Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sri Aurobindo Institute Of Medical ... vs Govt. Of India Through Ministry Of ... on 19 July, 2018
Author: P.K. Jaiswal
Bench: Sunil Kumar Awasthi, P.K. Jaiswal
1 W. P. No.12508 of 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal
Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi, JJ.
Writ Petition No.12508 of 2018
Sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Sciences
Versus
Government of India and another
***************
Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Senior Counsel with
Shri Nikhil Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Dharmendra Chelawat, learned A.S.G. for the
respondent No.1--Union of India.
Shri S. S. Chouhan, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.2/M.C.I.
*****
ORDER
(Passed on this 19/07/2018) Per P.K. Jaiswal, J.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner--Medical College, inter alia, seeking quashment of order dated 31.5.2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.1, whereby, in view of the recommendations forwarded by the Medical Council of India, has communicated its decision not to grant renewal of permission to the petitioner-Medical 2 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 College for admission of fresh batch of MBBS students against increased intake of 150-100 MBBS students for the academic session 2018-19. The petitioner - medical college has also sought direction for revoking Regulation 8(3)(1)(c) of the Establishment of Medical Education Regulation, 1999 as invoked against it and grant permission to admit fresh batch of MBBS student against increased intake of 150-100 MBBS students for the academic session 2018-19.
2. The petitioner - medical college has challenged the impugned order dated 31.5.2018 on the ground that it passed without appreciating the fact and law that the MCI assessors conducted the inspection on 13.4.2018 (one day before the State Holiday), whereas, there is a statutory rules and Regulation framed by the MCI vide Notification dated 18th March, 2016, namely, "Establishment of Medical College Regulations, (Amendment), 2016" wherein, it has been clearly stated that at point No.6 in clause 8(3)(1)(d) as;
"However, the office of the council shall ensure that 3 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 such inspections are not carried out at least 2 days before and 2 days after important religious and festival holidays declared by the Central/State Government."
3. It is also stated, while passing the impugned order dated 31.5.2018, the respondent No.1 agrees and has clearly stated that the findings of the hearing committee and the executive committee on the report submitted by the assessors for the assessment/inspection conducted on 13.4.2018 is questionable. The relevant part of the order reads as under:-
"The committee agrees with the contention of the college that the requirements in some parameters were wrongly referred by the assessors and thus the findings become questionable. However, the college did not respond to the randomly identified cases of non-genuine patients in the assessment report."
4. According to the petitioner, the hearing committee has accepted that some parameters are wrongly referred by the assessors and thus the findings become questionable and accordingly the assessment dated 13.4.2018 and the assessors report thereupon itself has been become ex-facie perverse and 4 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 vitiated, hence no decision can be take either by the Medical Council of India (M.C.I.) executives or by the Hearing committee on this report which is questionable and ex-facie perversed.
5. The facts essential for adjudication of the controversy are that the petitioner - medical college is a private, unaided medical college, established in the year 2004. The college has been inspected every year by the respondent No.2 - MCI and upon its recommendations, permissions have been issued by the respondent No.1 on yearly basis from the year 2004 to 2009 and college was issued a letter of recognition. Thereafter, the college applied for increase in the admission capacity from 100 to 150 seats. It has been permitted by Government of India for increase in the admission capacity of MBBS seats from 100 to 150 seats in the year 2010 through order dated 8.6.2011 (Annexure P/2), after verifying the compliance of the necessary requirements for increase in the number of seats from 100 to 150.
5 W. P. No.12508 of 2018
6. The M.C.I. respondent No.2 - assessors conducted an assessment on 14th March, 2016 i.e. at the time of final MBBS examination and on 27-28th April, 2016, a combined inspection for compliance verification for continuation of recognition of 100 seats and for recognition of the increased 50 seats of MBBS was carried out.
7. On 15.5.2016, the petitioner - medical college received the letter through which the deficiencies pointed out by the Medical Council of India's assessors were communicated. The petitioner-medical college being aggrieved whereof, preferred the writ petition No.9357 of 2016. The Division Bench vide order dated 2.6.2016 disposed of the writ petition by giving the following directions in paras 8 and 9 which reads as under:-
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition stands disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall submit a detailed representation before the Oversight Committee constituted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court within a period of three working days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order indicating its grievances against the report of 6 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 the assessors as well as the decision of Medical Council of India communicated vide orders Annexures P/1 and P/2 which may be decided by the Oversight Committee, and till such decision is taken by the Oversight Committee, the recommendations made by the respondent no.2/Medical Council of India shall not be acted upon by respondent no.1.
9. With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of in limine looking to the fact that issue of recognition is based on time bound schedule.
8. In pursuant to the order dated 2.6.2016, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation before the Oversight Committee, whereby, the Oversight Committee vide its letter dated 13.8.2016 approved the petitioner-medical college for recognition/approval for award of MBBS Degree against increased intake from 100 to 150 students with certain condition in which one of the conditions was that Oversight Committee may direct inspection to verify the compliance submitted by the college and considered by the Oversight Committee, any time after 30 th of September, 2016.
9. On 24.3.2017 a surprise inspection was carried out by the assessors appointed by the M.C.I. for 7 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 compliance verification in pursuant to the condition stipulated by the Oversight Committee. On 29.3.2017, the assessment report was forwarded by the institute to the Oversight Committee. On 14.4.2017, the institute had sent a letter for information and kind cooperation in respect of renovation of infrastructure, wards and Operation Theaters. On 25.4.2017 the respondent No.2
-M.C.I. again carried out a second time surprise assessment without any decision on previous assessment report dated 24.3.2017. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 on 30th April , 2017 took the decision against the petitioner - medical college and decided not to recognize/approve the petitioner-medical college for the award of MBBS degree granted by DAVV, Indore against the increase intake i.e. from 100 to 150 seats under Section 11(2) of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The petitioner-medical college challenged the said order by filing W.P. No.3506/2017 which was dismissed on 22.6.2017. Against the aforesaid dismissal, the petitioner has filed the SLP 8 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 registered with Diary No.21950 of 2017 challenging the order dated 22.6.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.3506 of 2017.
10. On 24.7.2017, the respondent No.1 passed the order and directed the petitioner-medical college not to admit students against increased intake of 150 seats.
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Hon'ble Supreme Court registered as W.P. (C) No.643 of 2017, challenging the order dated 24.7.2017 passed by the respondent No.1. On 3.8.2017 an I.A. No.68721 of 2017 was also filed in the said matter for issuance of direction stating that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment dated 1.8.2017 passed by the Apex Court in W. P. (C) No.502 of 2017 (I. Q. City Foundation and another Versus Union of India & others). On 8.8.2017, W.P. No.643 of 2017 of the petitioner was disposed of by the Apex Court in terms of the judgment dated 1.8.2017 passed in W.P. No.502 of 2017. Order dated 8.8.2017 9 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 reads as under:-
"Learned Counsel appearing for both parties agree that the petitioner in this case is covered by the judgment dated 01.08.2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.502 of 2017. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. However, the 1st respondent shall take a declaration as directed in Writ Petition (C ) No.502 of 2017 within two weeks from today."
