Chattisgarh High Court
Shailza Raj Jayaswal vs Union Of India 4 Wpc/3369/2019 Mohd. ... on 11 November, 2019
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
WPC No. 2888 of 2019
Muskan Jagwani -Versus- Union of India & Ors.
WPC 3627, 3830,3834, 3369, 3592 of 2019
11/11/2019
Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Mr. Pankaj Singh, Sunny Agrawal and Mr. Faiz
Kazi, Advocates for the respective petitioners.
Mr. Jitendra Pali, Dy. A.G. for the State.
Mr. Rahul Kumar, on behalf of Mr. R.S. Marhas, Advocate for
respondent no.4
Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, counsel for respondent no.7 Mr. Krishna Gopal Yadaw, on behalf of Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Counsel for Union of India.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, counsel for respondent no.6 These writ petitions having been filed seeking for direction to the State Government to accommodate the petitioners in any of the medical colleges run by the State Government for the reason that respondent no.7 Institution from where the petitioners are undertaking MBBS Course does not have requisite infrastructure and faculties, Doctors and other facilities required for the MBBS students to learn their respective subjects.
Respondent no.7 have filed their affidavit on 07.11.2019 stating that all the deficiencies which were pointed out by the MCI on earlier occasions have been met with and they have cured all the deficiencies and as on date the respondent no.7 Institution has entire infrastructure and faculties available for undertaking MBBS Course. Respondent no.7 have also filed the list of around 99 Doctors who are said to be the teaching faculty in the respondent no.7 Institution.
Before proceeding further, this Court would like to get the matter verified in respect of veracity and authenticity of the affidavit so filed by the respondent no.7 and oath by the one of the Directors of Mr. Taran Kumar Nayak.
Under the circumstances respondent no.4 Board of Governors in Supersession of Medical Council of India take appropriate steps to conduct an inspection on a date which has to be a working day not to be disclosed to the respondent no.7 in advance. In other words a surprise inspection be conducted at the Institution and submit a report in respect of inspection, which they shall undertake in the respondent no.7 Medical College.
Respondent no.4 or the Committee which shall be conducting the inspection should also get the video recording of the inspection verifying the establishment, teaching faculties available on the said date and authorities including the hospital facilities and details of the patients available in the hospital. Inspection should also pertain to the availability of the senior residents as well as the junior residents in the premises of the medical colleges on the given date.
Let this inspection be carried out within a period of 3 weeks' starting from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and report be submitted to this Court by the counsel for the respondent no.4 on or before 11.12.2019.
Needless to mention, since counsel for the respondent no.7 submits that as on date they have sufficient teaching faculties available for the petitioners to undertake their studies, it is expected that petitioners would attend the classes and in case if there are any shortcoming still detected by the petitioners they would be at liberty to apprise this Court on the next date of hearing by way of an additional affidavit.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE Rohit