Delhi High Court
Gouri Devi Institute Of Medical ... vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 August, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6898/2019 & CM APPL. 28680/2019.
Judgment reserved on : 13.08.2019
Date of decision : 30.08.2019
GOURI DEVI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES &
HOSPITAL .... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.
and Mr. Vivek Sarin, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Anshuman Sharma,
Mr. Shivanshu Singh, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with
Mr. Kamal Deep, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. T. Singhdev, Ms. Puja
Sarkar, Advs. for MCI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
JUDGMENT
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
1. The petitioner institute vide the present petition seeks the
quashing of the impugned order dated 18.05.2019 passed by the
respondent no.2, the Board of Governors in supersession of the MCI,
vide which the permission sought by the petitioner for renewal for the
4th Batch (150 MBBS students) for the petitioner's institute situated at
Kolkata, West Bengal under Section 10A of the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 for the academic year 2019-20 was declined and
the petitioner institute was directed not to admit any student in the
MBBS course for the academic year 2019-20, though it was stated in
the impugned order that the college was free to apply afresh for the
next academic year strictly as per the provisions of the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 and Regulations framed thereunder.
2. The petitioner has further sought directions to the respondent
no.2 for the grant of renewal of the letter of permission to the
petitioner institute for admitting the second batch of the MBBS
students against the intake of 150 seats or such other appropriate
student seats for the academic year 2019-20.
3. The respondent no.1 arrayed on record is the Union of India
through its Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Delhi.
4. The establishment of the petitioner's institute was approved
vide letter dated 20.08.2016 issued by the respondent no.1 with
permission accorded for an intake of 150 students in the MBBS course
for a period of one year i.e. for the academic year 2016-17 under
Section 10A of the IMC Act, 1956 and it was stated vide the said letter
that the permission would be renewed on yearly basis subject to
verification of the achievement of the annual target as indicated in the
scheme of the petitioner and revalidation of performance bank
guarantee and this process of renewal would continue till such time
the establishment of the medical college and expansion of the hospital
facilities was completed and a formal recognition of the Medical
College was granted.
5. The said letter dated 20.08.2016 bearing no. U-12011/13/2016-
ME-l also stated to the effect that the next batch of students in the
MBBS course for the academic year 2017-18 would be admitted in the
college only after obtaining the permission of the Central Government
and fulfilling the condition of OC stipulated in para 2 of the letter and
that admissions made in violation of conditions mentioned in the letter
would be treated as irregular and action under the IMC Act, 1956 and
Regulations framed thereunder would be initiated.
6. Vide letter dated 09.06.2017, the respondent no.1 debarred the
petitioner institute from admitting students in the MBBS course in the
academic sessions 2017-18 and 2018-19 and informed the petitioner
that the next batch of students could be admitted in the college only
after obtaining the permission of the Central Government for renewal.
7. Vide order dated 23.05.2018 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
petitioner herein was allowed to withdraw WP (C) 256/2018 with
liberty to approach the appropriate authority by way of a formal
application for renewal for the academic session 2019-20 and with
further observations to the effect that the appropriate authority would
process the application to be filed by the petitioner's institute in
accordance with law and no expression on the opinion on the merits of
the controversy either way was expressed through the order dated
23.05.2018 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. The petitioner is indicated to have moved a formal application
for the renewal for the academic year 2019-20 under Section 10A of
the IMC Act, 1956 on 02.07.2018, pursuant to which, the respondent
no.2 conducted the inspection of the medical college on 26-27.11.2018
and the assessment report dated 27.11.2018 of the Assessors of the
respondent no.2 pursuant to a surprise inspection for renewal of
permission of 4th batch, noted the deficiencies as under:
(a) Deficiency of teaching staff - 57.26%
(b) Deficiency of resident doctors - 100%
(c) Deficiency of the infrastructure of college and hospital
was reflected as bed occupancy is 125/410= 30.5% only,
UG Hostel: Out of the required capacity of 360, 210 was
available and 150 was deficient, Residents hostel:100%
deficient, Residential quarters for Non-teaching staff
100% deficient, Medical Superintendent has no
administrative experience, Audiometry (AC &Sound
proof) & Speech Therapy are not available and Space
was available tor Pantry and Storeroom but were not in
usage in all the clinical wards."