11. In pursuance to the order dated 8.8.2017 passed by the Apex Court, the respondent No.1 after granting hearing to the petitioner on 25.8.2017 rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 31.8.2017. Against the aforesaid rejection order dated 31.8.2017, the petitioner filed a writ petition on 1.9.2017 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court registered as W.P. (C) No.810 of 2017. On 18.9.2017, the said writ petition (C) No.810 of 2017 was disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2-MCI to consider the application of the petitioner for enhancement of seats for the academic year 2018-19 and further direction was issued to conduct inspection. For enhancement of seats for the academic year 2017-2018 shall be considered for the academic year 2018-2019 and 10 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 further directed to carry out the inspection within three months and if it notices any deficiency, it shall bring it to the notice of the petitioner-medical college and grant it sometime to rectify the same. The relevant portion of the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court is reads as under:-
"Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that the application of the petitioners for enhancement of seats for the academic year 2017-2018 shall be considered for the academic year 2018-2019. The Bank Guarantee submitted by the petitioner shall not be encashed by the Medical Council of India. The petitioner shall keep the Bank Guarantee alive. If it has been encashed in the meantime, the amount shall be refunded to the petitioner-institution, who shall file a fresh Bank Guarantee with the Medical Council of India within two weeks from the date of receipt of the amount. The students who have already been admitted in the institution for the academic year 2016-2017 shall be permitted to complete their course.
The Medical Council of India shall carry out the inspection within three months and if it notices any deficiency, it shall bring it to the notice of the petitioner-institution and grant it sometime to rectify the same. After the recommendation is sent by Medical Council of India, the Central Government shall take a decision after taking assistance of the Oversight Committee constituted by the order dated 18th July, 2017 passed by the Constitution Bench in Amma Chandravati Educational and Charitable Trust and Others vs. Union of India and Another in W.P.(C) No.408 of 2017. Needless to say the petitioner institution shall be afforded adequate opportunity of hearing so that it can put forth its case before any adverse decision is taken. Needless to emphasise, the orders passed by the Central government shall be a reasoned one as decided by this Court in IQ City Foundation and Another vs. Union of India and Others (2017) 8 SCALE 369.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. These shall be no order as to costs.
12. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.2, 11 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 without following the directions in the above order dated 18.9.2017, conducted the assessment on 18.12.2017 and 19.12.2017, i.e. the last day of the time limit prescribed by the Apex Court, to assess the physical and the other Training facilities available for recognition/approval of the petitioner-medical college under Section 11(2) of IMC Act, 1956 for the award of MBBS Degree against the increased intake i.e. from 100 to 150 seats and submitted the assessment report.
13. The decision of the Executive Committee was also communicated to the respondent No.1 vide letter dated 25.1.2018 (Annexure P/13). Wherein, the college was directed to submit detailed point wise compliance within one month. Upon which, the Dean of the petitioner-medical college submitted the detailed point wise compliance on 26.2.2018 (Annexure P/14).
Thereafter respondent No.2 - MCI were required to conduct assessment verification for 150 seat whereas, contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court, the respondent No.2 conducted the inspection for 100 12 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 seats.
14. The Dean of the petitioner-medical college also submitted its observation, Videography, Photographs and other relevant material/document and letter/representation dated 20.12.2017. On 4.1.2018, the said assessment report was considered by the Executive Committee in its meeting held on 4.1.2018, wherein, again certain deficiencies was pointed out by the Committee, and it was decided as under:-
"The Committee further decided to continue the application of clause 8(3)(1)(c) Establishment of Medical College Regulation (Amendment) 2010 (Part II) dated 16th April, 2010 and amended on 18.3.2016."
15. The above decision of the Executive Committee dated 4.1.2018 was also communicated to the respondent No.1 vide letter dated 25.1.2018 and a copy was marked to the petitioner-medical college. Wherein, the college was directed to submit detailed point wise compliance within one month. On 26.2.2018 the Dean of the petitioner-medical college submitted the detailed point wise compliance. On 13 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 13.4.2018, the assessors came in the institute at 9.38 A.M. and sent a mail to the institute at 9.40 A.M. for the "Compliance Verification Assessment of for the award of M.B.B.S. Degree against the increased intake i.e. from 100 to 150 seats" and the MCI assessors started assessment. Mean while, two another e-mails were received by the institute, forwarded by the assessor Dr. B.C. Dutta at 10.52 and 10.53 A.M. respectively, which were received by him from MCI at 10.46 A.M. in which the subject of assessment was "Compliance Verification Assessment of the Physical and the other teaching facilities available for 100 MBBS seats (Show Cause) at Sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Sciences, Indore, Madhya Pradesh under Devi Ahilya Vishwavidhyalaya, Indore." The petitioner-medical college raised objections with respect to the way the assessors carried out the assessment and the erroneous and false calculations done by the assessors, which was not accepted by the 14 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 petitioner-medical college. Dr. Mrs. S. Bose, who is working as Director Medical Education of Government of Madhya Pradesh, also raised the objection and complaint vide her complaint/objection dated 13.4.2018, regarding very rude and harsh behavior of one of the assessors Dr. Vimala Thomas (Co- ordinator), and also raised the objection and complaint regarding the unethical conduct and behavior of the assessors while conducting the assessment who has visited the institute. On 24.4.2018, the petitioner- college also submitted the factual position and clarification to the deficiencies pointed out by the assessors along with the letter dated 20.4.2018.
16. On 4.5.2018, the respondent No.2--MCI without considering the objection and letters submitted by the Dean of the petitioner-college, passed an order. The Central Government vide letter dated 21.5.2018 requested the MCI to sent recommendation for the year 2018-19 in respect of the petitioner-college for 100 to 150 seats. In response to the letter dated 15 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 21.5.2018 issued by respondent No.1, MCI vide its letter dated 28.5.2018 intimated that since the petitioner-college is not fulfilling the requirements of 100 seats, it would not be advisable to allow the college for 100 to 150 seats. Immediately after receiving the letter dated 28.5.2018 from the MCI, respondent No.1 through Telephone as well as through e-mail dated 28.5.2018 at 6.22 P.M. informed the petitioner that the petitioner is required to remain present for the hearing before Government of India on 29.5.2018 at 10.00 A.M. On 29.5.2018, the petitioner appeared before the respondent No.1 and also submitted a detailed reply but all remained in vain and on 31.5.2018, the respondent No.1 passed the impugned order. As per impugned order, the following deficiencies were found:-
1. Shortage of Residents is 29.88% as detailed in the report.
2. A lot of Pgs/Residents have not been paid stipend.
3. Most of the faculty did not receive salary for last 2 months.16 W. P. No.12508 of 2018
4. On enquiry, it was found that salary paid does not match with appointment order.
5. There is proportional discrepancy of stipend to Residents - i.e. 3rd year Residents are paid less stipend then I/II year Residents. On enquiry, it was told that III year Residents had taken cash advances; however on repeated asking no evidence of the same like cash book were provided to assessors.
