the petitioners have prayed that the aforesaid impugned communication/order be quashed and set aside and the petitioners be held entitled to admit students in PG Course for the session 2012-13 onwards on 5 additional seats in the subject of Paediatrics. Further, it is prayed that the action of the respondent no.1 in refusing to allot the seats be declared illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and they be directed to recognize/enhance 5 additional seats for the session 2012-13 onwards.
2. The petitioner no.1 Mahatma Gandhi Medical College submitted an application, in terms of Medical Council of India, the opening of a New or Higher Course of Study or Training (including Post-graduate course of Study or Training) and Increase of Admission Capacity in any Course of Study or Training (including a Post-graduate Course of Study or Training) Regulations, 2000, as per the prescribed format and deposited an amount of Rs.4 lacs with the request to the respondent Board of Governors to allow the increase of admission for PG Course in Paediatrics. The existing seats in Paediatrics which were 2 in number were requested to be enhanced to 7, i.e. 5 additional seats were asked for in Paediatrics. The earlier consent of affiliation given to the college by the University of Rajasthan(later Rajasthan University of Health Sciences), by which the seats were sanctioned for PG Course from 2009 onwards, was also attached with the application for increase of seats.
3. The petitioner no.2 Mahatma Gandhi University of Medical Science and Technology came into existence by the Ordinance dated 24.5.2011 and an intimation in this regard was conveyed to the Secretary, Medical Council of India vide letter dated 29.6.2011. On coming of the session of the Legislative Assembly, the Act was passed by it and the same was notified in the gazette on 15.9.2011. Thereafter, on 15.10.2011, the petitioners submitted details of the seats so as to point out the number of seats which the petitioner no.1 college was to have in terms of the norms laid down by the Medical Council of India and in ratio of availability of staff etc. with the college. The said representation was sent through messanger and was received by the respondents.
After the establishment of petitioner no.2- University, an independent inspection of the petitioner no.1- college was conducted by it and the letter of consent issued under the Regulation of 2000 was also submitted to the respondent no.2- Board of Governors. Further, separate NOC was taken from the State Government on 7.12.2011 and a copy of the same was sent to the respondent no.2- Board of Governors on 10.12.2011.
4. Thereafter, a letter was sent to the petitioners by the Board of Governors on 17.1.2012 by which they returned the application of the petitioners on the ground that the original application dated 27.4.2011 did not contain the consent letter for increase of seats. The petitioners had then pointed out to the respondents that the document relating to the grant of sanction by the University in the requisite format for increase of seats had already been sent earlier and that the required hearing under Rule 10-A was not given to them before returning their application. Accordingly, a request was made for a personal hearing in the matter as the matter was of urgent nature since there was a time schedule laid down by the Medical Council of India for the purpose of completion of admission process for PG Courses.
5. On 1.3.2012, the respondents conveyed to the petitioners for sending Inspector to conduct an inspection in the subject. After the said inspection, the Board of Governors informed the petitioners that in the PG meeting held on 19.3.2012, it had decided not to issue letter of intent on account of inadequate infrastructure and equipment. It further mentioned that only one ventilator was available in NICU; no ventilator in PICU; five beds in PICU and only two pulse oximeters. The petitioners had downloaded the said document from the internet on 26.3.2011.
The petitioners had then submitted a compliance report on 26.3.2012 stating that the Department of Paediatrics is having 90 beds in 3 units. Further, it was stated that PICU and NICU were separately available in the department and, therefore, earlier two seats in MD (Paediatrics) had been permitted by the Government of India in the year 2009 after verification of available facilities and infrastructure by the Medical Council of India. It was also mentioned that there was one ventilator in NICU, one ventilator in PICU and five pulse oximeters. With regard to proof of availability, the bills of the same were also enclosed. According to the petitioners, the minimum standards of equipment for PG Courses only required one bed in PICU and NICU each. Therefore, it was stated by the petitioners that the in-adequacy pointed out is artificial and contrary to the record and a request was made that the letter of intent be issued for the seats as demanded in Paediatrics, in terms of the ratio laid down by the Medical Council of India. Thereafter, the respondents had communicated to the petitioners the official order dated 24.3.2012 along with a copy of the assessment report dated 14.3.2012 prepared by the respondent no.4. The respondents had then passed an order on 31.3.2012, after taking into consideration the compliance for increase of seats in MD (Paediatrics) course, informing that the Board of Governors had decided not to issue Letter of Intent in view of; (i) inadequate infrastructure and equipment; (ii) there are only one ventilator available in NICU, no ventilator in PICU, five beds in PICU and only two pulse oximeters.