9. A dissent note was submitted by the petitioner to the effect that
there was sufficient availability of hostels for students for subsequent
batches. The said note reads to the effect:
"Ref No; GIMSH/MCI/18/H/01 Date: 29/11/2018
To
The Secretary General
Medical Council of Indfa
Pocket- 14 , Sector - 8,
Dwarka Phase -1
New Delhi - 110077
INDIA
Sub: Submission of Dissent Note with relevant documentary
evidence against Inspection at Gauri Devi Institute of Medical
Sciences & Hospital, Rajbandh, Durgapur on 26th & 27th
November, 2018; Reg:
Respected Sir
This is to bring to your kind notice that the assessment for the
academic session 2019-2020, held at Gouri Devi Institute of
Medical Sciences & Hospital, Rajbandh, Durgapur on 26 th &
27th November, 2018. In view of the Assessment Report
prepared by the Assessors, we would like to put forward few of
our observations and clarifications before you which are as
follows:-
SI. No. Observation by the Observation & Clarification
Assessors of GIMSH, Durgapur
Point No:1.13 There is sufficient availability
1. UG Residents @ of hostels for students for
60% Capacity Out subsequent 02 batches. For
of the required the Academic Sessions
capacity of 360, 210 2017-2018 and 2018-0019
is available and 150 there had been no permission
is deficient. for intake of students. Hence
only one batch of students are
there and second batch is
expected.
Point No: 1.13 Not required at this stage.
2. Interns @ 50%
Capacity
Point No.1.13 All of the resident hostels
3. Resident @ 100% were not visited inspite of the
Capacity including fact that there is
PG Deficiency is accommodation for 66
100%. 15 Rooms are residents in 33 rooms. It may
available not please be noted that 100%
occupied. deficiency has been shown
despite reflecting 15 rooms in
the assessment report. At the
time of visit all the residents
had been called upon to reach
the hospital for the sudden
inspection. Video Attached as
Annexure-1
Further it is hereby informed
that during our last inspection
there was no deficiency with
respect to resident hostel.
Point No:1.13 All the rooms in the Nurses
4. Nurses @ 20% hostel are fully furnished.
Capacity Provisions for visitor Room,
Study room and indoor games
are also available.
Point No 113 The required accommodation
5. Non Teaching Staff for the non teaching is
@ 20% Capacity available within the campus.
Video taken during the
Inspection is attached as
Annexure - 2.
Point No:2.4 ENT a. Audiometry room with AC
6. Audiometry Speech and sound proof is available
Therapy in the first floor of the
hospital building along the
ENT OPD Department.
Photograph and Video
attached as Annexure - 3A
Audiometry Technician Mr.
Prakash Kumar was on leave
on 26th November, 2018
hence the machineries
were kept In the Speech
Therapy almirah. Copy of
leave application form is
attached as Annexure - 3B.
b. Separate room for speech
therapy Is also
available. Video attached as
Annexure - 3C
c. Photocopies of Invoice,
Bank Statement of Payment,
Purchase Order & Quotation
or Audiometric Equipments
are attached herewith
as Annexure - 3 D
Point No.2.5 We are having centralized
7. Facilities available store and pantry and the
in each ward ward side store and pantry
Pantry and Store are being used for
Room. distribution of food and other
articles to the respective
wards.
Point No:2.6 Many patients were not
8. Clinical Material counted who were not on the
Bed Occupancy% at bed for the following reasons:
10.00 a.m. on First a. Many of the patients were
Day Bed Occupancy sent to the Radiology,
has been reported Laboratory Services,
as 125/410 = 30.5% Anesthesia Check Up,
Operation Theater, OPD
Consultation and Counseling.
b. Children admitted under
the Pediatric
Department were in the child
play room, and some had
been sent to the vaccination
room
for scheduled immunization.
c. Clinical Material of Gouri
Devi Hospital &. Research
Institute as mentioned in
"Form A" which is in the
same campus and under the
control of the Dean PI.
Principal of the medical
college were not counted and
was not visited by the
Assessors.
Point No.3.3 Both the demo rooms have
9. Anatomy Capacity seating capacity of 75
in Demonstration Students each.
Room 2 Available,
Capacity 63 and 75
Point No:3.3 We are having 75 number of
10. Anatomy Number of microscopes. An entire row of
Microscopes microscopes were mistakenly
Available is 50 not counted.
Point No.3.6 Number of specimens are not
11. Pathology mentioned in the 12 Minimum
Speciments Standard Requirement as
well as in the ASF II.
Point No:3.7 Demo room have seating
12. Microbiology capacity of 75 students.
Demonstration
Room 1 Available,
Capacity 50
Point No.3.11 As we are having only one
13. RHTC Panagarh batch of students who are in
Rooms for Interns to 05th Semester, hence rooms
for Interns are not required at
this stage.
Point No:3.16 A) All the medical M.Sc.
