Manipal-Tata Medical College vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 1832 Jhar

                                        1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          W.P.(C) No.3588 of 2020
                                      -----

1. Manipal-Tata Medical College, Jamshedpur, through its Dean, Dr. Poornima Baliga B.

2. Manipal Academy of Higher Education, through its Registrar, Tiger Circle Road, Madhav Nagar, Manipal (Karnataka)-576104, represented through POA Debasis Sinha.

............ Petitioners.

-Versus-

1. Union of India, Ministry of Education, Secretary Higher Education, Department of Higher Education, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.

2. University Grants Commission, through its Secretary, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002.

3. Union of India, Directorate General of Health Services, Medical Counselling Committee, through Office of ADG (ME), Nirman Bhawan, Central Secretariat, New Delhi-110108.

4. Union of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Health Secretary, Nirman Bhawan, Central Secretariat, New Delhi-110001.

5. National Medical Commission, through its Chairperson, Dada Dev Mandir Rd, Sector 8, Dwarka, New Delhi-110077.

6. State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, Health, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi-823002.

7. Tata Steel Ltd., through its designated Officer, Tata Steel Plant Area, Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001 (Jharkhand).

......... Respondents.

------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Advocate Mr. Sameer Rohatgi, Advocate Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate Ms. Smita Sinha, Advocate For Res. Nos.1,3 & 4: Mr. Rajiv Sinha, A.S.G.I For Res. No.2 : Mr. Laxman Kumar, Advocate For Res. No.5 : Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, Advocate For Res. No.6 : Mr. Deepankar Roy, A.C. to A.G.

------

           CAV on 09.03.2021                      Pronounced on 13.05.2021
Rajesh Shankar, J.:

1. The judgment is being pronounced today through virtual mode.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice under Ref. U-11011/04/2020/14-MEC dated 06.11.2020 (Annexure-28 to the writ petition) issued by the office of ADG(ME), Government of India, Directorate General of Health Services, Medical Counselling Committee (MCC), New Delhi, whereby Manipal Tata Medical College, Jamshedpur-petitioner no.1 has been removed from the seat matrix

for the first round of counselling of undergraduate seats being held in pursuance of the NEET-2020 Examination.

Factual Matrix of the Case

3. The Manipal Academy of Higher Education (in short MAHE) (the petitioner no.2) and Tata Steel Limited (TSL)-the respondent no.7 created a consortium to set up a premier institution for medical education and training at Baridih, Jamshedpur (petitioner no.1 herein) in accordance with the provisions of the Amendment Notification No. MCI-34(41)2019-Med./112859 dated 13.05.2019. The Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand granted essentiality certificate to the petitioner no.2 on 28.06.2019 as required under Regulation 2(3) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999. The petitioner no.2 as a consortium leader submitted an application on 01.07.2019 before the Secretary General, Board of Governors, in supersession of the Medical Council of India, New Delhi for establishment of new medical college at Baridih Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) with an intake of 150 MBBS seats commencing from the Academic Session 2020-21, stating that the respondent no.7 is a consortium with it. Thereafter, the Department of Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand also granted no objection certificate for establishment of an Off-campus Centre of the petitioner no.2 vide its letter dated 04.10.2019. The inspection team of the Board of Governors (BoG), Medical Council of India inspected the College and submitted its report pointing out certain deficiencies and the said report was forwarded to the petitioner no.2 vide e-mail on 22.01.2020 asking it to provide point- wise compliance report within thirty days. The petitioner-College through the consortium leader, MAHE, submitted comprehensive compliance report stating therein that all the deficiencies as pointed out were redressed. Thereafter, a compliance assessment of the College was conducted by the assessors appointed by the BoG only on 09th and 10th of September, 2020 who asked to furnish certain documents including undertaking in respect of providing all infrastructural facilities as well as Bank Guarantees of required amount in favour of Medical Council of India from the petitioner no.2 through e-mail dated 21.09.2020 in order to process the application and for issuance of formal letter of permission (LoP). Accordingly, the

petitioner no.2 vide letter dated 22.09.2020 submitted its requisite undertaking and bank guarantees of an amount of Rs.24 Crores in total. A letter of permission in supersession of the Medical Council of India was issued by BoG vide letter No. MCI-34(41)(E-17)/2019- Med./123080 dated 24.09.2020 under section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the petitioner no.1 was granted permission for 150 seats for the MBBS Course to be offered by it in the academic session 2020-21. The said permission was granted initially for a period of one year, which was to be renewed on yearly basis after verification of achievement of annual targets as prescribed in section 10A of the said Act. In the meantime the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 was repealed and the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (in short the Act, 2019) was notified on 24.09.2020 making the respondent no.5 as the successor-in-interest of the Medical Council of India including its subsidiaries or owned trusts. The petitioner no.2 was conferred Institution of Eminence (IoE) status by the Ministry of Education, Government of India under the UGC (Institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2017 and pursuant thereto Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed between Ministry of Education, Government of India and the petitioner no.2 on 09.10.2020. The petitioner no.2 registered the College (petitioner no.1) with Medical Counselling Committee, DGHS, MoHFW, Government of India on 09.10.2020 and information regarding seat matrix was also uploaded on Medical Council Committee (MCC) website on the same day. The petitioner no.2 submitted an application on 16.10.2020 for Off-Campus Centre in Ministry of Education prescribed website i.e. Deemed to be University Monitoring Portal (DTBUMP). Thereafter the counselling for medical seats to be allotted pursuant to NEET examination was commenced by the MCC on 28.10.2020. The College (petitioner no.1) published advertisements in various prominent newspapers in different States to bring to the notice of the students regarding offering of the undergraduate medical programme including MBBS by it. Suddenly, on 06.11.2020 the office of ADG(ME), Government of India, Directorate General of Health Services, MCC issued a notice under Ref. U-11011/04/2020/14-MEC, removing the petitioner no.1 from the seat matrix for the first round of counselling of Undergraduate Seats being held in pursuance to the NEET-2020