Hence, aggrieved of the refusal of the increase of seats in MD (Paediatrics), the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners and it has come before this court which has been finally heard as requested by the counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed and the action of the respondents in refusing to enhance five additional seats in MD (Paediatrics) course is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. Further, he has submitted that in view of the provisions contained under section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 as well as the Regulations of 2000, the petitioners are entitled for five additional seats in the subject of Paediatrics for the session 2012-13. It has also been submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that though the application for grant of permission to enhance the seats in PG (Paediatrics) course was submitted on 27.4.2011 but nothing was heard for more than eight months. In the meanwhile, the petitioners had been submitting the relevant documents from time to time, such as inspection conducted by petitioner no.2- University, representation and NOC granted by the State Government on 7.12.2011 etc. etc. The respondents had sent the letter dated 17.1.2012 stating that the original application did not contain the letter of increase of seats. Immediately, the petitioners pointed out that the documents with regard to the grant of sanction of seats to the University had already been submitted. Ultimately, the respondents had informed with regard to sending of Inspector to conduct the inspection on 1.3.2012. The Board of Governors had then informed that they have decided on 19.3.2012 not to issue letter of intent on account of inadequacy of infrastructure and equipment. The petitioners had thereafter pointed out that in the Department of Paediatrics the required infrastructures were very much available and submitted a compliance report along with number of documents.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the petitioners have reason to believe that thereafter the matter was placed before the PG committee again which had recommended for enhancement to four seats and the same was duly approved by the Board of Governors. But as it came to the knowledge of the respondents that the petitioners had filed some writ petition before the court relating to other subjects, they had arbitrarily and illegally refused for enhancing seats to the petitioners and closed the matter on 31.3.2012. Accordingly, a letter was issued on 31.3.2012 (Annexure-9) to the petitioners conveying that after considering the compliance and the Council Assessor's report, the Board of Governors had decided not to issue letter of intent.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has in this regard pointed out to the court the documents on record, particularly Annexure-10 wherein it has been mentioned that the Board of Governors had decided to increase the seats in MD (Paediatrics) from two to four in view of the compliance report submitted.
8. Besides, it was submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner college does fulfill the norms as laid down under the Act as well as the Regulations of 2000 for enhancement of seats in PG (Paediatrics) Course. He has submitted that the ground for refusal to issue letter of intent for increasing the seats in MD (Paediatrics) for inadequate infrastructure and equipment is false and incorrect. Similarly, the objection with regard to the non-availability of requisite ventilator in NICU and PICU, less number of beds in NICU and PICU and pulse oximeter is also not correct. In this regard, he has referred to the document on record filed along with the compliance report, particularly the receipts for purchase of ventilators (2 in number); and oximeter (10 in number).
After referring to the assessor's report, particularly the final remarks given in the last of the report as mentioned in para 21 of the writ petition, it has been submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the respondents to state that there was inadequate infrastructure and equipment. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that passing of the impugned orders of refusal by the respondents, for enhancement of seats in PG (Paediatrics) course is illegal and arbitrary and the relief sought by the petitioners deserves to be allowed.
9. On behalf of the respondents, the case of the petitioners has been strongly opposed by their counsels who have submitted that the order passed by the Board of Governors refusing to increase the seats in MD (Paediatrics) course to the petitioner college is just and proper and very much in accordance to the norms of the Medical Council of India as laid down under the Act as well as the Regulations of 2000. Further, it has been submitted that the respondent Medical Council of India, a body constituted under the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, has been given the responsibility of discharging the duty of maintenance of the highest standards of medical education throughout the country. He has further submitted that with a view to check the unregulated, uncontrolled, mushrooming growth of the medical colleges/institutions, in order to safeguard the interests of the students and to maintain minimum standards of education, the legislature has made amendment in the Act and incorporated new Ordinances from time to time, making it absolutely mandatory and obligatory for any person desirous of establishing a medical college and/or to start a new or higher course of study in the existing medical college, to obtain prior permission from the Central Government. Under section 10A of the said Act, every person is now obliged to seek a prior permission from Board of Governors for establishing for starting higher medical course or for increasing the seats.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the said provision of law gives a detailed procedure and cast a duty on the authority to form opinion with regard to the capacity of the college to provide necessary facilities in respect of staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities to ensure proper functioning of the medical college or for increase in the admission capacity. The counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the said provision of law further contemplated the subjective satisfaction of the expert body with regard to capability of the medical college to increase or start a post graduate medical course. Therefore, it has been submitted that the subjective satisfaction of the authorities cannot be questioned by the petitioners as the decision of the expert body is based on relevant considerations.