6. Orders of Tutors showed salary payable @ Rs.25,000 p.m.; however bank statement showed Rs.15,000 or less. No explanation is given for this dichotomy.
7. OPD attendance upto 2 p.m. on day of assessment was 1,100 against requirement of 1,200.
8. Bed occupancy at 10 a.m.on day of assessment was 60.13% as detailed in the report.
9. 102 patients in various wards were not counted due to following reasons:
(a) Patients with CA Cervix, CA Breast, CA Esophagus, CA Buccal Muccal Mucosa, CA Colon, CA Mandible, Meningioma without seizures, CA Rectum were admitted in Medicine Wards. The institute has Post graduate courses in DM Oncology, M.Ch. Oncosurgery, M.Ch. Neurosurgery but no wards in the said departments. Hence, the patients are kept in Medicine and Surgery Wards.
In Medicine ward patients with Liver abscess had no USG. In TB Chest Ward on Examining patients by assesor 7 patients had no Chest X Rays, and no findings on clinical Evaluation. PFT of patient had no correlation with Symptoms and Examination Findings. In Surgical ward Patients with CA endometrium, CA Ovary were kept for 17 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 Chemotherapy. In Paediatricward Day care patients were shown as indoor. In ENT ward one patients case had mention of Tonsillectomy done by Surgeon. However, according to the patient no surgery was done on him.
(b) Some examples of mismatch are as under:
(I) Patient Chandan MRD No.534239 admitted in respiratory ward with Diagnosis of Bronchial Asthma. On examination she had no findings and on asking history she complained of Knee pain.
(ii) Patient Lalitaben with MRD No.533536 with Diagnosis of RL LL Pneumonia was in ward. Her X-ray did not show any consolidation also on examination also she had no clinical findings.
(iii) In surgical ward patients with CA endometrium, CA Ovary were kept for Chemotherapy. In Paediatric ward Day care patients were shown as indoor. In ENT ward one patients case had mention of Tonsillectomy done by Surgeon. However, according to the patient no surgery was done on him.
(iv) On visiting ward no.304, General Surgery, patient Sachin Malaviya case paper showed that he was operated for sebaceous cyst on 12th December by Dr. Rohan Caphekar (SR Surgery). Dr. Caphekar denied operating on this patient and the patient neither had cyst nor Scar of surgery. OT records also showed that the Surgery done by Dr. Vipul and Dr. Sunil and Anaesthesia was given by Dr. Agarwal and Dr. Urvashi. The OT list signed by Dr. Sadhana (HOD Anaesthesia) showed the same patient. There was no histopathology sample of the same patient.
This shows collusion by different departments to falsify surgeries and patients.
18 W. P. No.12508 of 2018
(v) In ENT one patient had on round said that he had throat pain, but case papers showed rt tonsillectomy by Dr. Munjal. On enquiry the patient denied any surgery. On asking Dr. Munjal about the same he could not defed and abstained for the remaining period of assessment.
10. In Siddhant Hostel, 10 rooms were occupied by students of Engineering college.
11. None of Senior Residents in Radiodiagnosis stay in the campus.
12. In Harshringar building where several Senior Residents were allotted rooms, none of the rooms except that of Dr.Pushpawardhan Mandlecha had any items of daily use implying that allotted Senior Residents were not staying there. Room #410 was allotted to Shri Shailesh Patel, Radio Technician & Room #510 was allotted to P.T. Johnson, Nursing staff.
13. One Dr. Ritesh Sharma was found in room allotted to Dr. Pooja & Dr. Garima; on further enquiry he accepted that he did not belong to this Institute.
14. RHTC: Cold Chain Equipment are inadequate.
15. Common rooms for Boys & Girls do not have attached toilets.
17. Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No.2 were required to conduct assessment verification for 150 seats whereas, contrary to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 18.9.2017, the respondent 19 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 No.2 conducted the inspection on 100 seats. The inspection for 100 seats was done in an arbitrary manner and in violation of the statutory Regulation framed by the MCI vide Gazette Notification dated 18 th March, 2016, namely, "Establishment of Medical College Regulations, (Amendment), 2016" (Annexure P/26) wherein, it has been clearly stated at point No.6 in Clause 8(3)(1)(d) that the office of the council shall ensure that such inspections are not carried out at least 2 days before and 2 days after important religious and festival holidays declared by the Central/State Government. As per the Gazette of India (Annexure P/17) dated 2.4.2018 on 14th April, 2014 the Central Government and the State Government has also declared Gazetted Holiday (Dr. Ambedkar Jayanti) and Baisakhi festival which is also a religious festival and State Holiday, which clearly shows the mala-fides and perversity and predetermination view of respondent No.2.
18. His next contention is that as per Apex Court 20 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 order dated 18.9.2017, the direction was to do the inspection for enhancement of seats for the academic year 2018-19. No show cause notice was issued for continuation of recognition of 100 MBBS seats. The assessors have done erroneous calculations of the Teaching beds and Residents while carrying out assessment at the petitioner-medical college, which are as under:-
" The assessors have not done the assessment as per the statute notified in gazette by Govt. of India and MCI/OC committee guidelines.
The bed strength which was computed by assessor is = 540 The requirement of resident doctors for 100 seats calculated by assessors =54 Both the above calculations done and assessment of number of beds done is against the MSR and statute notified in gazette by Govt. of India and MCI/OC committee guidelines.
As per notification dated 23.01.2018, the requirement of beds for 100 MBBS seats is = 470 And to complete the Unit, as the institute is running PG course and to complete the unit of allied medicine & surgery departments = 100 beds So total no. of beds available in the institute = 720 in 39 wards.
Total no. of beds required for UG 100 MBBS seats in the institution, running PG courses = 470+100 = 570.
The total no. of resident doctors required for 100 seats is 62 as per gazette notification.
Total no. of SR/JR for 100 MBBS seats, the college running the PG, requirement is = 69.
