Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(b) Alternatively, direct the Respondents to expeditiously pass an order on the representations dated 09.09.2022 sent by the Petitioners herein."

6. During the course of hearing on the above application, Mr. T. Singhdev, counsel for Respondent No. 2, argued that Petitioner college's Annexure A-2 to C.M. APPL. 44265/2022.

8. In the above background, considering the nature of relief sought in aforesaid application, and uncertainty that would result if only interim directions were issued, it was considered appropriate to hear and decide the main petition as well, to which both the counsel straightway agreed.

CONTENTIONS

9. Mr. Singhdev's submissions are as follows:

12. NMC's primary opposition is that since the Petitioner college had accepted increased intake capacity of 50 seats from academic year 2021-22 onwards, it can only be considered for further increase after grant of revised recognition for said increased intake (50 seats) in terms of Regulation 8(5) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations (Amendment), 2019. On this aspect, judgement of the Supreme Court in Sree Balaji Medical College & Hospital v. Union of India becomes pertinent, wherein it was held that permission and recognition are two distinct aspects - permission is for change in admission capacity, and recognition is of college/ institution.12 A medical college, once recognised, is only required to obtain permission for enhancement. There is no merit in Mr. Singhdev's endeavour to distinguish the above-noted judgment on the ground that it pertains to repealed Sections 10A and 10B of the IMC Act, 1956. Sections 28 and 29 of the NMC Act which lay down the procedure for grant of permission to establish new medical colleges or increase admission capacity, are akin to Sections 10A and 10B of IMC Act. The distinction between permission and recognition, as explained in Sree Balaji Medical College & Hospital (Supra), would thus, hold good and is still relevant to facts of the present case. Therefore, for any See: M.K. Shah Medical College and Research Centre v. Union of India and Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 938.

As can be seen from the above tabulation, the inspection team has noted that there are only 4 assistant professors in Petitioner college in concerned department, however, apart from 2 professors, the Dean of Petitioner college viz. Dr. S. Venkidusamy, being a professor in Physiology, was not considered as part of the teaching staff. He was also present at the time of inspection. Mr. Singhdev explained that since for 200 seats, Petitioner college was found to be compliant, Dr. Venkidusamy was not considered. Irrespective, he ought to have been considered as part of the faculty as he possesses requisite qualifications and experience of a professor.14 Similar approach was adopted by a coordinate bench of this Court in M.K. Shah Medical College and Research Centre (Supra). Therefore, his inclusion would take the total strength of professors in physiology department to 3. Further, undeniably, excess teaching faculty of higher cadre can Refer: Teachers Eligibility Qualifications in Medical Institutions Regulations, 2022.