Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. As to what would be the impact of documents which were not supplied with the counter affidavit, and what necessarily flowed from them, is a matter which I will discuss, shortly, hereafter.

22. Moving further, it was also the submission of Mr Singhdev that this court, as well as the Supreme Court, had held in various judgments that reliance ought to be placed on the observations of the assessors as they were "neutral persons" who did not bear any malice towards the institution they were assigned to inspect. This submission was made by Mr Singhdev in the context of the assertions of Mr Gupta that despite averments of malice made in the writ petition qua respondent no.3, no separate counter affidavit had been filed by the said respondent. In the context of the general submission made by Mr Singhdev, that the, integrity and reputation of MCI's assessors ought not to be questioned, reliance was specifically placed by him on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma vs Medical Council of India & Ors. (2013) 10 SCC 60.

24. Apart from this, it was Mr Singhdev's contention that in so far as this case was concerned, the Supreme Court had not indicated that the petition was viable for the academic year 2015-2016.

24.1 Learned counsel thus, submitted, that reliance on interlocutory orders passed by the Supreme Court would not help the cause of the petitioners. More specifically, in context of the Supreme Court's order dated 22.09.2015, Mr Singhdev contended that the cut-off date was extended by a period of ten (10) days, beyond 30.09.2015, only to give leeway to petitioner no.1 to admit students if MCI, upon inspection, had found that there were no deficiencies. It was submitted that since defects were found on inspection, as noted in its report dated 24.09.2015, the petitioners could not take any advantage of the extension of time granted by the Supreme Court by virtue of the aforementioned order. 24.2 Learned counsel further submitted that, in any event, even that deadline had been crossed and, therefore, as on date no such relief could be granted. The subsequent orders of the Supreme Court, to which I have made a reference above, in particular, the order dated 15.10.2015 and 08.12.2015, was sought to be explained away, by Mr Singhdev, by contending that the Supreme Court had not, at any stage, indicated that the petition was viable for the academic year 2015-2016.

Sr. Resident Dr. Shilpi Sharma and Jr. Residents are working in the department and were present in the ward and the assessor has duly verified them..."

42.6 As would be evident on a bare perusal of the final order dated 28.09.2015 passed by the Central Government, there appears to be no consideration of aspects adverted to in the petitioners' communication dated 26.09.2015. Mr Singhdev attempted to argue that the provision in the assessor's guide and in the notification for making adjustment(s) vis-a-vis teaching faculty available in the higher cadre against deficiency in the lower cadre, was taken into account while firming up the report dated 24.09.2015. For this purpose, Mr. Singhdev had laboriously taken me through the calculation sheets, that too department wise, which were filed, as a part of the assessment report dated 23.09.2015. I may only note that the calculation sheet while adverting to the departments and the designations (i.e. the levels at which faculty is to be provided in each department), makes no reference to the names of faculty members. Therefore, it is not possible to co-relate the information given in the calculation sheet with the names adverted to in the petitioner's representation dated 26.09.2015. Furthermore, as correctly pointed out by Mr. Gupta, to which, Mr. Singhdev had no convincing answer that, while an adjustment apparently had been made based on the aforesaid provisions in the Orthopaedic department, there was no adjustment made in the Anaesthesiology and Radiodiagnosis departments. 42.7 This submission seems to be correct, as in the final deficiency chart, the assessors appear to record that the faculty in both Anaesthesiology and Radiodiagnosis departments was short by one Associate Professor. If the adjustment, as contended by Mr. Singhdev, had been made, the final deficiency chart, would not have shown a shortage in the aforementioned departments. As indicated above, the adjustments, in any event, cannot be co-related with the names given in the representation dated 26.09.2015.

43.5 This submission fits in with the argument of Mr Gupta that in the deficiency chart appended at the end of the assessment report dated 23.09.2015, which in sum is the summary of the previous pages of the report, there is only one deficiency shown, that too vis-a-vis a Senior Resident. Therefore, it is not understandable as to how the assessors could have noted that there was deficiency qua Resident Doctors, on 22.09.2015, to the extent of 83%. 43.6 Mr Singhdev, faced with this situation, tried to rely upon, what he, described as working papers/ notes, generated while the inspection was conducted. Mr Singhdev stated that while these documents were not filed with the counter affidavit, the assessment report adverted to the same, since under the insertion in the assessment report where deficiency of 83% is noted, there is a further annotation which reads as: "Given Separately". Mr Singhdev says that this annotation refers to the working papers/ notes. 43.7 A closer scrutiny of the working papers/ notes show that they advert to an inspection carried out on 23.09.2015. This is apparent on a bare perusal of the first line of a handwritten covering letter dated 23.09.2015 addressed by the assessors to the Secretary, MCI. In contrast, the assessment report of 23.09.2015 fixes the assessment date as: 22.09.2015. It is, therefore, not understood as to how working papers/ notes could have been prepared on 23.09.2015 when, physical assessment, according to the assessment report of 23.09.2015, took place on 22.09.2015. This is not the only problem with the working papers/ notes submitted by Mr Singhdev, in the form of a convenience file. It is noticed that working papers/ notes, which carry 23.09.2015 as the date of their generation, invariably did not contain the signatures of any official of petitioner no.1, that is, either petitioner no.2 or its superintendent, one, Mr H.B. Nayak.