Total SR requirement for 100 seats = 26 (24+2 PG) Total JR requirement for 100 seats = 43 (38+5 PG) Department EXISTING WARD & TEACHING BEDS AVAILABLE IN BROAD SPECIALITY Gen. Ward No. Beds Male Beds Female Total Medicine Beds 202 - 19 19 203 - 12 12 204 22 - 22 205 - 19 19 21 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 208 27 - 27 209 27 - 27 210 - 24 24 Respiratory 201 15 - 15 Medicine 206 - 15 15 Pediatrics 102 12 - 12 Department EXISTING WARD & TEACHING BEDS AVAILABLE IN BROAD SPECIALITY Ward No. Beds Male Beds Female Total Beds 103 20 - 20 106 15 - 15 107 - 22 22 108 - 8 8 109 - 13 13 Psychiatry 403 15 - 15 405 - 15 15 Dermatology 505-A 18 - 18 505-B - 12 12 Gen. Surgery 301 22 - 22 302 18 - 18 303 - 20 20 304 - 16 16 305 22 - 22 501 - 21 21 502 18 - 18 504 - 13 13 Orthopedics 306 8 - 8 307 27 - 27 308 27 - 27 309 - 28 28 Ophthalmology 111 - 17 17 409 13 - 13 ENT 408 - 12 12 406 18 - 18 OB & GYN G11 - 24 24 G12 - 26 26 112 - 10 10 113 - 30 30 Total 720 NOTE: TOTAL NO. OF BEDS 720 HAVE BEEN VERIFIED IN DIFFERENT 22 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 ASSESSMENT OF MCI i.e. ON 17.06.16, 24.03.17, 25.04.17 and 18 &
19.12.2017.
THE ASSESSORS STARTED ASSESSMENT AT 9.40 am FOR ENHANCEMENT OF 50 SEATS i.e. 100 TO 150, TWO ASSESSORS STARTED VISITING THE WARDS AVAILABLE ON DIFFERENT FLOORS. SUDDENLY AT 10.55 am ONLY VISITED LIMITED NO. OF WARDS AND PICK & CHOOSE ONLY THOSE WARDS IN COUNTING WHERE THERE ARE LESS NUMBER OF PATIENTS ON BEDS. THEY HAVE NOT VISITED 7 WARDS i.e. 138 BEDS HAVING 120 PATIENTS ON BED.
Department Wards & Beds Verified By the No. of Patients Available on Bed at 10 AM
Assessor
Ward No. Total Beds
Gen. Medicine 202 19 17
203 12 8
204 22 14
205 19 16
209 27 21
210 24 16
Respiratory Medicine 201 15 13
206 15 11
Pediatrics 103 20 17
106 15 7
107 22 20
109 13 10
Psychiatry 403 15 11
405 15 12
Dermatology 505-A 18 23
505-B 12 14
Gen. Surgery 301 22 16
302 18 13
303 20 16
304 16 11
305 22 19
502 18 18
504 13 12
Orthopedics 306 8 3
308 27 14
309 28 27
Ophthalmology 111 17 12
ENT 408 12 9
406 18 12
OB & GYN G11 24 21
23 W. P. No.12508 of 2018
G12 26 12
112 10 9
TOTAL 582 454
Department No. of Wards Not Visited No. of Patients Available on Bed at 10 AM
By the Assessors
Ward No. Total Beds
Gen. Medicine 208 27 27
Pediatrics 102 12 6
108 8 5
Gen. Surgery 501 21 19
Orthopedics 307 27 25
Ophthalmology 409 13 11
OB & GYN 113 30 27
TOTAL 138 120
19. The petitioner medical college prepared a chart to show that there was no deficiency and submitted the same to the respondents, which reads as under:-
Deficiencies Compliance by college Remarks of the Clarification/R reported from sent to GOI/MCI Assessors after ectification by GOI/MCI assessment the institute 24 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 Shortage of It is humbly & respectfully Resident deficiency was The assessor Resident is submitted that, there is no observed to be 1 85% (1 has calculated 29.88% as deficiency of JR and Sr. out of 54) On random deficiency detailed in Actually 29 were not verification of hostel 9 wrongly.
the report counted by assessors senior residents (who because they observed were accepted during The assessors that they are not living in physical verification) have not the campus while they were not staying in calculated the residing in the campus. hostel.(Evidence Residents as There are three types of enclosed). per MSR & the facilities of latest accommodation of senior Hence total notification residents in the campus: deficiency of dated Residents is now 23.041.2018 • those married or 18.15% for 100 MBBS staying with seats.
family, working
as JR/Sr from Total SR
more than 5-10 required for
years are 100 MBBS
allotted flats. seats including
the institute
• Husband and running PG
Wife/Brother & course=69
sister working (62+7).
as resident
(JR/SR) opt for Total SR not
sharing double accepted by the
occupancy Assessors=9
rooms. Total
• Those residents Deficiency as
not married, per Assessors
either opt for =18.51%
single (10/54)
occupancy or The detailed
sharing chart, as per
occupancy as MSR/SAF
per the Annexure Part
requirement. A-III is
The Assessors visited attached at
many places but not Annexure-1.
residence of all Srs hence One SR who
put their remark saying was not
that not staying in registered for
campus. the additional
If all the residents staying qualification &
int he campus are assessors have
calculated the deficiency given 7 days for
of residents SR/JR is less the same,
than 5%. which is now
registered and
sent to the
MCI.
The assessors
have not
accepted 9 Sr
i.e. 37-9= 28
and the JR
required for
100 seats=41
28+41=69
Hence, the
deficiency of
SR/JR is NIL.
Deficiencies Compliance by college Remarks of the Clarification/R
reported from sent to GOI/MCI Assessors after ectification by
GOI/MCI assessment the institute
25 W. P. No.12508 of 2018
There is It is humbly & On Random verification, Admission &
proportional respectfully submitted in the department of Fee Regulatory
discrepancy of that, Admission & Fee Medicine it was Committee
stipend to Regulatory Committee observed that cheques (AFRC) of
Residents -i.e. (ARFC) of Govt. of M.P. ranging from Govt. of M.P.
3rd year Fixes the fee of all the Rs.3,10,834 to Rs. Fixes the fee of
Residents are private Medical 4,07,395 was given to all the private
paid less institution of the State of the Junior residents on Medical
stipend than M.P. The ARFC fixes the the day of assessment institution of
I/II year fee as per the Financial i.e.13/4/2018 at 4.30 the State of
Residents. On Audited Sheets of the pm to clear the backlog M.P. The
enquiry, it was individual institution. (Evidence enclosed) ARFC fixes the
told that III The stipend fixed by the fee as per the
year Residents State Govt. of M.P. For Financial
had taken cash the residents is applicable Audited Sheets
advance; for the next three years as of the
however on per the then existing individual
repeated fee/stipend structure. institution.
asking no Hence, there is no The stipend
evidence of the discrepancy of stipend. fixed by the
same like cash Hence, there is no State Govt. of
book were deficiency. M.P. For the
provided to the residents is
assessors. applicable for
the next three
years as per
the then
existing fee/
stipend
structure.
Hence, there is
no discrepancy
of stipend.
Hence, there is
no deficiency.