14. Deficiency in faculty members in pre
Teaching Faculty & clinical and para clinical
Residents. departments are not counted
in view of lack of clarity on
eligibility of Assistant
Professor though considered
during the previous Mel
Inspections.
B) Faculties coming 5 to 10
minutes late are not counted.
C) 100 % Residents were
present, but since they were
not in the hostel (as they were
called in the hospital hence
they were not accounted.
So there is nil deficiency of
residents.
D) All faculty members and
residents were asked to
produce Government 10
Cards along with College 10
Card. Many of them were not
carrying Government 10
Cards and they went
to bring the same. This
resulted In 5 to 10 minutes
delay In arrival and they
were not accepted.
E) Residents who were on
duty preceding night were
late and were not considered.
F) There are 24 fiats but due
to typological error it has
been typed 20. This may
please be treated as pure
human error.
Point No2.2 Prof. Dr Arun Ghosh,
15. Medical Department of Microbiology
Superintendent - has earlier worked as
No Administrative Medical Superintendent at
.Experience G.B. Panth Hospital, Tripura
which is a Government
Hospital and hence we
promoted him to the post of
Medical. Superintendent and
the Government Notification
of his earlier appointment Is
attached herewith as
Annexure - 5.
Thus, we would like to request you that the facts presented and
documents attached herewith for your kind perusal may please
be considered and we may be accorded an opportunity.
Moreover Sir, we were debarred for the last two academic
sessions and the college is running with only one batch of
students admitted In the academic year 2016-2017.Therefore,
we are seeking your kind empathy for the future of our medical
college."
10. The respondent no.2 is indicated to have called upon the
petitioner on 14.06.2018 to submit the SAF and declaration forms,
Form-A & B for the academic year 2019-20, which were so submitted
by the petitioner institute. In terms of the Indian Medical Council
Amendment Ordinance, 2018, which was promulgated on 26.09.2018,
the Board of Governors were appointed in supersession of MCI on
26.08.2019.
11. The respondent no.2 is indicated to have asked for submission
of the documentary evidence vide communication dated 24.01.2019
and the petitioner vide letter dated 19.02.2019 submitted its
compliance, which was to the effect:
SI.No. Deficiencies pointed Compliance submitted by the
out in the inspection Institute on 19th February, 2019.
field on 26 & 27
November,2018
Out of UG Despite the fact that there is only
accommodation for one batch of students got admitted
360, in the academic session 2016-17.
accommodation, Hostel accommodation is
available for 210, available for 60% of the students
deficient by 150 as required at the time of 3rd
renewal for 360 students there are
three hostels for UG MBBS
students Girls' Hostel-capacity
126 (42 three seats rooms) Boys'
Hostel l-capacity 174(58 three
seats rooms) Boys' Hostel Il-
capacity 63(21 three seats rooms)
Total capacity for UG students is
(126+237) =363, as per MSR.
Annexure -1:
a. Photographs and Videography
of UG
Hostel for Boys
b. Photograph and Videography
for UG
Hostel for Girls.
There is a 100% accommodation
available for 66 resident doctors.
36 double seats rooms with
capacity of 72 resident doctors are
available in the campus. Further
the
assessors have written in the
assessment report that 15 rooms
are available for the resident
doctors but pointed out 100%
For Residents 100% deficiency.
deficiency of Annexure - I:
accommodation. c. Photographs and Videography
of Resident Hostel
d. Copy of Allotment Register of
Resident Hostel
Residential Quarters The required accommodation for
2. for non teaching the non -teaching staff is available
staff 100% deficient within the campus
Documents attached as Annexure
- II are as under:
a. Photographs & Videography of
Non-teaching staff
accommodation .
b. Copy of Allotment Register of
Non-Teaching Staff
Accommodation.
Audiometry & Air conditioned sound proof
3. Speech Therapy - Audiometry room is available in
not available. the first floor of the hospital
building along the ENT OPO
Department, which is fully
functional.
Separate room for speech therapy
is also available.
Documents attached as Annexure
- III are as under:
a. Photographs and Videography
of fully equipped Audiometry
Room and Speech Therapy.
b. Photocopies of Invoice. Bank
Statement of Payment, and
Purchase Order & Quotation for
Audiometry Equipment's are
attached.
c. Enclosed Photocopy of records
of Audiometry & Speech therapy
Pantry and store We are having centralized store
4. room not in use for and pantry and the ward side store
all clinical wards. and pantry are being used for
distribution of food and other
articles to the respective wards.
However. the store rooms &
pantries are in use for all clinical
wards.
Annexure - IV
Photographs of ward side store
and pantry .