Examination. The respondent no.3 vide notice dated 07.11.2020 extended the reporting date for admission in the allotted colleges till 14.11.2020. The respondent no.1 in response to the application for establishing Off-campus Centre at Baridih, Jamshedpur for the petitioner no.1-college wrote letter dated 10.11.2020 informing the petitioner no.2 that it was no longer governed by the UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2019, rather UGC (Institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2017 would be applicable to such Institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities and therefore the application of the petitioner no.2 could not be processed.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioners

4. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.2 has been declared IoE vide notification dated 14.10.2020 and a bare perusal of Clause 1.4 of Regulations 2017 would show that no regulation other than the Regulations, 2017 will apply to IoE. This position has also been reiterated in Clause 8.6 of the Regulations 2017 and, therefore, the issue of establishing an Off- campus centre was required to be determined as per the provisions of the Regulations, 2017. The respondent nos.1 and 2 by filing counter affidavits have also admitted that IoE does not require separate permission from UGC for establishing Off-campus centre and as such the establishment of the petitioner no.1 cannot be questioned on the ground that no permission was obtained for the same.

5. It is also submitted that the petitioner No.2 was not aware of the notification dated 14.10.2020 declaring it to be 'Institution of Eminence' and it applied for establishing an Off-Campus Centre on 16.10.2020 under Regulations, 2019. The Respondent No.2 vide its letter dated 10.10.2019 written to Medical Council of India, had stated that the petitioner no.2 being a Deemed University would be required to take prior approval of the Government of India for establishment of its off-campus centre in Jharkhand after obtaining the approval from the Medical Council of India, which is the concerned statutory council in the case of a medical college. The Ministry of Education, Govt. of India vide letter dated 10.11.2020 has however made it clear that the petitioner No. 2 is now an IoE with effect from 14.10.2020 and, therefore, it would not be governed under Regulations, 2019 which

would reflect that there was no requirement of seeking permission under Regulations, 2019 for establishment of Off-Campus Centre. Had there been a requirement of taking permission to start Off-Campus centre by IoE, the Ministry of Education would have clearly mentioned the same.

6. It is further submitted that a bare reading of Section 60(4) of the NMC Act, 2019 would suggest that the orders issued under Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, which were in force, as on the date of commencement of the NMC Act, 2019 were continued to be in force till the date of their expiry for all purposes. The undisputed case of the petitioners is that the order of Letter of Permission (LoP) dated 24.09.2020 allowing the petitioner to admit 150 MBBS students for the current academic session was in force when the NMC Act, 2019 came to be notified and therefore the orders passed under the repealed Act, 1956 were continued to be in force and were binding upon the authorities. It is also submitted that the LoP is a statutory order and the same is treated as valid and subsisting permission under the NMC Act, 2019 in view of the provisions of Section 60(4) of the NMC Act, 2019 and therefore the same is statutorily protected. No instruction or information at the instance of the Secretary, NMC as referred to in the impugned public notice dated 06.11.2020 can take away the vested legal right of the petitioners to admit 150 students for the current academic year. A valid and subsisting LoP entitles the petitioners to admit 150 MBBS students inasmuch as the same is a culmination of statutory assessment of the facilities and faculty put in place by the petitioner No.1 and denial of such a right to admit 150 students would tantamount to put the petitioner No.1 to virtual civil death as considerable investment has been put in place for the said purpose and it is a clear violation of fundamental, legal and statutory rights of the petitioner no. 1. The learned Senior counsel also puts reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mayo Institute of Medical Sciences vs. MCI & Ors [W.P. (Civil) No.693 of 2013) and submits that even revocation of letter of permission cannot be done on hyper technical grounds.

7. Mr. Rohatgi argues further that the respondent No. 3 cannot remove the College from the counselling process as it has been made clear

under Section 14 (3) of the NMC Act, 2019 that the Commission shall specify the manners of conducting common counselling by the designated authority for admission under UG and PG seats at all medical institutions by framing regulations, provided that the designated authority of the Central Government shall conduct the common counselling for all India seats whereas the designated authority of the State Government shall conduct the common counselling for the seats at the State level. The Secretary, NMC has no independent power whatsoever under the Act, 2019 to render a LoP granted under Section 10A of Indian Medical Council Act a nullity. It is also submitted that the power of Secretary of the Commission has been defined under Section 8(4) the Act, 2019, according to which it is based on functions assigned to him. Therefore, information given by the Secretary of the NMC to the Respondent No.3 purportedly asking to remove the petitioner No. 1 from the seat matrix before seat processing of the first round of undergraduate counselling is wholly without jurisdiction and is ex facie illegal. Even the Act, 2019 does not confer power on the NMC to issue any such order. The power and function of the NMC is defined in Section 10 of the Act, 2019 which inter alia empowers the NMC to lay down policies for medical standards and also in terms of Section 10(g) of the Act, 2019, to exercise appellate jurisdiction with respect to decisions of Autonomous Boards. Therefore, the NMC is a policy making body which also has the power to hear the appeals against the decisions of the Autonomous Boards constituted under the Act. Since the NMC itself has no power to pass the impugned order, the question of exercise of such power by it does not arise and is per se without any authority of law. The Central Govt. has constituted Autonomous Boards under Section 16 of the Act, 2019 vide notification dated 24.09.2020 to perform the functions assigned to them whereas the National Medical Commission-Respondent No.5 has overall supervision over the Boards. The Medical Assessment and Rating Board is an Autonomous Board which has been assigned amongst others functions, the power to grant permission for establishment of a new medical college for taking admission in undergraduate and postgraduate medical courses. The power to stop admission in medical institutions is also vested with the Medical Assessment and Rating Board only. The Secretary of

the Commission having no such power, his communication is absolutely without jurisdiction and thus it cannot form the basis for issuing the impugned notice dated 06.11.2020. The Medical Assessment and Rating Board has not passed any order directing the petitioner no.1 to stop admission. Even otherwise, the conditions for invoking Section 26(1)(f) of the Act, 2019 are not in existence as there is no failure on the part of the petitioner to maintain minimum standards of medical education. Therefore, the respondent No.3 could not have taken petitioner no.1 out of counselling process. Moreover, the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss on account of an illegal order as they have made huge investment and the people of Jharkhand will also be deprived of a world class medical institution.