OPD It is humbly respectfully OPD Attendance as The OPD
attendance submitted that, the OPD given by Institute was attendance of
upto 2 pm on timings due to cold 1316 at 2 pm. (this also the hospital is
day of weather was changed includes OPD of genuine, which
assessment from 10 am to 4 pm, Superficiality can be verified
was 1,100 which included Lunch departments) from the last
against time of 1 hour I.e. From 1 clinical
requirement of to 2 pm. The total No. Of On random verification material,
1,200. patient registered till 2pm with he OPD report updated on the
from the Registration generated by the IT college website
counter is 1280, including department and the & the
casualty & at 4 pm the registers in the OPD (eg information of
OPD was 1491. Hence, Psychiatry and TBCD), the same is
there is no deficiency. there was mismatch. always given
(Evidence enclosed). to
In Pediatric OPD MCI/OC/GOI
register, the numbering on monthly showed a jump inflating basis as per the number of the directives cases( from 109 to 200) of Hon'ble and again from 219 to Supreme 300-Evidence enclosed. Court In Pediatric OPD, Mandated students from Oversight neighboring schools Committee.
(Ring Nodia school) Even if the
were bought with no OPD
complaints to inflate the attendance of OPD figures. superspeciality is reduced, the OPD attendance of broad speciality at 2pm was 1060, which is about the normal range.
26 W. P. No.12508 of 2018As the institute is authorized by the Jila Panchayat for the Regular Health checkup of the students from nearby schools, was going of the school is screened for the health checkup.
Deficiencies Compliance by college Remarks of the Assessors Clarification/
reported from sent to GOI/MCI after assessment Rectification
GOI/MCI by the
institute
Bed Occupancy It is humbly & Bed Occupancy grossly The Hospital
at 10 am on day respectfully submitted observed to be 78% as has total 720
of assessment that, the total bed signed by nursing staff beds with 39
was 60.13% as occupied on the day of (computed for 540 beds, wards,
detailed in the assessment at 10Am was since for 100 students whereas the
report. 647, this includes Labour with PG in all specialties). assessors
Room 7 patients and the But on verification, 25% have only
patients shifted to OT and of the patients do not visited 32
investigations. 102 merit admission and Ward and
patients were not counted seem non-genuine. erroneously
by the assessors, as they Evidence of some of the computed on
were superficiality patients case sheets and 540 beds
patients and these photographs ae attached. only.
patients were not counted
(Total No.647- Hence Actual bed The
102=545) occupancy is 53%.requirement
of beds for
Few examples on random 100 MBBS
Total No. Of 647
patients
verification: seats as per
1. Vishnu, 45 years, with MSR & the
Total no of 102 IPD no. 548993, in Gynec notification patients not Ward was shown to be dated accepted by operated for TAH 23.01.2018 is the assessors 470 and if the (Superspecia (Transabdominal Hysterectomy) on PG beds are lity & others 11.04.2018. Operation counted it Total no of patients not notes are also written in comes to accepted by case sheet. On 470+100 = the assessors examination by the 570. We do (Superspecia assessor, no evidence of not know, lity & others how the surgery was performed and the patient too assessors Patients 56 admitted that no surgery reached to shifted for figure of 540 OT as was performed, Photographic, beds.
verified by
the assessor Videographic and case Now if, 78%
sheet (Xeorx) evidence 582
Patients 49 attached. This was beds=454
shifted for confirmed by the Junior
resident- Sumithra Patients
(signed evidence present in 7
attached) wards on 138
(647-102=545 beds=120
patients) 433 as 2. Pawan Nagar, aged 20 (which the mentioned in the years IPD No.54866 assessor not report 56+49+7=545 admitted for DNS visited and (Deviated nasal septum) no counted). Bed Occupancy at on 07.04.2018 and even 10AM=720/545=75.69 after a week stay, no X- If the % (Copy enclosed) ray/CT to confirm the assessor not 27 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 diagncsis. (Evidence considered enclosed). the 25% of the patients
3.Machindar, 62 years IP i.e.454- No.549121, admitted on 144(25%)=34 09.04.2018 with shoulder 0 paid and old deformity of hand. No investigations 340+120 (not to confirm the diagnosis counted were done and the patient patients)=46 is being seen only by 0 on physiotherapist. (470+00)= (evidence enclosed). beds (requirement It was noticed that more for 100 seats than 30% of the cases in as per Orthopedic ward were Notification admitted for dated physiotherapy only. 23.01.18), the calculation comes to:
460/570=8 0.70% Deficiencies Compliance by Remarks of the Assessors after Clarificati reported from college sent to assessment on/Rectifi GOI/MCI GOI/MCI cation by the institute
4. Satish Sahu, aged 30 years IP No.548740 admitted on06.04.2018 with fracture inferior Public Ram (L).
No investigations to confirm the same was done.
5. In TB and CD ward, 5 patients (out of 23 admitted) were on Oral Anti TB medication with no other complications and which can be managed at home (Domiciliary Treatment) as advocated by the Government.
6. In Medicine wards many patients (23 patients out of 95 with IPD No.549573, 549399,549401, 549434, 549674 (Ward No.203) 549357, 549691, 548566, 549593, 549199, 549695, 549668, 549707, (Ward 202) 548518, 549058, 599457, 549653, 549441 (Ward 208) with trivial complaints like bodyache, hypothyroidism (no symptoms), mlgrane, Hypertension(no symptoms) were admitted with only oral medications.
7. In Dermatology wards, more than 30% of the cases were admitted for chronic urticaria, vitillgo and with no symptoms. Most have been admitted for more than a week with no investigations done (Evidence attached).
It was also notices in the case sheets, that the entries and rounds are being done only by the junior residents. No signature or notes of any Unit chief or any faculty members was seen 28 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 (Evidence enclosed).
On cross verification during head count, the Faculty members of the Medicine and Surgery Departments did not even know the names of the Junior residents and Senior residents in their units.
20. The petitioner-college gave details of Faculty/ Residents which was not counted/ accepted.
Sr. Name Designation Department Remarks/Reasons
No. for not considering
1 Dr. Kapil Telang Senior Resident Medicine Accepted
2 Dr. Mukesh Senior Resident Medicine Accepted
Bansal
3 Dr. Deepak Senior Resident Medicine Accepted
Parmar
4 Dr. Yusuf Ali Senior Resident Medicine Not Accepted
Rangwala
(Not residing in
Campus)
5 Dr. Monica Senior Resident Medicine Accepted
Razdhan
6 Dr. Prakhar Kabra Senior Resident Medicine Not Accepted
(Not residing in
Campus)
7 Dr. Prakash Joshi Senior Resident Respiratory Accepted
Medicine
8 Dr. Ishita Kapoor Senior Resident Skin & VD Not accept
(Addl.
Qualification
Registration
certificate not
provided given 1
week time but
now it has been
submitted to
MCI.