Bed Occupancy is Bed occupancy has been under-
5. 30 .5% reported by the Assessors and does
not match with the actual bed
occupancy as submitted by the
Medical superintendent because of
following reasons,
a. Many of the patients were sent
to the Radiology, Laboratory
Services, and Anesthesia Check
Up, Operation Theater. OPO
Consultation and Counseling
b. Children admitted under the
Pediatric Department were in the
child play; OC in, and some had
been sent to the vaccination room
for scheduled immunization.
c. Many patients were on the
discharge process on the day of the
visit and therefore were not
included in the count of Bed
Occupancy.
d. Patients admitted after 11 a.m.
after the physical visit by the
assessors were not counted.
Hence, it is requested that the
actual bed occupancy may be
accepted. Annexure-V:
Actual bed occupancy as submitted
by the Medical superintendent.
Normal deliveries One patient was seen by assessor
6. and Caesarian - Nil Dr. Shiv kumar who visited the
labor room at around 12.30pm.
The same patient had normal
delivery at 6 pm in the evening
which could not be verified by the
assessors since by that time they
were in the process of leaving the
Institute. Further one LSCS
procedure was performed at 08
:00PM. Documents attached as
Annexure - VI are as under:
a. OT Register.
b. Birth Register.
c. New born details.
Ba & IVP - Nil in The clinical material submitted by
7. OPD the Institute clearly indicates that
one case of Barium Swallow an d
one case of IVP were done for 2
OPD cases which has been duly
accepted by the assessors. Hence
there is no deficiency as far as no.
of special tests done in the OPO in
the department of Radiology is
concerned (please see Assessors
form A II, page no. 17) Hence no
compliance is required in this
case.
Annexure - VII
Copy of Assessors' Form A II,
USG machines not The USG machine was placed in
8. available in the Casualty Examination Room
casualty. which was overlooked by the
Assessors. Presently also, the USG
machine is placed there to
maintain the privacy of the
patients instead of keeping it in the
Casualty Ward.
Hence, no compliance is required.
Annexure - VIII
a. Photographs of USG machine at
Casually Ward.
b. PC & PNDT License of the USG
machine
Bed occupancy in It is very rare to find cases in the
9. septic labour room Septic Labour Room due to
and Eclampsia room availability of prophylactic
is nil. antibiotics. Similarly, patients are
rarely available in the Eclampsia
Room due to preventive treatment
of Pre-Eclampsia. Hence most of
the time, there are no patients
available in Septic Labour Room
& Eclampsia Room in most of the
hospitals as is true for our
hospital too.
In Pathology Presently, we have adequate
10. Museum mounted specimens for the Pathology
specimen only 40 museum as per the Minimum
against 300 (260 Standard
short) un-mounted Requirement.
only 30, against 150 Annexure - IX
(120 short). Photographs of the Pathology
Museum.
No cold chain Cold Chain equipment is available
11. equipment, no at RHTC.
accommodation in Annexure - X
RHTC. Purchase order copy of ILR, and
Vaccine Carrier attached.
Accommodation is not required at
RHTC at the time of 3rd renewal
as per MSR. However, it will be
made available at the time of
Recognition inspection when the
Interns will be posted at RHTC.
Deficiency of Shortage of faculty reported is not
12 Faculty by 57% factual and is under reported
(67/117). because of the following reasons:
a. Seven (07) faculty members
having M.Sc. degree in concerned
specialties were not considered by
the assessors, although as per
Teachers Eligibility
Qualification, their qualification
with 3 years Tutor's experience
makes then; eligible for the post of
Asst. Professor. Despite repeated
requests, the
Assessors did not count them as
faculty members which contributed
to faculty deficiency.
b. Since the inspection was
surprise in nature, some of Faculty
members were not carrying the ID
issued by Govt. agencies, which
resulted into their non-acceptance
by the Assessors. This was another
reason for Faculty deficiency.
c. About 10 faculty members who
came 5-10 minutes late because of
long distance from the Institute
also rejected by the Assessors.
We would like to state that there is
no deficiency of Faculty in the
Institution.
Annexure - XI:
a. Declaration Forms.
b. Faculty List.
c. Videography during Faculty
head count by the Assessors.
Deficiency of We would like to state that there is
13. Resident by 100% no deficiency of Resident Doctors
(66/66). in the Institute. All the Resident
Doctors were rejected by the
Assessors because they did not
visit their hostels and hence they
presumed that there is no Resident
Doctors in the Institute. Many
Resident doctors have also signed
in the attendance sheet available
with the Assessors before 11.00
am. This con1radiction in
reporting of hostel accommodation
as nil as well as reporting 100%
deficiency of Resident Doctors has
seriously disturbed the interest of
the Institution. Resident Doctors
(30 in no.) had performed night
duty and were post duty off. They
should have been allowed to come
for attendance upto 12:00 noon
but they were marked absent at
11:00am. There is serious
contradiction between the
statements of the Assessors where
they have mentioned that there are
15 rooms available for the
Resident doctors (Page No. 10 of
Assessors' report A-II).