8. It is further submitted that the very definition of "Campus" and "Off-

Campus Centre" mentioned in Regulations, 2017 would manifest that there is complete autonomy to the IoE to start 'Off-Campus Centre'. Wherever there is a requirement of permission to start Off- Campus Centre, UGC clearly provides the same in Regulation, however, there is no such provision in Regulations, 2017. On the other hand, Regulation 2019 provides the procedure for opening of Off- campus Centre by the deemed universities after submitting their application to the Government by way of an affidavit in the prescribed proforma for obtaining approval to start the said centre. The rationale for not having any such requirement in Regulations, 2017 is that Institution of Eminence has been given complete autonomy with the object to establish world class academic institution. If any such requirement is stipulated in Regulations, 2017, it will be against the very spirit of regulation and would be arbitrary and illegal as well. The idea of creating the Institutions of Eminence is based on autonomy to such Institutions in all respects. If the permission of the Government is said to be required, the idea of creating a world class institution would get defeated. The extent of autonomy of the Institution of Eminence is clear from the very fact that it has been given the freedom to run online courses and distance education courses without permission. This kind of autonomy is exclusive to the Institution of Eminence. In terms of Regulation 4.2.18 of the Regulations, 2017, the petitioner no.2 is enjoined to attain an enrolment of at least 10,000 students in the course over a period

of 15 years and this provision in itself shows that a complete functional has been given Institution of Eminence to start Off-Campus centre. There cannot be world class infrastructure at one place as envisaged in the Regulation, 2017 to provide teaching, research facilities for 10,000 students over a period of 15 years and therefore the idea to start Off Campus Centers without any permission is inherent in the very scheme of Regulations, 2017.

9. Mr. Rohatgi further submits that the petitioner no.2 having been selected as an IoE during periodic review, briefed to the Empowered Expert Committee (EEC) about the establishment of the petitioner no.1 at Jamshedpur by way of an Off-campus centre. After spot review meeting conducted by the Empowered Expert Committee on 16.12.2019, it was intimated by the petitioner no.2 to the said committee regarding factum of the proposed establishment of the off- campus centre at Jamshedpur for the purposes of establishing the petitioner no.1. There is no question of the petitioner having violated Regulation 6.1 and Regulation 8.2.2 of the Regulations, 2017. The goals under the said Regulations are academic in nature and opening of Off-campus centre would facilitate in achieving the same.

10. It is also submitted that the Regulations, 2021 whereby the Regulations, 2017 has been amended providing inter-alia the procedure for opening off-campus by the IoE, is not applicable to the case of the petitioners since the validity of establishment of the Off campus centre by the petitioner no.2 is to be examined in terms of Regulations, 2017 which admittedly did not include any requirement of prior permission. The Regulations, 2021 has come into force with effect from the date of its publication i.e. 01.01.2021 and, therefore, it shall apply to any 'Off Campus centre' which is established on or after the date of coming into force of the Regulations, 2021. However, in the present case, the petitioner no.1 has been established with the concurrence of the concerned statutory council viz. MCI/NMC on 24.09.2020 and, therefore, it cannot be included in the sweep of the Regulations, 2021. The requirement of prior permission to establish Off-campus centres cannot be applied in cases of already established centres and if that is permitted, the same would tantamount to ignoring the literal meaning of Regulations, 2021. Since the petitioner no.2 has already established the off-campus centre, the legal right is

vested in it which cannot be taken away by retrospective application of any rule and regulation. Moreover, the Regulations, 2021 also provide for prospective application and thus provisions of the said Regulations are not applicable to the petitioners. Moreover, section 26(3) of the UGC Act, 1956 clarifies the power of the UGC to make Regulations which includes the power to give retrospective effect thereto from the date not earlier than the date of commencement of the said Act, however, no retrospective effect should be given to any Regulation if it prejudicially affects the interest of any person to whom such regulations may apply.

11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also contends that the petitioner no.1 has been set up with a huge investment of INR 69 Crores till date which will rise to INR Rs.250 crores in next two years. The College has been set up in a vast area of 20 acres and boasts of state-of-the-art infrastructure and facilities, the establishment of which has been cleared by the Medical Council of India by granting Letter of Permission dated 24.09.2020. The Petitioner No.1- College has already been inspected by the assessors appointed by the Board of Governors in supersession of Medical Council of India and only after assuring itself of zero deficiency, the petitioner no.1 has been granted the LoP on 24.09.2020 by the said Board. The petitioner no. 2, which has been declared as an IoE, has several constituent units and thus it should not be prevented from admitting the allocated 150 MBBS students in petitioner no.1-college particularly after complying all the requirements stipulated and getting approval from the statutory council.

12. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 20.11.2020 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 13609 of 2020 has granted interim relief to the petitioners whereby the Petitioner No. 1 has been included in the seat matrix for second round of counselling of undergraduate seats. Pursuant to the said direction, the respondent no.3 vide notice dated 21.11.2020 being Ref. U-11011/04/2020/27- MEC included the Petitioner No. 1 in Round-2 of counselling which has already admitted 143 students for the 1st batch of MBBS course consequent to the said order dated 20.11.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, directing the inclusion of the petitioner no.1 in the Seat Matrix for the second round of counselling of undergraduate seats.

Hence, there is no ground to sustain the impugned order, which is manifestly illegal and liable to set aside. The petitioners are also entitled to a declaration to the effect that the impugned orders were issued without any authority of law and in violation of the fundamental rights. The petitioner no.2 is not required to seek approval of UGC for establishment of Off-campus centre under the Regulations, 2017.