9 Dr. Nishant Ohri Senior Resident Psychiatry Accepted
10 Dr. Preeti Gupta Senior Resident Paediatrics Not Accepted
(Garg)
(Not residing in
Campus)
11 Dr. Harsha Senior Resident Paediatrics Accepted
Kumawat
12 Dr. Dilip Kumar Senior Resident Paediatrics Accepted
29 W. P. No.12508 of 2018
Gupta
13 Dr. Nandini Dubey Senior Resident Paediatrics Not Accepted
Dixit
(Maternity
Leave)
14 Dr. Wellie Vinay Senior Resident Surgery Accepted
Biswas
15 Dr. Harish Soni Senior Resident Surgery Accepted
16 Dr. Tahira Siddhiqi Senior Resident Surgery Not Accepted
(Not residing in
Campus)
17 Dr. Rohan Senior Resident Surgery Accepted
Chapekar
18 Dr. Rajat Lohia Senior Resident Surgery Accepted
19 Dr. Mohan Kumar Senior Resident Surgery Accepted
Gododia
20 Dr. Manish Senior Resident Orthopedics Accepted
Maheshwari
21 Dr. Neeraj Jain Senior Resident Orthopedics Accepted
22 Dr. Pushpvardhan Senior Resident Orthopedics Accepted
Mandlecha
23 Dr. Abhijeet Senior Resident Orthopedics Accepted
Jayaswal
24 Dr. Praveen Surana Senior Resident E. N.T. Not Accepted
(Not residing in
Campus)
25 Dr. Sonam Verma Senior Resident Ophthalmology Accepted
26 Dr. Neha Garg Senior Resident Obst & Gyane Not Accepted
Agrawal
(Maternity
Leave)
27 Dr. Manjulata Senior Resident Obst & Gyane Accepted
Tomar
28 Dr. Shweta Senior Resident Obst & Gyane Accepted
Kochhar
29 Dr. Amit Tiwari Senior Resident Radio Diagnosis Accepted
30 Dr. Avijit S. Senior Resident Radio Diagnosis Accepted
Khanuja
31 Dr. Shashi Suman Senior Resident Radio Diagnosis Not Accepted
(Not residing in
Campus)
32 Dr. Neeti Mittal Senior Resident Radio Diagnosis Not Accepted
(Kashyap)
(Not residing in
Campus)
33 Dr. Naman Kumar Senior Resident Radio Diagnosis Accepted
Gaur
34 Dr. Parchi Laad Senior Resident Anaesthesia Accepted
30 W. P. No.12508 of 2018
35 Dr. Inder Godaria Senior Resident Anaesthesia Accepted
36 Dr. Rama Chouhan Senior Resident Anaesthesia Accepted
37 Dr. G. S. Khanuja Senior Resident Anaesthesia Accepted
21. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the above explanation and compliance report submitted by the College and submitted that assessors did not follow the Gazette Notifications dated 23.1.2018 (Annexures P-28 and P-29) and arbitrarily carried out the assessment and faculty/residents has been wrongly computed by the assessors out of 54 whereas, as per the Gazette Notification dated 23.1.2018 for 100 MBBS Seats the total Residents are required to be computed out of 62 plus 7 if institute is running PG Course which comes to
69. He also submitted that the assessors have to write the deficiencies of faculty/resident in the performa provided with the letter for assessment, wherein, the assessors are required to provide the Name, Designation, Department and Remarks/Reason for not counting the Senior Resident, contrary to this, the 31 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 9 Senior Resident were counted by the Assessors and no details were provided. He submitted that the assessors have conducted the assessment following the minimum requirements of IIIrd renewal, whereas, it is required to be conducted following minimum requirements of Vth renewal as provided in the Gazette Notifications dated 23.1.2018.
22. In respect of clinical material, the bed occupancy has been computed by the assessors out of 540 which is again contrary to the guideline provided in the Gazette Notifications dated 23.1.2018. As per the guideline, for 100 MBBS seats is 470 plus 100 if college is running PG Course which comes to 570 whereas, the assessors have counted the bed occupancy out of 540 which is illegal, the petitioner college is having 720 beds, and on the date of inspection the bed occupancy was 591 out of 720 i.e. 82%. The institute have 39 wards out of which the assessors did not visited the 7 wards having 138 beds occupied by 120 patients on the day of assessment.
32 W. P. No.12508 of 2018
23. He also pointed out that the respondent No.2 never forwarded any recommendation to respondent No.1 for 100 - 150 seats before 30 th April, 2018 as per the schedule, in result whereof; the petitioner institute is suffering though, there is no deficiencies. He submitted that the respondent No.1--Government of India vide its letter dated 21.5.2018 requested the respondent No.2-M.C.I. to send recommendation for the year 2018-19 with respect to 150 seats. The respondent No.2 vide letter dated 28.5.2018 intimated that since the petitioner-medical college is not fulfilling the requirement for 100 seats, it would not be advisable to allow the college to 100 to 150 seats. In response to this, respondent No.1 sent a mail on 28.5.2018 (2 days prior from the date prescribed for issuance of LOP) to the petitioner-medical college at 6.22 P.M. that petitioner-college is required to remain present on hearing on 29.5.2018 at 10.00 A.M. From this it is clear that neither GOI nor MCI followed the schedule prescribed by the Apex Court and also not 33 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 afforded enough time to present its detailed submissions along with all the evidences during the personal hearing on 29.5.2018. His contention is that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 not followed the time schedule as prescribed by Apex Court i.e. 30th April, 2018.
24. With the aforesaid, he submitted that no inspection has ever been conducted by the MCI for 150 seats and the impugned order dated 31.5.2018 has been passed on the basis of the inspection carried out for 100 seats, thus impugned order suffers from illegality and perversity and liable is to be quashed with a further direction that the petitioner-college is entitled to be permitted to participate in the counseling in the increase intake of 150 MBBS seats and respondent No.2 be directed to conduct the inspection in the light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 18.9.2017 and submits its report and after the recommendation is sent by the Medical Council of India, the Central Government shall take a decision 34 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 after according the proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
25. No reply on behalf of respondent No.1 has been filed.
26. Shri Dharmendra Chelawat, learned Counsel, who gave appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 has adopted the detailed reply affidavit filed by respondent No.2--Medical Council of India.
27. Per contra, Shri S. S. Chouhan, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the petitioner-college had failed to maintain the minimum infrastructure, teaching faculty, residents, clinical material and other physical facilities due to which the petitioner-medical college could not be considered for grant of renewal of permission for admission of fresh batch of MBBS students against increased intake of 150-100 students for the academic sessions 2018-19 since the medical college was not even fulfilling the minimum infrastructure, teaching faculty, residents, clinical material and other physical facilities for 100 35 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 MBBS admissions.