So it is being clarified that the
adequate accommodation for all
the Resident Doctors is available
as well as the required number of
Resident Doctors were present on
the day in Assessment. Annexure
XII
a. Declaration Forms.
b. Resident doctors' List.
c. Videography during Faculty
head-count by the Assessors.
d. Hostel Allotment List for
Resident Doctors.
e. Copy of Page no 10 of Assessors
Report A-II.
Other Deficiencies New M.S with requisite
14. as pointed out: qualification along with
Medical administrative experience as per
Superintendents' TEQ has been appointed on
inadequate 14.02.2019 vide letter Ref. No.
administrative GIMSfMCfHRfOLl02/19f972 dated
experience 12.02 .2019 . I
Annexure - XIII
a. Appointment Letter of New
Medical Superintendent
All the factors combined together has resulted into a detrimental
impact on the assessment report submitted by the Assessors,
which need a sympathetic consideration and re-evaluation of the
Institute which already suffering a great hardship and financial
loss for last two years as it is debaired for admission for the
academic year 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. Based on the above
facts with evidences along with the dissent note from College
authorities, the Board of Governors are requested that the Show
Cause notice 8(3)(1 )(b) should not be applied to our Institution
and we should be granted a fair chance for inspection for
verification of compliance which is being submitted, along with
a Demand Draft amounting Rs. 3,54,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs
Fifty Four Thousand only) drawn in favour of The Secretary,
Medical Council of India (DO No 237498, payable at New
Delhi) is enclosed for compliance verification inspection."
12. The Verification Compliance Report indicated that for the
deficiency of teaching faculty of 18.8% and deficiency of residents of
21.2% a dissent note dated 09.04.2019 was put forth by the petitioner
medical college to the effect that if the Faculty Members in the
department of dentistry and the faculty members on leave and those
who came a little after 11 am and those residents who came a little
after 11 am had been considered by the Assessors for which the
petitioner had pleaded many a times before the Assessors, there would
have been only one deficiency (Associate Professor in the department
of Radiology) and the petitioner submitted that it was apparent that
with respect to clinical material, resident hostel, student hostel, non-
teaching accommodation and all other deficiencies as pointed out
during the previous Assessment held on 26th & 27th November, 2018
had been rectified to the satisfaction of the Assessors.
13. The petitioner institute was called for a hearing vide letter dated
01.05.2019 under Section 10A(4) of the IMC Act, 1956. The
petitioner submitted a written representation of the college before the
Hearing Committee to contend to similar effect that:-
"
Point 3: Bed Occupancy 74.8%
There is no deficiency with respect to Bed Occupancy which
has been reported by the Assessors as deficiency of 24.2%
which obviously signifies that the bed occupancy was 75.8%
and not 74.8%. This gross anomaly in the calculation of Bed
Occupancy may kindly be corrected since it is a pure
typographical error.
If the above mentioned Faculty Members and Residents who
were present and were on leave, had been considered by the
Assessors for which we have pleaded many a times before the
Assessors, there would have been only one deficiency (
Associate Professor in the department of Radiology).
Therefore, from the above submission it is apparent that with
respect to all other deficiencies as pointed out during
previous Assessment held on 26th & 27th November, 2018
have been rectified to the satisfaction of the
Assessors........."
The petitioner thus contended that all deficiencies had been
rectified.