13. It is also submitted that the Central Government and UGC both have admitted in their respective counter affidavits that the Regulations, 2017, which governs the petitioner no.2, did not have any specific provision to get permission for establishing Off-campus centre and thus the very basis of the impugned action of the respondent no.5 has been contradicted by the concerned statutory authorities and on this score alone the impugned notice is liable to be set aside. The respondent no.5 has also admitted in its counter affidavit that the petitioner no.1 was fulfilling all legal requirements for grant of statutory permission to take admission of 150 MBBS students for the current academic year 2020-21 and thus it was issued LoP dated 24.09.2020 by the erstwhile Secretary General, Board of Governors, In supersession of Medical Council of India to establish new medical college at Baridih, Jamshedpur with annual intake of 150 MBBS students for the academic year 2020-21.

14. It is further contended that the petitioners are fully complying all regulatory requirements and there is no occasion to stall the admission process in relation to the petitioner no.1 only on the ground that the petitioner no.2 is an Institution of Eminence Deemed to be University. The impugned notice dated 06.11.2020 has been issued without even prior show cause or intimation to any of the petitioners and thus the same violates the principle of natural justice as well. The said notice prejudices the petitioners inasmuch as they will not be able to meet their annual requirements as per section 10-A of the IMC Act, 1956 which has been continued by virtue of section 61 of the NMC Act, 2019. Since inspections are conducted annually under section 10-A of the Act till they lead up to a recognition in accordance with the provisions mentioned under section 11 of the Act, 1956, if the petitioner no.1 is unable to commence the academic programme in the year 2020-21, it will not be able to fulfil some of the regulatory requirements as it would virtually be a zero year. The impugned notice will also cause loss to

the State of Jharkhand as it lose 150 MBBS doctors who would otherwise be graduating in the year 2024. The admission process of petitioner no.1 should not be impeded on account of procedural issues especially when the consortium leader- the petitioner no.2 is an IoE and has been allowed greater autonomy in its functioning and has been exempted from the rigors of the regulations of the respondent no.2 including setting up of academic collaborations of the sort envisioned in creation of the petitioner no.1.

Submissions on behalf of the respondent No.1, 3 and 4

15. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned ASGI, appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1, 3 & 4 submits that since Regulations, 2017 was silent on the issue of opening of Off-campus centre by the IoE, necessary amendments in Regulations, 2017 has been brought by the UGC (Institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities) (Amendment) Regulations, 2021 whereby Clause 11.7 has been added providing inter alia the procedure to be followed for granting permission to IoE for establishing Off-campus centre(s). It is further submitted that in view of Clause 8.6 of Regulations, 2017, after issuing the notification declaring the petitioner no.2 as IoE, it automatically came out of the purview of UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2016 and became an Institution of Eminence Deemed to be University under the Regulations, 2017. As such, the letter dated 10.11.2020 was rightly issued by the respondent no.1 and there was no illegality in the same. It is further submitted that in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.13609 of 2020, the petitioners' counsel had put emphasis on the argument before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the other deemed universities were permitted to open off-campus centres, however, the IoE was denied for the same whereupon the learned ASGI had submitted that the proposal for permitting the IoE for establishing off campus centre was under consideration. Since the procedure for establishing off-campus centre has now been provided by inserting Clause 11.7 in the Regulations, 2017 as amended by the Regulations, 2021, the petitioners cannot escape from following the said procedure.

16. Mr. Sinha further contends that the respondent no.5 vide its email dated 04.11.2020 advised MCC that two colleges, namely, Manipal- Tata Medical College, Jamshedpur (petitioner no.1 herein) and Data Meghe Medical College, Wanadongri, Nagpur should not be included in

the round 1 of NEET UG-2020 counselling, as there were issues related to the off-site campus of the affiliating university. It was further informed that the matter was referred to the MHRD (now the Ministry of Education, Government of India) and was still under consideration for requisite clearances. Accordingly the names of two colleges were removed from the list of participating colleges in round-1 of NEET-UG Counselling, 2020 and the said information was uploaded in MCC website vide notice dated 06.11.2020 for information to the candidates. Vide letter dated 18.11.2020, a clarification was sought by the respondent no.3 from the Ministry of Education, Government of India regarding the status of NOC with respect to the petitioner-college and reply of the same is awaited. It is also submitted that the role of the respondent nos.3 and 4 is limited to the allotment of seats to the candidates as per their merit and choices in the participating colleges/deemed universities which starts only after receiving the list/data/information of successful candidates from NTA which is responsible of holding of NEET (UG) examination. The name of the petitioner college was, however, included in the seat matrix in round- 2 of NEET UG-2020 Counselling as per clauses of the Gazette notification dated 18.11.2020 issued by the UGC and pursuant to direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as contained in the order dated 20.11.2020 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.13609 of 2020 and notice in this regard was uploaded on 21.11.2020 on the MCC website for wide information of the candidates. The result of counselling of round-2 of NEET UG-2020 was declared on 27.11.2020 and a total number of 115 candidates were selected on the basis of NEET UG-2020 examination, merit-cum- choices of the candidates for allotment of MBBS seats in the petitioner-college. Submissions on behalf of the Respondent No. 2-University Grant Commission