The learned counsel for the respondnts has further referred to the provisions of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 2010 wherein section 3B was incorporated, conferring powers on the Board of Governors. Accordingly, the power of Section 10A is vested in the Board of Governors to entertain the applications for increase in admission capacity and it includes exercise of power to finally approve or disapprove the same. He has also referred to the relevant principle of law as evolved by various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of the present subject matter. Further, learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the P.G. Medical Education Regulations, 2000 which provides for fulfilling the minimum requirements for undergraduate and postgraduate teaching and also emphasises facilities consistent with all round training as provided in the Regulations.
11. The counsel for the respondents has submitted that in the instant case, the Board of Governors have examined the assessor's report and after taking into consideration the relevant factors and on over all consideration of the matter has rightly decided not to permit enhancement of seats for post-graduate subject to the petitioner college. The Board of Governors, which is carrying out the statutory functions, had considered all the relevant aspects while deciding the application of the petitioner and finding that the petitioner college was not complying with the requirement of Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, had declined to give permission for enhancement of seats in MD (Paediatrics). In the last, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted, on the basis of cases decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that the scope of judicial review is a limited one in matters relating to academics and the decision of the expert body should be given due weightage by the courts. It has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the court should not normally interfere or interpret the rules and should instead leave the matter to the experts in the field; give importance to the recommendations made by the expert committee; it is not appropriate for the court to sit in appeal over the opinion of the expert body etc. etc. Therefore, it has been submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the instant writ petition does not deserve any interference from this court and the same is liable to be rejected.
12. Before considering the submissions made by the counsels for the rival parties, it would be appropriate to first advert to the relevant provisions of law/regulation with resepct to requirement, procedure, powers of the Board of Governors in granting permission for increase of seats in PG courses.
By the amendment in the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 in the year 2010, which was publshed in the gazette on 4.9.2010, the Indian Medical Council was superseded by the Board of Governors and until a new council was constituted, the Board of Governors which was to be constituted under section 4 of the Act was to exercise the powers and perform function of the council under the Act. By adding Section 3B, the Board of Governors was empowered to independently grant permission for establishment of new medical colleges or opening a new or higher course of study or training or increase in admission capacity in any course of study or training referred to in section 10A. It was also empowered to give person or college concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard and the powers also included to finally approve or disapprove the same.
The Medical Council of India has also amended Regulation 12(1) of the Post Graduation Medical Education Regulations, 2000 vide notification dated 21.7.2009 which provides as under:
'The ratio of recognized postgraduate teacher to the number of students to be admitted for the degree course where diploma is not prescribed shall be 1:2 for a Professor and 1:1 for other cadres in each unit per year subject to a maximum of 4 PG seats for the degree per unit per academic year provided a complement of 10 teaching beds is added to the prescribed bed strength of 30 for the unit of broad specialities.'
13. Under section 20 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, it is provided that the Post-graduate Medical Education Committee would be formed for assisting the Council in the matters relating to the Post-graduate Medical Education. Section 20 of the Act reads as under:
'POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE FOR ASSISTING COUNCIL IN MATTERS RELATING TO POST-GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION.
20.(1) The Council may prescribe standards of Postgraduate Medical Education for the guidance of Universities, and may advise Universities in the matter of securing uniform standards for Postgraduate Medical Education through out India, and for this purpose the Central Government may constitute from among the members of the Council a Postgraduate Medical Educatiion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Post-graduate Committee).
(2) The Postgraduate Committee shall consist of nine members all of whom shall be persons possessing postgraduate medical qualifications and experience of teaching or examining postgraduate students of medicine.
(3) Six of the members of the Postgraduate Committee shall be nominated by the Central Government and the remaining three members shall be elected by the Council from amongst its members.