14. Vide the impugned communication dated 18.05.2019, the Board
of Governors decided not to renew the permission for admission of the
4th batch. A representation dated 20.05.2019 was made by the
petitioner to the respondent no.2 wherein it was stated to the effect
that whilst adverting to the dissent note submitted on 10.04.2019 to
the respondent no.2 that the petitioner had clarified that evidences had
been submitted before the Hearing Committee and it had clarified that
four faculty members were not accepted by the Assessors though there
were genuine valid reasons for accepting them and rest of the faculty
members were not accepted by the Assessors for coming 10-15
minutes late though all of them were regular faculty members of the
college which could be verified from their regular attendance and
regular salary payment through bank as submitted during the hearing
before the MCI on 7th April, 19. The petitioner further submitted that
as most of them belonged to Pre and Para clinical departments they
did not have regular classes for a prolonged period as the petitioner
had only one batch of students who were now into their 6th semester,
therefore, they came little late on Monday (8th April, 2019) while
returning back from their hometowns. The petitioner further submitted
that being debarred for last two academic sessions, retaining faculties
has become very difficult for it and that little leniencies are extended
towards their duty rejoining time on Monday so as to retain them
which the petitioner would definitely not allow after obtaining
permission for the current academic session. The petitioner further
submitted that the Residents who were on night duty on the previous
night were also not accepted after 11 a.m. though as per the Assessors
Guide of the MCI they should have been allowed to sign upto 12
o'clock which impacted the residents count to 21.2% deficient whereas
actually there was no deficiency. The petitioner further submitted that
it gave immense importance towards the academics of the students
which it submitted was evident from the fact that it has provided all
required infrastructural facilities both in the college and the hospital
with only one batch of students and that the petitioner institute had
been debarred for two academic sessions, The petitioner also
submitted vide the said representation made to the respondent no.2
dated 20.05.2019 that the Minimum Standards Requirement for the 4th
Renewal are very high in comparison to the 3rd Renewal requirements,
for which the petitioner had to develop the infrastructures of both the
college and the hospital upto the recognition level requirements and
thus, the admission for the academic session 2019-20 was extremely
crucial for the petitioner. The petitioner institute further submitted that
the petitioner college is providing free treatment to the patients of a
large surrounding area which would also be greatly impacted due to
financial constraints in case of denial of permission.
15. Vide the representation dated 6.6.2019, the petitioner also called
upon the respondent No.1 to consider the grant of renewal for the
academic session 2019-20 for the 4th batch of 150 MBBS students and
in the alternative requested for the permission with reduced intake
capacity as it was submitted that the number of faculty members
accepted by the assessors would fulfill the faculty criteria with respect
to the reduced intake capacity for the current academic session. A
further representation dated 11.6.2019 was made by the petitioner
institute to the respondent No.2 for the reduced intake of seats
reiterating that the number of faculty members accepted by the
assessors would fulfill the faculty criteria with respect to the reduced
intake capacity for the current academic session.
16. Vide a communication dated 12.6.2019, the Director of Medical
Education, Department of Health & Family Welfare of the
Government of West Bengal forwarded the appeal of the petitioner
institution and requested the respondent institution to take necessary
action regarding the grant of permission for the academic year 2019-
20 for the petitioner college observing that 33% (50 nos.) of the total
seats were reserved for students provided by the West Bengal
Government admitted through NEET for whom the tuition fees will be
subsidized by the college which would be of much help to the students
of West Bengal.
17. Vide communication dated 18.6.2019, the respondent No.2
informed the Director of Medical Education of the Government of
West Bengal informing that the respondent No.2 could not consider
the representation dated 11.6.2019 of the petitioner institute with
regard to the renewal of permission for admission of the 4 th Batch of
150 MBBS students for the academic session 2019-20 at that stage as
the last date for the academic year 2019-20 i.e. 31.5.2019 was already
over.
18. Written submissions have been submitted on behalf of the
petitioner and the respondent No.2 and arguments were extensively
addressed by the learned senior counsel for either side. The respondent
No.1 adopted the submissions made by the respondent No.2.
19. A catena of verdicts has also been relied upon by both on behalf
of the petitioners and the respondents in support of their respective
contentions:
The verdicts relied upon on behalf of the petitioner are:
• Shashikant Lakshman Kale v. Union of India: AIR
1990 SC 2114
• Municipal Council of Sydney v. Margaret Alexandra
Troy: AIR 1928 PC 128
• Jahiruddin and Ors. V. K.D. Rahti, Factory Manager
and Ors.: AIR 1966 SC 907
• Sylvania and Laxman Ltd. V. UOI & Ors.; 1987 (30)
ELT 697 Del
• Shashikalabai v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.;
(1998) 5 SCC 332
• CIT v. Shelly Products and Anr.: (2003) 5 SCC 461
• Ramji Purshottam v. Laxmanbhai D. Kurlawala: (2004)