17. Mr. Laxman Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 submits that the petitioner no.2 submitted application dated 06.12.2017 under Regulations, 2017 for declaration of IoE and as per Regulation 6.1(vii) of the Regulations, 2017, an intending institute was required to submit a detailed fifteen year strategic vision plan and a five year rolling implementation plan with clear annual milestones as well as action plans on how the new IoE is to be set up,

with identifiable outputs and outcomes and in what manner it plans to meet the criteria for attaining the status of the IoE as laid down in Regulation 4 of the Regulations, 2017. There is also a penal provision in Regulation 21.1 of Regulations, 2017, if the IoE fails to achieve the goals within the stipulated period. It is not the case of the petitioners that at the time of making application under Regulations, 2017, the petitioner no.2 had mentioned about the proposed establishment of Off Campus Centre at Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) and therefore the establishment of Off Campus Centre at Jamshedpur was not a part of the goal of the petitioner no.2. Once the petitioner no.2 has been declared as IoE on 14.10.2020, it is governed under the Regulations, 2017 and as such the Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education, Government of India rejected the application of the petitioner no.2 made under Regulations, 2019 vide letter dated 10.11.2020. It is further submitted that the Regulations, 2017 is silent about opening of new Off-campus or off-shore campus and as such necessary amendment has been made in Regulations, 2017 by the Amendment Regulations, 2021 which inter alia provides the procedure for establishment of off- campus centres. Clause 8.6 of Regulations, 2017 provides that after signing of the MoU, the government shall issue a notification within thirty days declaring the Institution as an Institution of Eminence Deemed to be University. If it is an existing deemed to be university, such a notification shall automatically imply that the institution is no longer a Deemed to be University under UGC (Institutions Deemed to be University) Regulations, 2016 but an IoE under Regulations, 2017. Accordingly after issuance of notification by MoE on 14.10.2020 declaring the petitioner no. 2 as IoE, it was no longer a deemed to be university under Regulations, 2016 but got the status of IoE under Regulations, 2017. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 refers to section 26(3) of the UGC Act, 1956 wherein it has been mentioned that power of Commission to make regulations conferred by section 26 [except clause (i) and clause

(j) of sub-section (1)] shall include the power to give retrospective effect from a date not earlier than the date of commencement of the said Act, to the regulations, or any of them but no retrospective effect shall be given to any regulation so as to prejudicially affect the interests of any person to whom such regulation may be applicable.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondent no.5-National Medical Commission

18. Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NMC submits that on 01.07.2019 the petitioner no.2 applied for establishment of New Medical College, at Baridih, Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) (the petitioner no.1) under section 10A of the Act, 1956 for the academic year 2020-21 as a consortium comprising of the petitioner no.2 as a consortium leader and the respondent no.7 as a consortium member. The assessors of the NMC carried out the assessment of the petitioner college and the report was received on 19th and 20th December, 2019, the said report was considered by the Board of Governors. The decision of the BoG was communicated to the President, Manipal Academy of Higher Education Trust vide letter dated 22.01.2020 seeking its explanation with documentary evidence within 30 days. The V.C., Manipal Academy of Higher Education, vide letter dated 18.03.2020 submitted the compliance report. However, due to lockdown in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic, assessment of the college was carried out again on 9th and 10th September 2020 by the assessors appointed by the Council/Commission. After consideration of the assessment report along with observations of the Member UG Expert Group, the BoG decided to approve the application for establishment of new Medical College at Baridih, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand with an annual intake of 150 students in MBBS Course for the academic session 2020-21. The present respondent, accordingly, issued LoP on 24.09.2020 to the petitioner-College. The petitioner no.2- Manipal Academy of Higher Education Trust (Deemed to be University) then started this new medical college off-campus centre at Baridih, Jamshedpur (Jharkhand). As per guidelines of Ministry of Education, Government of India and University Grant Commission, "Deemed to be University" starting/establishing, off-campus centre was required to take permission from Ministry of Education, Government of India and UGC. The respondent no.3 issued notice dated 06.11.2020 only when the petitioner did not submit approval from the University Grant Commission. Subsequently, the UGC issued the gazette notification regarding this issue vide notification dated 18.11.2020 making certain amendments in the UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2019.

Finding of the Court

19. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioners are aggrieved with the notice dated 06.11.2020 issued by the respondent no.3 whereby the petitioner no.1-College has been removed from the seat matrix for the first round of counselling of under graduate seats being held in pursuance of the NEET-2020 examination as per the information received from the Secretary, NMC/MCI.

20. Initially the petitioners prayed for staying the impugned notice dated 06.11.2020 and subsequently prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondent no.3 to allow the petitioner no.1-College to participate in the counselling process. The said prayers of the petitioners were rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.11.2020.

21. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by filing S.L.P. (Civil) No.13609 of 2020, which was disposed of by their Lordships on 20.11.2020, observing as under:-

"After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the writ petition that is pending before the High Court, we are of the opinion that the petitioner should be included in the Seat Matrix for the second round of counselling of undergraduate seats which is going on at present and students may be allotted to the petitioner.

The above direction is subject to the final decision in the writ petition.

The petitioner shall inform the students at the time of counselling who are admitted in its institution that their admission would be subject to the decision in the writ petition."

22. The primary question for consideration before this court is as to whether the impugned notice dated 06.11.2020 issued by the respondent no.3 on the basis of the letter of the Secretary, NMC/MCI in removing the petitioner-College from the seat matrix for the first round of counselling of Undergraduate seats being held in pursuance of the NEET-2020 examination is justified and valid in law.

23. To appreciate the said question, it would be appropriate to refer the brief background of the case. The petitioner no.2 was a deemed university since 1993 which entered an MoU with the proforma respondent no.7 to set up the petitioner no.1-college for which the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department issued an essentiality certificate on 28.06.2019 as required under Regulation 2(3) of the Establishment of

