Madras High Court
Aarupadaiveedu Medical College Run By ... vs Pondicherry University, Pondicherry, ... on 22 March, 2002
Equivalent citations: AIR2002MAD366, (2002)2MLJ49, AIR 2002 MADRAS 366, (2002) 2 MAD LJ 49
Author: A. Kulasekaran
Bench: A. Kulasekaran
ORDER A. Kulasekaran, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records comprised in the proceedings of the respondent dated 07-06-2001 in PU/AS I/Acs.8/2001/10/97/521 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to grant affiliation for the petitioner Medical College from the academic year 2000-2001 in the light of the permission granted by the Central Government and in the light of admission of students by the Centralised agency of the Government of Pondicherry for the academic year 2000-2001 to enable the students of the petitioner institution to continue and complete the course by undertaking all examinations.
2. The matrix of case culled out from the affidavit are that the petitioner is a medical college which was established in the Union Territory of Pondicherry after obtaining permission from the Government of India under Section 10(A) of the Indian Medical Council Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) from the academic year 2000-2001. The petitioner has approached the Government of Pondicherry for grant of essentiality certificate / No Objection Certificate which was also given by the Government of Pondicherry vide its communication dated 28-05-1999 for the academic year 1999-2000. The respondent/University also granted No Objection Certificate by its proceedings dated 04-11-1999. The Central Government after considering the application of the petitioner and after due inspection issued a letter of intent by its proceedings dated 17-11-2000 to the petitioner's college with an annual intake of 100 students with effect from the academic year 2000-2001 under Section 10(A) of the Act. The said letter was issued to the petitioner subject to compliance of certain conditions. In the meantime, the academic year 2000-2001 was started and the petitioner was corresponding with the respondent/University and the State of Pondicherry. The Pondicherry Government sent a letter dated 16-03-2001 in reply to the petitioner's request for allotment of students by the State Government out of the merit list based on the medical entrance test 2000 for the 1st Year M.B.B.S. Course with effect from the academic year 2000-2001. The Central Government also by its communication dated 11-05-2001 granted permission to the petitioner under Section 10(A) of the Act for starting the medical college with effect from the academic year 2000-2001 which is valid for a period of one year and it has to be renewed on yearly basis based on the verification of the achievement of annual target set out in the project report. The Petitioner's College was also directed not to admit more than one batch of students and directed to apply to the Medical Council of India for renewal of permission before commencement of the next academic session. In short, the next batch of students could not be admitted unless the renewal of permission was granted by the Central Government. The copy of the said letter dated 11-05-2000 was also marked to the Pondicherry State Government as well as the respondent/University pointing out that Central Government had expressly permitted the petitioner to admit the students for the academic year 2000-2001. On receipt of permission from the Central Government, the petitioner requested the State Government to admit students in the 1st year M.B.B.S. Course for the year 2000-2001 in compliance with the permission granted by the Central Government. The petitioner has also made similar request to the respondent/University for grant of affiliation by their application dated 14-05-2001. The State Government by its communication dated 15-05-2001 requested the petitioner to inform whether the Management had applied for affiliation for the 1st year M.B.B.S. Course and if so directed to send the copy of the application and the letter of affiliation of the University. The Government of Pondicherry through its Centralised Admission Committee published notification in the newspapers informing that the list of candidates who are provisionally selected for admission would be displayed in the notice board at the Pondicherry Engineering College. Further, the selected candidates were directed to report at the office of the petitioner's Medical college on 04-06-2001. The State Government has also sent a letter dated 02-06-2001 to the petitioner enclosing the list of candidates who are provisionally selected. In and by the said letter, the Government of Pondicherry forwarded a list of 35 candidates instead of 25 candidates under payment category since 10 candidates admitted in the free seat category were in the rolls of Vinayaga Medical College under payment category and their seats at Vinayaga Medical College, Karaikkal would be converted into free seats as an internal adjustment. The petitioner was also required to collect Rs. 3000/- as counselling fee from the candidates. The said list of candidates reported was also sent to the University. Inspite of the Central Government permission and also the State Governments having proceeded to admit the students, the respondent/University sent the impugned communication dated 07-06-2001 thereby informed the petitioner that the provisional affiliation for the academic year 2000-2001 was not feasible, hence this writ petition.
3. Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the impugned order refusing to grant affiliation for the academic year 2000-2001 and the reasons assigned by the respondent/University are illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the procedures and instructions given by the Government of India; that the State Government has granted essentiality certificate to the petitioner's college as early as on 25-05-1999 for starting medical college from the academic year 1999-2000 which was followed by the respondent's consent of affiliation for the academic year 1999-2000 which was granted after consideration of various factors including the suitability and feasibility etc., The learned senior counsel brought to the notice of this Court that pursuant to the letter of intent dated 17-11-2000 granted by the Government of India, the petitioner had started the college from the academic year 2000-2001, later final approval was also granted by the Central Government on 11-05-2001. Based on the said permission of the Central Government, the Government of Pondicherry alloted candidates, however subject to affiliation granted by the Pondicherry University. The learned Senior counsel further argued that contrary to the permission granted by the Central Government and after admission of students by the Government of Pondicherry, the respondent/University by just ignoring the earlier precedent refused to grant affiliation on the sole ground that the academic year 2000-2001 is nearing the end and the students could not satisfy the requisite days of attendance. The learned senior counsel also argued that in number of cases affiliation has been granted after the commencement of the academic year or at the fag end of the academic year. In this case the State Government has recognised and acted in harmony with the Central Government's permission to admit the students, while so it is not fair on the part of the respondent to refuse affiliation for the academic year 2000-2001. The learned Senior counsel also drawn the attention of this Court that Central Government has also proposed to renew the permission for the academic year 2001-2002 for the second batch and as such the impugned order would only result in serious consequences in as much as the petitioner cannot move the application for grant of renewal of permission for the academic year 2000-2001; that in one case the affiliation was granted by Universities with retrospective effect on the approval granted by the Dental Council of India. One other invalid reason for passing the impugned order was that the students already admitted for the academic year 2000-2001 could not satisfy the requisite attendance. So long as the students undergo and complete the minimum required teaching and training they will be entitled to undergo examinations as per the guidelines issued by the Government of India and Medical Council of India and as such the same cannot be sustained for non-grant of affiliation by the respondent. The University is bound to grant affiliation based on the approval granted by the Central Government, the students are fully equipped to appear for the examination and by virtue of rejection of the application, the students are prevented from appearing the examination.
4. Mrs. Thilagavathy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/University argued that the Central Government has granted permission by its proceedings dated 11-05-2001 subject to the affiliation by the respondent for the academic year 2001-2002, which almost comes to an end. Even the State Government and Central Government have granted permission subject to affiliation by the respondent. In any event, the petitioner ought not to have admitted the students without obtaining prior clearance from the respondent/University. The University also sent the impugned proceedings dated 07-06-2001 to the Government of Pondicherry stating that the application for affiliation from the petitioner has been received at the fag end of the academic year. The learned counsel further argued that one of the reasons for not granting the affiliation was 210 days of attendance by the candidates would not be feasible and the affiliation for the next academic year will be considered provided an application is made by the petitioner to the respondent/University within the stipulated time after obtaining approval from the Union of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department for renewing the initial permission. The contention of the petitioner that the students were admitted even prior to the affiliation is a clear violation of the norms besides it is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Medical Council of India. The University by its proceedings dated 26-06-2001 has also cautioned the petitioner not to run the college without prior and valid affiliation and a copy of the same was also sent to the Government of Pondicherry (Centac). The notification dated 01-06-2001 and the proceedings dated 07-06-2001 of the Government of Pondicherry made it clear that the provisional selection of all the candidates are subject to the approval by the respondent. The learned counsel vehemently opposed that the failure of the petitioner in not obtaining the affiliation at the appropriate time would not entitle the petitioner to seek permission before this Court. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court the procedures contemplated under the Academic Ordinance framed under Statute Chapter 32 read with Section 5 (17) of Pondicherry Universities Act which requires an assessment to be made by the University by an affiliation committee to be constituted by the academic council upon inspection of the proposed college and the report of the committee will be considered by statutory body before granting affiliation and thereafter the affiliation would be granted. The petitioner has applied for affiliation at the fag end of the academic year and the period available is not sufficient for even considering the provisional affiliation.