6 SCC 455
• CIT V. Alom Extrusions Ltd. ; (2010) 1 SCC 489
• CIT v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd.: (2015) 1 SCC 1
• Shanti Conductors v./ Assam State Electricity Board:
(2019) SCC Online SC 68
• Dr.A. Franklin Joseph V. State of Tamil Nadu; (1994) 2
SCC 387
• Y. Srinivas Rao V. J. Veeraiah ; (1992) 3 SCC 63
• State of U.P.v. Singhara Singh; AIR 1964 SC 358
• Golcal Medical College v. Union of India; (2018) 1 SCC
• B.A. Linga Reddy v. Karnataka State Transport
Authority & Ors.; (2015) 4 SCC 515
• Mekaster Trading Corporation v. Union of India;
(2003) 106 DLT 573
• Shri Ganganjali Education Society v. Union of India;
(2017) 16 SCC 656
The verdicts relied upon on behalf of the respondent No.2 are :
• Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. v. Government of Kerala &
Ors. , AIR 1986 SC 1541
• Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & ors. v. Punjab Drugs
Manufacturers Association & Ors. (1999) 6 SCC 247
• ASPI Jal & Anr. v. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor (2013) 4
SCC 333
• Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. & Ors. v Heinz
India (P) Ltd. (2009) 156 DLT 330
• Royal Medical Trust & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. (2017)
16 SCC 605
• Karthi P Chidambaram & Ors. v. Superintendent of Police
2017 LawSuit (Mad) 1353
• Medical council of India v. N.C. Medical College & Hospital
2018 SCC OnLine SC 1468
20. Whereas the factum of existence of deficiencies commensurate
to the 4th Batch of 150 MBBS students for the academic session 2019-
20 in the petitioner institute as per the Minimum Standards
Requirements (MSR) for the medical college for 150 Admissions
Annually Regulations 1999 are not in dispute, the petitioner submits
that the MSR Regulations for admission of 150 MBBS students which
requires a faculty and resident strength to the effect:
Designation LOP 1st Renewal 2nd 3rd 4th Recognition
st nd
(1 Batch) (2 Batch) Renewal Renewal Renewal
(3rd Batch) (4th Batch) (5th Batch)
Faculty
Total
Resident
Total
is irrational and defies logic and is against the dominant intent under
Section 10A(7) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 of the
legislature thereby or to ensure proportionate staff and infrastructure
in relation to number of students currently in the college.
21. The petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 is treating the
petitioner college as if it has already admitted 450 students i.e., the 3 rd
renewal (4th Batch) though in fact the petitioner has only 150 students
and the petitioner submits that it should be evaluated as per the
Minimum Standards Requirements Regulations, 1997 of the 1 st
renewal (2nd Batch) and thus the deficiencies of faculty were only
minimal.
22. The response of the respondent No.2 in relation to this aspect is
categorical to the effect that the medical colleges are required to
maintain faculty, residents, clinical material as well as other physical
infrastructure for 150 MBBS students Annually Regulations framed
under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and since the 1 st Batch of
150 MBBS students admitted in 2016-17 is now in their 4th year and
all faculty, residents clinical material as well as other physical
infrastructure needs to be commensurate with the 4 th Batch and it was
thus incumbent upon the petitioner medical college when it applied for
the recognition for its MBBS course at the third time, the students
from the 1st Batch would appear in the final examination during the
academic year 2020-21 and that it had enhanced/augmented
infrastructure/faculty to full capacity. It has been submitted on behalf
of the respondent No.2 that the medical colleges either at the very
stage of inception/establishment are required to possess enhanced
infrastructure/faculty and apply for recognition or they could
enhance/augment their infrastructure /faculty in a phase wise manner
till the time the 1st Batch progress and reaches the stage of recognition.
The respondent No.2 has submitted that the petitioner had in all its
letters conceded at the stage of grant of 3rd renewal for admission of
4th Batch of the MBBS students for the academic year 2019-20 its
deficiencies and that the medical college vide communication dated
14.6.2018 had by itself submitted the Standard Inspection Forms 'A'
& ' B' along with the declaration form towards grant of 3rd renewal for
admission of 4th Batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2019-
20 and that the Regulations 3 and 8 (3)(1) of the Establishment of
Medical College Regulations, 1999, also made it amply clear that
there was deficiency in the faculty and resident doctors.
23. The respondent No.2 has submitted that the contentions raised
by the petitioner that it has only one batch of 150 MBBS students
studying does not take into account the factum that in the next
academic year, the first batch admitted in 2016-17 would be appearing
in its final examination whereafter in case the MBBS qualification of
the petitioner is not recognized, the future of that batch would be in
jeopardy.
24. It is apparent on a consideration of the submissions that have
been made on behalf of either side that the Minimum Standards
Requirement Regulations, 1999, which are framed by the Medical
Council of India with the previous sanction of the Central Government
in exercise of powers conferred by Section 33 of the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 have essentially to be adhered to by the medical
colleges and medical institutions which have been approved for 150
admissions of the MBBS students only for the stipulations of the
minimum requirements of accommodation in the colleges and their
associate teaching hospital staff (teaching and technical, both)and
equipment in the college departments and hospitals.
