Medical Council Of India vs Rkdf Medical College Hospital & ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 183 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      LPA 14/2016
       MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA                    ..... Appellant
                     Through: Mr.Vikas Singh, Sr.Adv. with
                     Mr.T.Singhdev, Ms.Biakthansangi, Adv.
                Versus

       RKDF MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL
       & RESEARCH CENTRE & ORS.                 ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr.L.Nageswar Rao, Sr.Adv. with
                    Mr.S.C. Jha, Adv. for R-1
                    Mr.D.P.Bhardwaj, Mr.Vidhur Mohan, Adv. for R3
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
                                 ORDER

% 11.01.2016 C.Ms.No.634-36/2016(exemptions) Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

LPA No.14/2016 & C.M.No.633/2016 (stay)

1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.12.2015 by which the learned Single Judge while setting aside the order of the Central Government dated 28.09.2015 whereby it was decided not to grant renewal of permission to the respondent No.1 herein/writ petitioner for admitting second batch of 150 MBBS students for the Academic Year 2015-16, disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:-

"51. Therefore, in the given circumstances, I am inclined to direct the Central Government to pass a fresh order on the request for renewal of admission (qua 150 students) for MBBS Course in respect of academic year 2015-2016. While, passing

a fresh order, the Central Government, will bear in mind the observations and findings recorded hereinabove. The Central Government will confine its area of inquiry with regard to the three heads adverted to in its order dated 28.09.2015, that is, deficiency in faculty, deficiency in Resident Doctors, and inflated data of patients i.e. the bed occupancy. This inquiry will be made in the light of the explanations given and material supplied by the petitioners, along with their representation dated 26.09.2015. If necessary, the Central Government may call upon the representatives of the petitioners to take ahead the process of examination of the material placed before it. Since, there is, an extreme constraint of time, the Central Government will pass its renewal of permission order on or before 01.01.2016."

2. Medical Council of India/Respondent No.2 in the writ petition is the appellant before us.

3. We have heard Sh.Vikas Singh, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Medical Council of India and Sh.L.Nageswar Rao, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1/writ petitioner.

4. Apart from submitting that the conclusion in the order under appeal that the alleged deficiencies of faculty, resident doctors and inflated data of patients and admission of non-reserving cases could not be substantiated on the basis of the inspection report is erroneous, it is contented by Sh.Vikas Singh, the learned Senior Counsel that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Medical Council of India Vs. Madhu Singh, (2002) 7 SCC 258, Mridul Dhar Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2005) 2 SCC 65, Priya Gupta Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., (2012) 7 SCC 43 and Royal Medical Trust (Regd.) & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr., 2015 (9) SCALE 68 that the deadline, namely, 30th September for making admissions

to the first MBBS Course must always be observed, the learned Single Judge ought not to have directed to consider the case of the respondent No.1/Medical College for the academic year 2015-16.

5. On the other hand, Sh.L.Nageswar Rao, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, at the outset, has brought to our notice that in compliance with the directions of the learned Single Judge, the Central Government has already passed an order on 01.01.2016 deciding not to renew the permission of the respondent No.1/Medical College for admission of 2nd batch for MBBS course (150 seats) for the academic year 2015-16. It is also submitted that against the said order, respondent No.1 has preferred a fresh writ petition and the same is listed for hearing before the roster Bench.

6. Pointing out that the Central Government has never chosen to prefer an appeal but on the other hand has already implemented the order under appeal, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.1 further submitted that the present appeal by the Medical Council of India is not maintainable at all and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. The further submission of the learned Senior Counsel is that though the time schedule has been held to be mandatory, it has also been held by the Courts, including the Supreme Court, that in appropriate cases, time limit for admission of the students can be extended. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Appollo Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., SLP(C) No.36930-36953 of 2012 dated 17.01.2013 and the decision of the Division Bench of High Court of

Madhya Pradesh in RKDF Medical College Hospital & Research Centre Vs. Union of India & Anr., W.P.(C)7521/2015 dated 01.07.2015. The learned Senior Counsel therefore submits that in the light of the chequered history of the present case, the learned Single Judge is justified in directing consideration of the application of the respondent No.1 College for renewal without having regard to the time schedule.

7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions.

8. In Medical Council of India Vs. Madhu Singh (supra), the Supreme Court held that there is no scope for permitting admissions midstream as that would be against the very spirit of the statute governing the medical education. Reiterating the said principle and applying the schedule notified by the Medical Council of India in Appendix - E of the Graduation Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2004, according to which, the Academic Session shall commence on 1st August and 30th September shall be the last date for admitting the students against vacancies arising due to any reason, the Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar vs. Union of India (supra) held that the said time schedule is required to be strictly observed and there should not be midstream admissions. In Priya Gupta Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (supra), it was held that the said schedule has the force of law inasmuch as the same forms part of the judgments of the Supreme Court which are the declared law of the land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and form part of the regulations of the Medical Council of India which also have the force of law and are binding on all concerned. The three Judge Bench in Royal Medical Trust (Regd.) (supra) has affirmed the principle of law laid down in all the above decisions and declared that

the deadline, viz., 30th September for making admissions to the first MBBS course must always be observed.

9. Thus, it is clear that the time schedule prescribed for making admissions to the first MBBS course is binding on all concerned and cannot be deviated. Whether the learned Single Judge, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, is justified in directing consideration of the application of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein for renewal of admission for MBBS course in respect of the Academic Year 2015-16 notwithstanding the prescribed time schedule is undoubtedly a question that needs consideration in the present appeal. However, the fact remains that the Central Government, in terms of the directions in the order under appeal, had already decided not to renew the permission for admission to MBBS course for the Academic Year 2015-16 holding that the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein has not complied with the requirements of the Regulations framed by MCI and passed an order to that effect on 01.01.2016. Thus, the order under appeal has already worked itself out and the order dated 01.01.2016 has given rise to a new cause of action.

10. Therefore, we are of the view that the issue whether the impugned direction to consider the application of the respondent No.1 herein for grant of renewal for the Academic Year 2015-16 is sustainable does not survive and needs no consideration by us. At any rate, since a fresh writ petition has already been filed by the respondent No.1 herein against the order of the Central Government dated 01.01.2016, it is always open to the appellant herein to contest the said writ petition on the ground that the statutory time schedule has expired long back. If any such objection is raised, we make it

clear that the same shall be considered independently without having regard to the conclusion/finding in the order under appeal.

11. Hence, we decline to grant the interim stay as prayed for and accordingly, CM No.633/2016 shall stand dismissed.

12. Notice in LPA No.14/2016. Renotify on 14.03.2016.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JAYANT NATH, J JANUARY 11, 2016 'anb'