5. The Government of Pondicherry by its proceedings dated 04-11-1999 permitted the petitioner to start a medical college during the academic year 1999-2000 on the letter dated 10-08-1999 submitted by the petitioner wherein it is stated that the No Objection Certificate issued is subject to the relevant provisions of affiliation of the Pondicherry University and also full compliance of the requirements of the University. The Government of Pondicherry by its proceedings dated 23-10-2000 has granted linguistic minority status to the petitioner's college. The Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department by its proceedings dated 17-11-2000 granted permission to the petitioner for starting medical college under Sec. 10(A) of the Act. In the said proceedings, it is categorically mentioned that after careful consideration of the scheme and taking into consideration of the recommendations of the Medical Council of India in this regard, the Ministry was satisfied to grant letter of intent for establishing a new medical college with an annual intake of 100 students from the academic year 2000-2001 under Sec. 10(A) of the Act. The said letter of intent was also granted subject to the fulfilment that the applicant should provide infrastructural facilities as per the medical council of India norms, provide bank guarantee, rectify all the deficiencies pointed out in the inspection report and no students should be admitted in the college till the permission is granted by the Central Government. The Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department by its proceedings dated 11-05-2001 granted approval for establishment of the petitioner's college with an annual intake of 100 students with prospective effect i.e., academic year 2000-2001 under Section 10(A) of the Act, initially for a period of one year. It is also stated in the said proceedings that the same shall be renewed on the basis of verification of achievement of annual target set out in the project report. After receipt of the said proceedings, the petitioner has sent a letter dated 11-05-2001 to the Chairman, Selection Committee, Government of Pondicherry intimating the approval granted by the Central Government and requested it to allot 50% of the Candidates under free and payment seat category and informed that the petitioner college is entitled to admit the remaining 50% of the students. The petitioner has also sent an application dated 14-05-2001 to the respondent/University for granting provisional affiliation for the year 2000-2001 and enclosed the No Objection Certificate issued by the Government of Pondicherry dated 28-05-1999, no objection/consent affiliation from the Pondicherry University dated 04-11-1999, letter for allotment of students from the Pondicherry Government dated 16-03-2001 and letter of permission from the Government of India dated 11-05-2001. The Government of Pondicherry by proceedings dated 18-05-2001 called upon the petitioner to send the letter of affiliation obtained from the Pondicherry University. The Government of Pondicherry has also made a notification dated 01-06-2001 in the newspapers stating that list of candidates who are provisionally selected for admission in 1st year M.B.B.S. Course in the petitioner's medical college for the academic year 2000-2001 shall be published in the Pondicherry Engineering College and the selected candidates are directed to report to the petitioner's college on 04-06-2001. The Government of Pondicherry, Centralised Admission Committee (Centac) sent a letter dated 02-06-2001 to the petitioner enclosing the names of 35 selected candidates, however it is mentioned that the admission are subject to the approval from the Pondicherry University. The respondent/University sent the impugned order dated 07-06-2001 negativing the provisional affiliation sought by the petitioner. The Government of Pondicherry also by proceedings dated 15-06-2001 called upon the petitioner to inform the action or proposed action against the impugned order dated 17-06-2001 passed by the respondent/University.
6. The reasons assigned in the impugned order was that the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department has granted approval at the fag end of the academic year 2000-2001 as such it is not feasible for the students to gain attendance for the academic year 2000-2001. Statute 32 of the Pondicherry University Act, 1985 deals with the admission of the Candidates stipulates in clause 2 that the College should satisfy the executive council on matters of suitability and adequacy of infrastructural facilities, under clause 3 no college or institution shall be given permission except on the recommendation of the academic council, Chapter 7 of the Academic Ordinance of the Pondicherry University stipulates in clause (d) the requirement of the affiliation committee scrutinising the applications of the proposed college and its recommendation to the academic council, clause (e) stipulates that the academic council after considering the report of the affiliation committee shall appoint an inspection committee, clause (f) states that inspection committee shall inspect the site and submits its report to the University. These requirements as per the Universities Act and Ordinance has to be completed before affiliation can be considered for the College and as such the admission of students before affiliation has no validity. As per the Medical Council of India norms for M.B.B.S. Course in Chapter VII Clause 7 (3)requires that the attendance for student should be approximately 210 teaching days. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department accorded approval only on 11-05-2001 and as such the attendance requirements for students cannot be practically attained in the academic year 2000-2001.
7. The University is also one of the agencies constituted by the Medical Council of India. Nodoubt, as per the ratio laid down in Unni Krishnan's case , in view of the UGC Act, no Educational Institution except the University could award degrees.
8. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the below mentioned judgments can be made applicable to the case on hand.
i) (Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust Vs. State of Tamil Nadu)
ii) (1994) 8 Supreme Court Cases - 605 (State of U.P. Vs. Praveen Kumar Sharma) In both the cases, the Apex Court held that for establishing medical colleges, opening of higher courses of study and increase of intake capacity, the permission of the Central Government alone is required as the same was made consequent to the recommendations of the Medical /Dental Council of India.
iii) AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1614 (Jaya Gokul Educational Trust Vs. Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram and another) wherein in Para No.22 it has been held thus:-
"...As held in the Tamil Nadu Case (1995 AIR SCW 2179) the Central Act of 1987 and in particular, Section 10 (K) occupied the field relating the grant of approvals for establishing technical institutions and the provisions of the Central Act alone were to be complied with."
...In case of difference of opinion as between the various consultees, the AICTE would have to go by the views of the Central Task Force. These were sufficient safeguards for ascertaining the views of the State Governments and the Universities. No doubt the question of affiliation was a different matter and was not covered by the Central Act but in the Tamil Nadu case, it was held that the University could not impose any conditions inconsistent with the AICTE Act or its Regulation or the conditions imposed by the AICTE. Therefore, the procedure for obtaining the affiliation and any conditions which could be imposed by the University, could not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Central Act."
This judgment of the Apex Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
9. Admittedly in this case, after obtaining the recommendations of the Medical Council of India, the Central Government has granted the letter of intent to the petitioner college for the establishment of a new Medical College in Pondicherry. Once the approval was granted by the Central Government, if there is any default on the part of the college in compliance with the conditions of approval, the University as one of the agencies of the Medical Council of India, could bring those facts to the Medical Council of India so that the Medical Council of India could take appropriate action. Admittedly, the respondent University after receipt of the application dated 14.5.2001 from the petitioner witnessed the developments i.e., paper publication dated 1.6.2001 issued by the Government of Pondicherry, the list of selected candidates to the petitioner college and the admission of students by the petitioner's college. In this case, the university has not taken any steps to constitute an affiliation committee for inspection nor placed the matter before the executive committee, but refused to grant affiliation for the academic year 2000-2001 on the sole ground that the application was received at the fag end of the academic year. Admittedly the university did not find fault with the infrastructural facility provided by the college. Indeed the Central Government was satisfied with the said facility has permitted the college to admit the students with an annual intake capacity of 100 students.
10. The Central Government, the State Government, the Medical Council of India and the University work together and grant affiliation. Once the Central Government has granted permission to admit the students with effect from 2000-2001 academic year, it is not right on the part of the university to prescribe a different period by rejecting the application for affiliation. Moreover, the university cannot dictate the petitioner to admit students after affiliation. The reasons assigned by the university is that the Central Government has granted approval at the fag end of the academic year as such it was not feasible for the students to satisfy the requisite attendance. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the college and the students are aware of the norms of the Medical Council of India for M.B.B.S. Course as contemplated under Chapter II clause 7 (3) that requisite working days are essential to appear for the examinations and it is for the Medical Council of India to permit the students as per the norms prescribed to that effect as such the reasons assigned by the respondent/University for rejecting the affiliation is unsustainable in Law.
11. The University shall, on the basis of the permission granted by the Medical Council of India/Central Government and other relevant factors in the University Act/Statute, which are not inconsistent with the Medical Council of India Act and its regulations grant affiliation. It is well settled that all the authorities, including the Medical Council of India, Central Government, State Government and University shall pass orders consistently following each other, however in terms of their own norms and regulations which shall not be in any event inconsistent with Central Government.
12. It is also necessary that under Chapter VII of Academic Ordinances which is framed under Statute 32 read with Section 5(17) of the Act, which requires an assessment to be made by the University by the affiliation committee to be constituted by the academic council to be followed upon by an inspection of the proposed college and the report of the inspection committee would be considered by the statutory bodies whereupon affiliation would be made. In this case, the respondent without following the same has just turned down the request for affiliation made by the petitioner besides that no other valid reason is assigned.
13. For the above reasons, the impugned order passed by the respondent/University is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. I remand the matter back to the respondent/University to pass orders afresh on the application for affiliation as contemplated under Chapter IV of the Academic Ordinance framed under Statute 32 read with Section 5 (17) of the Pondicherry University Act, 1985 keeping in mind the observations made by me supra, the permission granted by the Central Government on the recommendations of the Medical Council of India and the admission of students in the Petitioner's college from the academic year 2000-2001 within a period of four weeks from today.
This writ petition is ordered on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMPs are also closed.