25. As regards the contention that has been raised on behalf of the
petitioner institute that in view of the notification dated 25.6.2019
published on 27.6.2019, the reduced intake could be allowed on the
basis of the faculty and resident doctors for the academic year 2019-
20, it is essential to observe that the notification published on
27.6.2019, which is to the effect:
"BOARD OF GOVERNORS IN SUPER-
SESSION OF MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
AMENDMENT NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2019
No.MCI-34(41)/2019-Med./126165.-- In exercise
of the powers conferred by Section 33 of the Indian
medical council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Board
of Governors in super-session of Medical Council
of India with the previous sanction of the Central
Government, hereby makes the following
Regulations to further amend the "Establishment of
medical college Regulations, 1999", namely:-
1. (i) These Regulations may be called the
"Establishment of medical college Regulations
(Amendment), 2019".
(ii) They shall come into force from the date of their
publication in the Official Gazette.
2. In Clause 8, under the heading of "Grant
of permission", sub-Clause 5 shall be added as
under:
8(5)
(i)The Board of Governors in super-session of
Medical Council of India or the Central
Government on the recommendation of Medical
Council of India as the case may be may consider
grant of permission for establishment of a new
Medical College or renewal of permission of
existing Medical College to the lower prescribed
intake capacity, in the event the applicant college
falls short of the requirements prescribed in the
Minimum Standard Requirement Regulations for
the intake capacity for which the Medical College
has applied. Such permission shall be granted only
on the furnishing of an undertaking by the applicant
that the grant of permission with reduced intake is
acceptable to it for that academic session.
Further, the application for renewal of permission
by the permitted medical college for the subsequent
academic year shall be for the intake capacity for
which it has been granted Letter o Permission.
(ii) The Medical College shall be entitled to apply for
increase in intake capacity only after the MBBS
qualification of the college is included in the First
Schedule of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
can relate only and applies only from the academic session 2020-21
onwards and cannot be made retrospectively applicable, as there is
nothing in the notification to so indicate and even otherwise, the last
date for grant of permission as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Ashish Ranjan & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors.: (2016) 11
SCC 225 being 31.05.2019, the petitioner cannot avail of any benefit
of the said notification published on 27.06.2019 for the academic year
2019-20.
26. Thus the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the
reduced intake for the academic year 2019-20 be allowed on the basis
of the notification dated 27.6.2019 - cannot be granted.
27. Further more, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ashish Ranjan & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors.: (2016) 11 SCC
225, the last date of grant of permission by the respondent No.1 for
approval of intake of students to the MBBS course being 31.5.2019
and the notification being published on 27.6.2019, it is apparent that
the notification cannot be used for the benefit of the academic year
2019-20 and as rightly contended on behalf of the respondent No.2,
the application of the petitioner medical college was rejected vide the
impugned order of the respondent No.2 dated 18.5.2019 and the
notification was issued only on 27.6.2019.
28. A contention has further been raised on behalf of the petitioner
that there were only two assessors who conducted the inspection on
8.4.2019 and that for 150 MBBS students, inspection is required to be
carried out by at least three professors/additional professors and
associate professors and the Operation Theatre visit is mandatory
which it is submitted was not conducted in the instant case.
29. The petitioner also submits that the experts of the Dental
College would be sufficient for the faculty strength.
30. Qua this aspect, it has been submitted on behalf of the
respondent No.2 that all the inspections of the petitioner medical
college took place in the presence of the management including the
Dean/Principal who counter signed on each page of the inspection
reports dated 26-27.11.2018 and 8.4.2019 and thus all the deficiencies
pointed out by the Medical Council of India had been duly accepted
by the petitioner college which included faculty strength, resident
doctors strength, bed occupancy, infrastructure and other physical
facilities.
31. Apparently, the deficiencies that have been pointed out in the
instant case being a deficiency of 18.8% for the faculty strength and
21.2% for the resident doctors strength for the renewal of the 4th Bacth
of 150 MBBS students for the academic year 2019-20 cannot be
overlooked and cannot pale into insignificance.
32. Reliance in relation to this aspect has been placed on behalf of
the respondent No.2 on the verdicts in the Royal Medical Trust v.
Union of India; (2017) 16 SCC 605 and MCI v. N.C. Medical
College; (2018) SCC Online SC 1468.
33. In view thus of the deficiencies that have been pointed out by
the respondent No.2 in relation to the faculty strength and the resident
doctors strength, the other contentions sought to be raised on behalf of
the petitioner become insignificant in as much as the respondent No.2
has the duty to regulate and maintain the standards for excellence in
medical education.
34. In view thereof, the petition and the accompanying application
are declined.
35. Copy of the judgment be given Dasti, as prayed.
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
th
AUGUST 30 , 2019/vm/sv