(4) For the purpose of considering postgraduate studies in a subject, the Postgraduate Committee may co-opt, as and when necessary, one or more members qualified to assist it in that subject.
(5) the views and recommendations of the Postgraduate Committee on all matters shall be placed before the Council and if the Council does not agree with the views expressed or the recommendations made by the Postgraduate Committee on any matter, the Council shall forward them together with its observations to the Central Government for decision.'
14. On perusal of the material on record as also the original record called from the respondent Board, it is revealed that the petitioner college had submitted an application in the prescribed format on 27.4.2011 to the respondents for increase in admission capacity for MD (Paediatrics) course. They had also deposited an amount of Rs.4 lacs through demand draft. Thereafter, the petitioner college had also attached the consent of affiliation given by the University of Rajasthan on the basis of which the Medical Council of India had sanctioned seats for PG Courses in the year 2009. A separate NOC was also taken from the State Government on 7.12.2011 (Annexure-3).
15. Subsequently, on 17.1.2012, the respondent Board had returned the application of the petitioner on the ground that the original application did not contain the consent letter for increase of seats. The petitioner had then replied that the documents relating to grant of sanction by the University had already been sent in the requisite format for enhancement of the seats. The respondents had sent information to the petitioner on 1.3.2012 with regard to conducting of inspection by Dr. Jayshree B. Mehta, Professor from Ahmedabad.
16. After inspection, the Board of Governors had informed the petitioners that in the PG Meeting held on 19.3.2012, they have decided not to issue letter of intent on account of inadequate infrastructure and equipment. The petitioners had downloaded the said communication dated 26.3.2012 from the internet (Annexure-6). On receiving the said information, the petitioners submitted a compliance report with documents on 26.3.2012 itself so as to meet out the deficiencies pointed out by the respondents with respect to the infrastructure and equipment in the department of Paediatrics. The petitioners had then requested that the letter of intent be issued for the increase of seats as applied in M.D. (Paediatrics) course in terms of the ratio laid down by the Medical Council of India.
Subsequently, the petitioners seem to have received the letter dated 24.3.2012 sent by the respondents along with the report of the assessor dated 14.3.2012. The said letter of the respondents is the official communication to the petitioners in respect of the same subject matter as was downloaded by them from the internet.
17. A look at the document (Annexure-10) on record, which is also available in the original record of the respondents, goes to show that it is a chart showing the decisions taken by various authorities from time to time in respect of item no.31, relating to the petitioners. The first decision is that of the PG committee recommending for increase of seats from 2 to 4 in MD (Paediatrics) course as there was only one ventilator available in NICU. No ventilator in PICU, five beds in PICU but only 2 pulse oximeters. Thereafter, a mention has been made about the decision of the Board of Governors that it has not approved for increase of seats in MD (Paediatrics) course due to inadequate infrastructure and equipment. There is only one ventilator vailable in NICU, no ventilator in PICU, five beds in PICU and only two pulse oximeters. Later to it, the recommendations by the PG Committee has been made for increase of seats in MD (Paediatrics) from two to four in view of the compliance report submitted. In the last, again a decision of the Board of Governors has been given which states that 'approved for increase of seats in MD (Paediatrics) from 2 (two) to 4 (four) in view of the compliance report submitted'.
Further, it is pertinent to mention that the decision of the Board of Governors for increase of seats in MD (Paediatrics) has been distinctly encircled by a pen and it categorically gives the figures '2 (two) to 4 (four)' which also bears initials. At the bottom, the said chart has been duly signed by two authorities and is dated as '30.3.2012'.
Undisputedly it is not the case of the respondents that the aforesaid document or the signatures on it are forged or fabricated, obviously not because the same is also available in the original record of the respondents which was called for by the court specially for the purpose of verification and confirmation.
18. This brings us to an important question as to how despite of the aforesaid recommendation/ decision of the PG Committee as well as that of the Board of Governors, it was conveyed vide communications/ letter dated 31.3.2012 that a decision is said to have been taken by the Board of Governors, not to issue letter of intent to the petitioners. The above referred chart mentioning the decision taken by the authorities, categorically gives out that decision given by the Board of Governors was to approve for increase of seats in MD (Paediatrics) from 2 to 4 and bears the signatures and date as 30.3.2012.