Medical College Regulations, 1999. Thereafter, on 01.07.2018 the petitioner no.2 being the consortium leader applied for establishment of the petitioner no.1-college before the Secretary General, BoG in suppression of MCI, New Delhi, which was empowered under section 3(B) of the Act, 1956, as amended by the IMC Amendment Act, 2010 to grant independent permission for establishment of new medical college under section 10-A of the IMC Act, 1956. On receipt of the application of the petitioner no.2, the BoG wrote letters to the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, Government of India and the respondent no.2 inquiring from them as to whether the petitioner no.2 was eligible for opening of a new medical college at Baridih Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) under its deemed university at Manipal. The said letter was replied by the respondent no.2 vide letter dated 10.10.2019 stating inter alia that in case of establishment of an off-campus centre, deemed to be universities in category I & II or ranked from 1-50 in the 'University' category of current NIRF ranking were to take prior approval of the Government of India on obtaining approval of the concerned Statutory Council (MCI in case of Medical College). It was further stated that the Council might take necessary action keeping in view the provision of the Regulations, 2019. The respondent no.1 also replied the letter of the MCI on 23.10.2019 wherein it was mentioned that all the institutions deemed to be universities, after getting necessary approval from the concerned statutory councils were required to apply to MHRD for approval to start Off Campus centre. After receiving the opinion of the respondent no.1 and 2, MCI wrote letter to the petitioner no.2 and by referring the provisions of the IMC Act, 1956 and the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 stated that the powers and responsibility granted to the Medical Council of India and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare/Board of Governors cannot be controverted by any other subordinate legislation of any other Ministry or Statutory Body of Government of India as in respect of medical qualifications, the responsibility has exclusively been entrusted upon the MCI and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare/Board of Governors, which cannot be subject matter of restriction by any other authority whatsoever under the Government of India. The petitioners were further intimated that the MCI was going to process the application of

the petitioner no.2, however, the approvals as may be required from UGC/MHRD should be obtained by it from those authorities. Thereafter, the petitioner-College was inspected by the inspection team of BoG and on curing all the deficiencies as per the direction of the BoG, the LoP was issued finally by the BoG under section 10-A of the IMC Act on 24.09.2020 whereby the petitioner no.2 was granted formal permission for establishment of petitioner no.1- college with annual intake of 150 MBBS students under Manipal Academy of Higher Education Trust, Manipal for the academic year 2020-21.

24. In the meantime some developments took place which are relevant in the matter. The Act, 1956 was repealed and the NMC Act, 2019 was notified making the respondent no.5 as successor-in-interest to the Medical Council of India. The second development was that the Regulations, 2019 was notified on 20.01.2019 which replaced the UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2016. The other development was that the petitioner no.2, on its application, which was earlier recognized as deemed to be university, was conferred the status of IoE and the same was notified on 14.10.2020.

25. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the notification dated 14.10.2020 was not in the knowledge of the petitioner no.2, it submitted the application to the respondent no.1 for grant of permission in terms of the Regulations, 2019 in consonance with the letter of the respondent no.2 written to MCI on 10.10.2019 and actually after having status of an IoE, the petitioner no.2 was given complete autonomy to start the Off-campus centre. The said application was finally rejected vide letter dated 10.11.2020 stating inter alia that the petitioner no.2 being an IoE, will no more be governed by the Regulations, 2019.

26. I have perused the impugned notice dated 06.11.2020, the content of which reveals that the said notice was issued by the respondent no.3 on the basis of the information received from the Secretary, NMC/MCI.

27. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-NMC has tried to justify the action of the Secretary, NMC and has submitted that as per the guidelines of Ministry of Education and University Grant Commission, any deemed to be university starting off-campus centre requires permission from the Ministry of Education and University Grant Commission. Since the petitioner did not submit approval of the

UGC which was required by a Deemed to be University to start Off- campus centre, the notice dated 06.11.2020 was issued.

28. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners countering the said stand of the NMC has heavily relied upon Section 60(4) of the NMC, Act 2019 and has submitted that the LoP issued to the petitioner-College is statutorily protected under the said Section and the same cannot be denied merely on the letter of the Secretary, NMC who actually was not conferred any such power under the NMC Act, 2019 to issue letter for removing any college from the seat matrix, rather it is the Medical Assessment and Rating Board to whom such power was vested. The said provision is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-

"60(4) Notwithstanding the repeal of the aforesaid enactment, any order made, any licence to practice issued, any registration made, any permission to start new medical college or to start higher course of studies or for increase in the admission capacity granted, any recognition of medical qualifications granted, under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, which are in force as on the date of commencement of this Act, shall continue to be in force till the date of their expiry for all purposes, as if they had been issued or granted under the provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder."

29. On bare perusal of sub-section (4) of section 60, it would appear that though the IMC Act, 1956 was repealed by the NMC Act, 2019, any permission to start new medical college under the IMC Act, 1956 which was in force as on the date of commencement of the Act, 2019 was saved as if the same had been issued or granted under the provisions of Act, 2019 or the rules or regulations made thereunder.

30. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the NMC, I have gone through the notification dated 14.10.2020, whereby, in exercise of the power conferred under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956, the Central Government, on recommendations of EEC and UGC, declared the petitioner no.2 as an IoE. The relevant part of the said notification is quoted herein below:-

"1. To 8. ...........

9. Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956, The Central Government, on the recommendations of EEC & UGC, hereby declare MAHE as an 'Institution of Eminence Deemed to be University' with effect from the issuance of this Notification. This declaration is subject to the following conditions:

i. The Institution will be, on declaration of being an 'Institution of Eminence Deemed to be University', governed by the provisions of UGC (Institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2017 and shall exempt from all UGC Regulations and other guidelines, notifications and orders of the Commission on matters pertaining to the subject area laid down in Regulation 11.1 to 11.6 of these Regulations, 2017. The Institution will get the additional incentives given in UGC (Institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2017."

31. I have also gone through Clause 11 of the Regulations, 2017 which reads as under:

"11.0 Additional Incentives

The Institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities selected in the aforesaid manner shall have additional incentives. These incentives would be available to all Institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities, the Institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities shall, upon declaration as Institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities, be governed by the provisions of this Regulation. In particular, such institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities shall be exempt from all UGC Regulations and other guidelines, notifications and orders of the Commission on matter pertaining to the subject areas laid down in Regulation 11.1 to 11.6 of these Regulations."