28. He also submitted that the inspection reports dated 18/19.12.2017 and 13.4.2018 were so grave in nature that the same could not be brushed aside in the larger public interest and also in the interest of the student community and hence, the M.C.I was compelled to recommend to the Central Government not to recognize the petitioner-medical college for award of MBBS degree against increased intake from 100 - 150 MBBS seats. He also submitted that the petitioner-medical college was obliged to be ready with the complete infrastructure, teaching faculty and other physical facilities in their medical college at the time of submitting the application under Section 11(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 for recognition of its MBBS course against the increased intake from 100 to 150 seats and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
29. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
30. The Apex Court in the case of Ashish Ranjan 36 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 and others Versus Union of India and others reported in (2016) 11 SCC 225 has accepted and approved the Notification, issued by the MCI with the prior approval of the Central Government under Section 33 of the I.M.C Act, 1956 pertaining to the time schedules, including time schedule for receipt of applications for increase of admission capacity in MBBS course/renewal of permissions for increase of seats and processing of the applications by the Central Government and the Medical Council of India from the academic year 2017-18. The statutory time schedule permits the Central Government to issue of letter of permission to a medical college for establishment of new medical college or for renewal of permission or increase of intake capacity on or before 31.5.2018.
31. As per report, the shortage of residents was found 18.51% i.e. more than 10% and the bed occupancy was found to be 53% i.e. less than 70%. The decision of the Council has been approved by the Oversight Committee as appointed by the Apex Court on 37 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 4.5.2018 whereafter the same was communicated to the Central Government of India. The respondent No.1 vide letter dated 21.5.2018 (Annexure R-2/25) had requested the MCI to forward its recommendations for grant of permission to admit fresh batch of MBBS student against increased intake of 150-100 MBBS students for the academic session 2018-19. Relevant part of the letter reads as under:-
"To The Secretary Medical Council of India, Pocket - 14, Sector-8, Phase-1, Dwarka, New Delhi-77.
Subject: Recognition/approval of Sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Sciences, Indore for the award of MBBS degree (100-150 seats) u/s 11(2) of IMC Act, 1956- Order dated 18.9.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in WPC No.810/2017.
I am directed to refer to MCI's letter No.MCI- 37(1)(Recg-17)/2015-Med./106031 dated 04.05.2018 and to say that as per the direction of the Supreme Court dated 18.9.2017 passed in WPC No.810/2017, MCI has to send their recommendation to the Ministry for the year 2018- 19 with respect of to admission of MBBS students (100-150) at Sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Sciences, Indore for taking a decision after taking assistance of Oversight Committee and after granting hearing to the institute. However, there is no such recommendation for the year 2018-19 in the MCI's letter dated 04.05.2018.
2. MCI is, therefore, requested to send recommendation for the year 2018-19 in respect of Sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Sciences, Indore 38 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 (100-150 seats) keeping in the view order dated 18.9.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in WPC No.810/2017.
Yours faithfully, (D V K Rao) Under Secretary to the Govt. of India Tel: 01123062959. "
32. The respondent No.1, after receipt of response from the respondent No.2 on 28.5.2018 directed the petitioner through Telephone as well as through e-mail on 28.5.2018 to remain present for the hearing before Government of India on 29.5.2018 at 10.00 A.M. The petitioner appeared before the respondent No.1 and also submitted detailed submissions on 29.5.2018 pointing out the details of the compliance made by him and there was no violation of any of the provisions of Regulations of Establishment of Medical College Regulation, 1999. As per amendment made in the year 2016, but without any further verification either from the MCI or by giving direction to the MCI to verify the same on the very next day passed the order.
33. The stand of respondent No.2 that Dr. Ambedkar Jayanti and Baishakhi festival are neither an important 39 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 religious or festive holidays as declared either by the Central Government or by the State Government. Thus, the petitioner-college cannot claim any shelter under proviso to Regulation 8(3)(1) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999.
34. Clause 8(3)(1) a, b, c and d of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 (Amended) upto, 2010 to 2016 reads as under:-
"The following shall be added:
"(3)(1). The permission to establish a medical college and admit students may be granted initially for a period of one year and may be renewed on yearly basis subject to verification of the achievements of annual targets. It shall be the responsibility of the person to apply to the Medical Council of India for purpose of renewal six months prior to the expiry of the initial permission. This process of renewal of permission will continue till such time the establishment of the medical college and expansion of the hospital facilities are completed and a formal recognition of the medical college is granted.
Further admissions shall not be made at any stage unless the requirements of the Council are fulfilled. The Central Government may at any stage convey the deficiencies to the applicant and provide him an opportunity and time to rectify the deficiencies.
Note: In above clause, "six months" shall be substituted by "as per latest time schedule"
PROVIDED that in respect of
(a) Colleges in the stage upto II renewal (i.e. Admission of third batch):
If it is observed during any regular inspection of the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 30% and/or bed occupancy is < 60 %, such an institute will not be considered for renewal of permission in that Academic Year.
(b) Colleges in the stage from III renewal (i.e. Admission of fourth batch) till recognition of the institute for award of M.B;B.S. degree:
If it is observed during any regular inspection of the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or 40 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 Residents is more than 20% and/or bed occupancy is < 70 %, such an institute will not be considered for renewal of permission in that Academic Year.
(c) Colleges which are already recognized for award of M.B.B.S. Degree and/or running Postgraduate Courses:
If it is observed during any regular inspection of the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 10% and/or bed occupancy is < 80 %, such an institute will not be considered for processing applications for postgraduate courses in that Academic Year and will be issued show cause notices as to why the recommendation for withdrawal of recognition of the courses run by that institute should not be made for Undergraduate and Postgraduate courses which are recognized u/s 11(2) of the IMC Act, 1956 along with direction of stoppage of admissions in permitted Postgraduate courses.
(d) Colleges which are found to have employed teachers with faked / forged documents:
If it is observed that any institute is found to have employed a teacher with faked / forged documents and have submitted the Declaration Form of such a teacher, such an institute will not be considered for renewal of permission / recognition for award of M.B.B.S. Degree / processing the applications for postgraduate courses for two Academic Years - i.e. that Academic Year and the next Academic Year also.
However, the office of the Council shall ensure that such inspections are not carried out at least 3 days before upto 3 days after important religious and festival holidays declared by the Central/State Govt.
(2) The recognition so granted to an Undergraduate Course for award of MBBS degree shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon which it shall have to be renewed.
(3) The procedure for 'Renewal' of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award of recognition.
(4) Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in subclause (a) supra shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions to the concerned Undergraduate Course of MBBS at the said institute." *As per the terms of Notification published on 16.04.2010 in the Gazette of India.