19. After perusal of the original record of the respondents and no denial from their side in respect of aforesaid chart (Annexure-10) having come forth, this court has no hesitation in holding that the respondent Board of Governors did take a decision to increase the seats in MD (Paediatrics) course from 2 to 4 after having considered the compliance report.
But the decision conveyed to the petitioners on 31.3.2012 (Annexure-9) is contrary to the one of 30.3.2012 as given in the afore-mentioned chart which is available on record. The respondents have failed to point out any basis for the change in the decision of 30.3.2012 taken by the Board of Governors, if any. Even otherwise, the change of decision by the Board of Governors, as conveyed by the respondents (Annexure-9), on 31.3.2012 tentamounts to review of decision dated 30.3.2012. Such an action of the respondents is neither permissible under law nor justified as no basis for the same has at all been disclosed before this court. As a matter of fact, the decision of the Board of Governors as conveyed on 31.3.2012 has not at all made any reference to the decision of 30.3.2012, much less to say the cogent reasons for a change or recalling of it. Therefore, the decision taken by the Board of Governors on 30.3.2012 to approve for increase of seats in MD (Paediatrics) from two to four to the respondent college shall stand.
20. Another aspect of the present matter that the petitioner college should have been issued the letter of intent for increase of three more seats in MD (Paediatrics) course, totalling to five, is now to be considered by this court. As mentioned above, a decision by the Board of Governors had been taken on 30.3.2012 to increase two seats in the said course, therefore, the question remains as to whether the remaining three seats in MD (Paediatrics) course in the petitioner college should be increased or not, despite of a contrary decision having been taken by the concerning authorities.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has laid much emphasis on the point that the petitioner college do have the requisite infrastructure and equipment. Further, he has submitted that as per the norms of the Medical Council of India and in accordance to the relevant provisions in respect of Post Graduation Medical Education Regulations, 2000, the petitioner college fulfills the student teacher ratio also. Therefore, it has been submitted that the petitioner college is entitled for total five additional seats in the subject of Paediatrics and refusal of the same by the respondent Board of Governors is not justified. The attention of this court has been invited, extensively, to the documents on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner to carry home his submission that the petitioner college fulfills the requirement as laid down by the Medical Council of India and total five seats should have been increased.
21. An important aspect of the matter which is required to be considered is, as to whether in a decision taken by the respondent- Board of Governors, which is a body of experts as well as the governing body in respect of the courses in medical science, it be just and proper for this court to substitute its opinion/decision. More over, in the instant case, the matter relates to a post-graduation course. The legislature has assigned the responsibility to the Medical Council of India, now superseded by the Board of Governors, in respect of maintaining the standard and quality of the medical science courses. It is imperative to maintain high quality and standard in PG courses in particular, because a candidate given admission therein has to look after independently and with specialization in that course, higher responsibility lies on his shoulder because ultimately life of the patient is at stake.
No doubt, the respondents have laid down the critaria such as the teachers students ratio, infrastructure, equipment etc. etc. but in considered opinion of this court, the said critarias are broad features. The ultimate decision lies with the Board of Governors who has to consider the over all aspect of the matter including the factors referred to above, so as to form an opinion, as to whether in a given situation it would be appropriate to increase the seats in PG courses to a medical college. It is the expertise of the members of the Board of Governors and their experience in the field plays a vital role in forming an opinion that the seats in the college concerned should be increased or not. It is true that as far as possible the reasons for taking decision should be a part of the record but over all assessment of the things and the opinion with regard to it is a mental exercise to be done by the experts involving much more things than what is visible to an eye from the papers. It is a settled principle of law that there is a limited scope for the judicial review in respect of the opinion given by the experts of the field and it is further narrowed, in the opinion of this court, when it is related to the PG courses in medical science.
However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out a number of things so as to convince this court that the petitioner college not only fulfills the requisite critaria including adequate infrastructure and equipment but the respondents have over looked the basis for the same which is very much available on record and installed at the petitioner college. As for instance, in respect of equipment, the petitioner college had pointed out that documentary evidence was submitted along with the compliance report. Much emphasis was laid on behalf of the petitioner college that if a proper opportunity of hearing had been given to them under Rule 10A, then much doubt would have been removed from the minds of the members of the respondent Board. It had also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner college that they are even now ready and willing to satisfy the membes of the respondent Board on the basis of the material in their possession which completely fuflills the requirement and they are hopeful that if one opportunity is provided to them, they would certainly satisfy the respondents for increase of remaining three seats in MD (Paediatrics) course.