32. In view of sub-clause (1) of Clause 9 of the said notification, the petitioner no.2 on declaration of IoE is governed by the provisions of the Regulations, 2017 and is exempted from all UGC Regulations and other guidelines, notifications and orders of the Commission on matters pertaining to the subject area laid down in Regulations 11.1 to 11.6 of the Regulations, 2017. It has further been explained that the petitioner no.2 will get the additional incentives given in the Regulations 2017. On bare perusal of Clause 11 of the Regulations, 2017, it appears that the same also provides that an IoE will be governed by the Regulations, 2017 only and such institute shall be exempted from all UGC Regulations and other guidelines, notifications and orders of the Commission on matter pertaining to the subject area laid down in Regulation 11.1 to 11.6 of these Regulations.

33. I have also perused the letter dated 10.11.2020 whereby the application for grant of permission for establishment of the petitioner- college was disposed of observing that the petitioner no.2 was given the status of IoE and as such the UGC Regulations, 2019 would not apply to it.

34. Thus, it appears that the Secretary, NMC while issuing letter to the MCC overlooked the fact that the petitioner no.2 had been declared IoE and the Regulations, 2017 was silent about the procedure for opening the Off-campus centre. The action of the Secretary, NMC in issuing the impugned notice does not find support from the stand of the respondent no.1 and 2, who are of the view that since the petitioner no.2 has been declared IoE, the Regulations, 2019 will not apply to it. On the one hand, as per the Secretary, NMC, the petitioners require permission from respondent no.1 and 2, however, on the other hand, the respondent no.1 and 2 are of the view that the Regulations,

2019 was not applicable to the petitioner no.2 being an IoE, rather also the Regulations, 2017 was applicable to IoE, which is silent about the procedure for grant of permission for opening of off-campus centre.

35. Mr. Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the very concept of the Regulations, 2017 was to make an institution of such a character free from all shackles and regulatory requirements so as to give an appropriate freedom to IoE to become a world class institution. The Regulations, 2017 confer almost complete autonomy to an IoE to open an off-campus centre and thus it was silent about the procedure to be adopted by the IoE for opening of off- campus centre, whereas a procedure is to be followed by a Deemed to be University for opening of Off campus centre under the Regulations, 2019. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, in support of his contentions, has invited the attention of this Court to different provisions of the Regulations, 2017.

36. This Court is not much convinced with the said argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. On perusal of different provisions of the Regulations, 2017, it would appear that though the petitioner no.2, after being declared as IoE, was given additional incentive on the matters pertaining to the subject area laid down in regulations 11.1 to 11.6 of the said Regulations, the matter relating to opening of off- campus centre by an IoE is not covered by any of the aforesaid regulations. If the intention of UGC, while framing the Regulations, 2017, was to give free hand to an IoE to establish Off-campus center, the same would have specifically been laid down under the category of additional incentives. That apart, the intention of the UGC is further reflected from the Regulations, 2021 wherein the establishment of Off- campus centre has not been treated as additional incentive by not putting it under regulations 11.1 to 11.6, rather the same has been placed under regulation 11.7 according to which an IoE will have to follow the rigor of the procedure provided under the said Regulation. Thus, in my considered opinion, Regulations, 2017 was not so framed to give complete autonomy to the IoE to open off campus centre, rather due to an omission on the part of the UGC, the definition for off campus centre was though given in the Regulations, 2017, no procedure was laid down for opening of the same.

37. Thus, it appears that the petitioners are the victims of circumstance.

On the application of the petitioner no.2, the NOC was granted by the State of Jharkhand for establishing the petitioner no.1-College, the inspection team of BoG also inspected the college highlighting the discrepancies and further on removing of all the discrepancies, LoP was issued under section 10-A of the Act, 1956 and the petitioner no.1- College was permitted for intake of 150 seats for the MBBS Course in the academic session 2020-21. The petitioner also applied under Regulations, 2019 for getting permission to open off-campus centre, however, the said application was rejected as in the meantime the petitioner was declared as IoE under the Regulations, 2017.

38. On bare perusal of the Regulations, 2017 it would appear that the same was framed to create a distinct category of Deemed to be Universities to be regulated differently from other Deemed to be Universities so as to evolve institutions of world class standard within a reasonable period. Thus, IoE is a unique kind of Deemed University having conferred the said status for evolving into a world class institute. For achieving the said purpose, it has been specifically mentioned in the Regulations, 2017 that those deemed to be universities which are declared as IoE will be regulated by Regulations, 2017 and not by the Regulations, 2016. Regulations, 2017 also provides certain additional incentives to an IoE. On going through the entire scheme of the Regulations, 2017, it would manifest that an IoE has been created as a special category of deemed university. However, no substantive provision or procedure was laid down under the Regulations, 2017 (which appears to be a serious omission), despite having defined "Off-campus centre" in the said Regulations.

39. Owing to the omission on the part of the UGC, the petitioner no.2 otherwise could not have found appropriate statutory body for filing application seeking permission to open off-campus centre. Had there been any such procedure to be followed by an IoE for opening off- campus centre in the Regulations, 2017 and if the petitioners had failed to follow the same, they could have been put at fault. The petitioner no.2 was under bona fide belief that it would get permission for opening of off-campus centre after getting LoP and made huge investment in setting up the medical college (the petitioner no.1) and only on the ground that there was no such procedure provided for

opening of the Off-campus centre, it cannot be left remediless so as to suffer irreparable loss and injury. It is not the stand of the UGC that there is any deficiency in the petitioner no.1- College, rather the contention of the UGC is merely based on technical irregularity. There is a well-known maxim "Ubi jus ibi remedium" which means that where there is a right, there is a remedy. A person cannot be left remediless. Moreover, a person cannot be penalized for no fault on his part.