In terms of Gazette Notification dated 18.03.2016 the following additions/modifications/ deletions/substitutions, shall be, as indicated therein:
3.(1) In Clause 8(3)(1)(a) under the heading of "Colleges in the stage upto II renewal (i.e. Admission of third batch)" shall be substituted as:-
(a) Colleges in the stage of Letter of Permission upto II renewal (i.e. Admission of third batch) If it is observed during any inspection/assessment of the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 30% and/or bed occupancy is <50% (45% in North East, Hilly terrain, etc.), compliance of 41 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 rectification of deficiencies from such an institute will not be considered for issue of Letter of Permission(LOP)/renewal of permission in that Academic Year.
In Clause 8(3)(1)(b) under the heading of "Colleges in the stage from III renewal (i.e. Admission of fourth batch) till recognition of the institute for award of M.B.B.S. degree" shall be substituted as:-
(b) Colleges in the stage of III & IV renewal (i.e. Admission of fourth & fifth batch) If it is observed during any inspection of the Institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and / or Residents is more than 20% and / or bed occupancy is <65%, compliance of rectification of deficiencies from such an institute will not be considered for renewal of permission in that Academic Year.
In Clause 8(3)(1)(c) under the heading of "Colleges which are already recognized for award of M.B.B.S. degree and / or running Postgraduate courses" shall be substituted as:-
(c) Colleges which are already recognized for award of M.B.B.S. degree and / or running Postgraduate courses.
If it is observed during any inspection / assessment of the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and / or Residents is more than 10% and / or bed occupancy is <70%, compliance of rectification of deficiency from such an institute will not be considered for issue of renewal of permission in that Academic Year and further such an institute will not be considered for processing applications for Postgraduate courses in that Academic Year and will be issued show cause notices as to why the recommendations for withdrawal of recognition of the courses run by that institute should not be made for undergraduate and postgraduate courses which are recognized u/s 11(2) of the IMC Act, 1956 along with direction of stoppage of admissions in permitted postgraduate courses.
In Clause 8(3)(1)(d) under the heading "Colleges which are found to have employed teachers with fake/forged documents: the second paragraph shall be substituted as:-
"However, the office of the Council shall ensure that such inspections are not carried out at least 2 days before and 2 days after important 42 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 religious and festival holidays declared by the Central/State Govt."
(4) The Council may obtain any other information from the proposed medical college as it deems fit and necessary. RECONSIDERATION Wherever the Council in its report has not recommended the issue of Letter of Intent to the person, it may upon being so required by the Central Government reconsider the application and take into account new or additional information as may be forwarded by the Central Government. The Council shall, thereafter, submit its report in the same manner as prescribed for the initial report."
35. Learned Senior Counsel has also drawn our attention to the interim order dated 18.6.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P. (s) (Civil) Nos.634/2018, The State of Bihar Versus Medical Council of India and another and submitted that similar order be passed in favour of the petitioner- medical college.
36. We have gone through the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The aforesaid order has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in respect of three Government medical colleges situated at Bihar and, therefore, the same would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner.
37. In the case I. Q. City Foundation and another Versus Union of India & others 43 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 decided on 1.8.2017 in W. P. (Civil) No.502 of 2017, the Apex Court has held thus:-
"29. On a reading of Section 10-A of the Act, Rules and the Regulations, as has been referred to in Manohar Lal Sharma (supra), and the view expressed in Royal Medical Trust (supra), it would be inapposite to restrict the power of the MCI by laying down as an absolute principle that once the Central Government sends back the matter to MCI for compliance verification and the Assessors visit the College they shall only verify the mentioned items and turn a Nelson's eye even if they perceive certain other deficiencies. It would be playing possum. The direction of the Central Government for compliance verification report should not be construed as a limited remand as is understood within the framework of Code of Civil Procedure or any other law. The distinction between the principles of open remand and limited remand, we are disposed to think, is not attracted. Be it clearly stated, the said principle also does not flow from the authority in Royal Medical Trust (supra). In this context, the objectivity of the Hearing Committee and the role of the Central Government assume great significance. The real compliant institutions should not always be kept under the sword of Damocles. Stability can be brought by affirmative role played by the Central Government.
And the stability and objectivity would be perceptible if reasons are ascribed while expressing a view and absence of reasons makes the decision sensitively susceptible.
30. Having said this, we are not inclined to close the matter. The petitioners have been running the College since 2013-14. We have been apprised that students who have been continuing their education shall continue for 2017-18. As we find the order of the Central Government is not a reasoned one. It is obligatory on its part to ascribe reasons. For the said purpose, we would like the Central Government to afford a further opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and also take the assistance of the newly constituted Oversight Committee as per the order dated July 18, 2017 passed by the Constitution Bench in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 408 of 2017 titled Amma Chandravati Educational and Charitable Trust and others v. Union of India and another and thereafter take a decision within two weeks. Needless to say, the decision shall contain reasons. We repeat at the cost of repetition that the decision must be an informed one.
31. Before parting with the case for the present, it is warrantable to state that "health", a six letter word, when appositely spelt and pronounced, makes the body and mind holistic and an individual feels victorious. Apart from habit and nature, some external aid is necessary. And that is why, it is essential to have institutions which are worthy to impart medical education so that the society has not only qualified doctors but doctors with impeccable and sensitive qualities. A lapse has the potentiality to invite a calamity. Not for nothing, Hippocrates had said, "A wise man ought to 44 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 realize that health is his most valuable possession." Therefore, the emphasis is on the compliant institutions that can really educate doctors by imparting quality education so that they will have the inherent as well as cultivated attributes of excellence."
38. Prima facie, the findings which are arrived at by the respondent No.2 seems to be contrary to the Regulations of 1999. The respondent No.1 on the basis of the findings/reports/recommendations of the MCI decided the matter and passed the order dated 31.5.2018.
39. On due consideration of the aforesaid so also the fact that the Hearing Committee has accepted that some parameters are wrongly referred by the assessors and respondent No.2 - Medical Council of India did not carry out any compliance verification inspection as required to take a decision about Clause 8(3)(1)(c) in respect of increase of 100 to 150 seats and the inspection of 13.4.2018 was carried out only for 100 seats. Whereas, the MCI was required to first carry out compliance verification for increase 100 to 150 seats of MBBS and no appropriate reasoning and names and evidence were assigned by the assessors of respondent 45 W. P. No.12508 of 2018 No.2 to the effect that why they were not considering some of the Senior Residents, which has been accepted by the Hearing Committee, which is against the guidelines of Regulations and spirit of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 18.9.2017, we set aside the order dated 31.5.2018 passed by the respondents and remit the matter to the respondent No.1 to go through the detailed explanation/reply t0 the assessor's report submitted by the petitioner-medical college and decide the same afresh strictly in terms of Regulation of 1999 and if they found that fresh inspection is required, then the same shall be made expeditiously and decide afresh in accordance with law within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
40. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed in part, as indicated hereinabove, without any order as to costs.
(P.K. JAISWAL) (S. K. AWASTHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
pp
Digitally signed by Pankaj Pandey
Date: 2018.07.23 12:30:10 +05'30'