22. In the case of Medical Council of India Vs. State of Karnataka- (1998) 6 SCC 131, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as under:
'A medical student requires grueling study and that can be done only if proper facilities are available in a medical college and the hospital attached to it has to be well equipped and the teaching faculty and doctors have to be competent enough that when a medical student comes out, he is perfect in the science of treatment of human beings and is not found wanting in any way. The country does not want half-baked medical professionals coming out of medical colleges when they did not have full facilities of teaching and were not exposed to the patients and their ailments during the course of their study....' Similarly in the case of Chairman J&K State Board of Education Vs. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and others- (2000)3 SCC 59, the Hon'ble Apex Court stressed on the importance of the functions of the expert body and observed that the expert body consisted of persons coming from different walks of life who are engaged in or interested in the field of education and had wide experience and were entrusted with the duty of maintaining higher standards of education. The decision of the expert body should be given due weightage by courts.
On similar lines, are the judgments pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Medical Council of India Vs. Sarang & Others- (2001)8 SCC 427, B.C. Mylarappa @ Dr. Chikkamylarappa Vs. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah and others- (2008) 14 SCC 306 and Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) Vs. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa & another- (2008)9 SCC 284.
In the case of All India Council for Technical Education Vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan & others- (2009)11 SCC 726, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the above principle and has also held that it is the rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies.
23. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the relevant documents relating to the infrastructure, equipment etc., available with the petitioner college; the aforesaid principle of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court not to set aside the decision of the expert bodies and the short time within which the respondent Board had to proceed to consider the issue with regard to the increase of seats in PG courses to the petitioner college, this court deems it just and proper that in so far as increase of three more seats in MD (Paediatrics) course for the petitioner college is concerned, the matter may be reconsidered by the respondent authorities. An adequate opportunity of hearing may be given to the petitioners, who may place before the Board of Governors the documents etc. to satisfy them that they fulfill the requisite critaria and increase of seats in the petitioner college would be just and proper.
24. The aforesaid view of this court finds support from a decision given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Medical Council of India Vs. Hi-Tech Medical College & Hospital & another- Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 27595/2011 decided on 29.9.2011, whereby the Board of Governors was directed to pass a detailed and reasoned order by making the following observations:
'...No ground is made for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India as the order of the learned Single Judge merely requires the MCI to reconsider the entire matter in accordance with law. It can do so by taking independent decision and is not bound by the decision of either the Assessors or the Under Graduate Medical Education Committee. Needless to say, if the recommendations of the Undergraduate Medical Education Committee have to be ignored, MCI may record valid reason therefor...'
25. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of, the impugned communication dated 26.3.2012, order/letter dated 24.3.2012 and 31.3.2012 are quashed and set aside and following directions are issued:
(a) The respondent no.1 shall increase the seats in MD (Paediatrics) course at Mahatma Gandhi Medical College, Sitapura, Jaipur from 2 (two) to 4 (four) in the session 2012-13 and onwards;
(b) the respondent no.1- Board of Governors in supersession of Medical Council of India, is to hold a meeting on 30.5.2012 so as to reconsider and decide afresh the case of the petitioner for increase of three more seats in MD (Paediatrics) course at the petitioner college for the session 2012-13 and onwards;
(c) the respondent no.1 is directed that while reconsidering the matter, it shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitiner and look into the record placed before it;
(d) the counsel for respondent no.1 shall inform the respondent Board of Governors about this order forth-with on telephone and thereafter respondent no.1 shall intimate the petitioner college through phone/fax today itself with regard to the time and venue of the meeting for giving opportunity of hearing to it;
(e) the petitioners shall appear before the Board of Governors on 30.5.2012 at the place and time intimated to it for presenting its case in respect of increase of three more seats in MD (Paediatrics) course;
(f) the respondent no.1 shall then decide the matter on 30.5.2012 itself with regard to the increase of three more seats in MD (Paediatrics) course in petitioner college, after taking into account the application filed by it under the Medical Council Regulation, 2000; the assessor's report dated 14.3.2012 and the explanation with compliance report along with the documents submitted by the petitioner on 26.3.2012, in accordance to the norms under the Medical Council of India Act and the Regulations of 2000, subjectively and with reasons.
(RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE), J.
Bblm All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being e-mailed.
BBL Mathur Private Secretary.