40. The respondent no.1 while issuing the impugned notice dated 06.11.2020 has completely restricted the petitioner no.2 to admit the students in the petitioner no.1-College for which all the due procedure was followed by it. IoE is a premier category of the Deemed to be University and as per the Regulations, 2017, which is selected out of Deemed to be Universities on its application and due enquiry with the purpose of promoting it to be a world class institution within a reasonable time. With such an idea, an IoE has been given autonomy to certain extent and thus it is a premier grade of deemed to be university. It is not possible that a general deemed to be university will have the opportunity to establish Off-campus centre by following the procedure prescribed under Regulations, 2019 but an IoE which has higher status and more autonomy, will have no such privilege particularly when the purpose of its creation is to make it an institution of world class standard. A special group created out of the general group cannot be deprived of privilege being enjoyed by the members of general group except by way of specific exclusion with purposeful reasoning.

41. I am of the considered view that after getting LoP, the petitioner no.2 was required to take permission from the Government to open an off- campus centre, however, the same could not have been taken as in the meantime the petitioner no.2 was declared as an IoE and Regulations, 2017 did not contain any such procedure for grant of permission to open off-campus centre. Hence, the right of the petitioner no.1-College to take admission of the students vested in it was wrongly denied by the impugned notice and as such the same cannot be sustained in law.

42. Now the question before this court is as to whether the petitioner no.2 is obliged to make an application under Regulation 11.7 of Regulation

2021 for getting permission to start an off-campus centre i.e. the petitioner no.1-College.

43. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that the Regulations, 2021 which amends the Regulations, 2017 by inter alia providing the procedure for establishing Off-campus centre(s) does not apply to the petitioners, rather the same will only be applicable to those off-campus centres which were established after the date of coming into force of the Amendment Regulations, 2021 i.e. with effect from 01.01.2021.

44. To appreciate the aforesaid contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, it would be relevant to refer Regulation 11.7 of the Regulations, 2021, which reads as under:-

"11.7 Establishment of Off-campus centre(s): Institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities shall be permitted to start new off-campus centre(s) (maximum of 3 in 5 years and not more than 1 in one academic year), by following the procedure mentioned hereunder:- 11.7.1 Institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities shall submit their application to the Ministry by way of an Affidavit in the prescribed proforma along with the Detailed Project Report (DPR) containing its 10 year Strategic Vision Plan and a five year rolling implementation plan viz. academic plan, faculty recruitment plan, student admission plan, research plan, infrastructure development plan, financial plan, administrative plan, governance plan with clear annual milestones and action plan on how the proposed off campus is to be set up with identifiable outcomes for approval to start/establish an Off-Campus Centre. The Ministry shall forward the application to the Commission for its advice within ten days of the receipt of the application.

11.7.2 The Institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities applying for off-campus centre(s) shall have to meet the following stipulations in the proposed off-campus centre(s) within a reasonable time period not exceeding five years:-

(i) teacher student ratio shall not be more than 1:20 OR shall be as per the requirement of the concerned Statutory Council(s). The teacher student ratio shall be 1:10 at the end of the five years. The faculty for this purpose shall include the regular faculty, adjunct faculty, overseas faculty, visiting faculty, contractual faculty, industry faculty and tenure track faculty, or faculty as otherwise permitted by the Statutory Council(s) concerned-:

Provided, however, that at least sixty per cent. of the faculty shall be appointed on permanent/regular basis;

(ii) a minimum of five hundred students on its rolls under regular class room mode with one third PG/Research students;

(iii) five PG programmes;

(iv) research Programmes;

(v) built up area of not less than thirty square metres per student which shall include academic (academic buildings, library, lecture hall, laboratories, etc.), administrative (hostels, faculty residences, health care), common and recreational facilities.

Provided that at the time of starting the programme(s), the academic and physical infrastructure at the proposed off-campus centre(s) shall be in accordance with the norms/standards prescribed by the UGC/concerned Statutory Council(s). Such programme shall have the approval of the relevant Statutory Council(s), wherever required. The Institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities shall ensure that the norms and standards of the Off-Campus Centre shall be the same

as that maintained in the main campus for similar courses, and the Off- Campus Centre shall also follow similar admission criteria, curriculum, examination system and evaluation system. All the information about the off-campus centre shall be disclosed on the website of the Institution of Eminence Deemed to be University:

Provided further that the Institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities shall be permitted to start an Off-Campus Centre(s) in an interim campus subject to the condition that the permanent campus shall be ready within a reasonable time period not exceeding five years.

Provided also that the Institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities shall ensure that by the end of ten years of the starting of the Off-Campus Centre, the Off-Campus Centre is evolved as a multi- disciplinary research and teaching campus having at least 3 faculties with a minimum of 300 teachers and 3000 students.

11.7.3- The Commission shall place the application before the Empowered Experts Committee for examination and its recommendations on the application. There shall be no requirement of physical inspection. This process shall be completed within thirty days of the receipt of the application from the Ministry.

11.7.4- The Chairman of the Commission, on behalf of the Commission, shall forward the recommendations of the Empowered Experts Committee along with the advice of the Commission to the Ministry within ten days of the receipt of the Empowered Experts Committee recommendations.

11.7.5- The Ministry shall, after taking into the consideration the recommendations of the Empowered Experts Committee and advice of the Commission, and ordinarily within a further period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of such advice, either issue a notification for starting of off-campus centre(s) or, as the case may be, a Letter of Intent (LoI) for setting up of new off-campus centre or reject the proposal stating the reasons thereto. The decision of the Ministry shall be final and binding.

11.7.6- The functioning of the off-campus centre(s) shall be reviewed by the Empowered Experts Committee independently and/or along with the Institution of Eminence Deemed to be Universities in accordance with the provisions available under regulation 13.0. After review of the off-campus centre, if the Empowered Experts Committee is not satisfied with the performance of the off-campus centre, it may recommend discontinuation of the off-campus centre to the Central Government. In such cases the interest of the students enrolled at the off-campus centre shall be protected and the Institution of Eminence Deemed to be University shall be asked to seek affiliation of the Off- campus centre to the State University having territorial jurisdiction."

45. It would thus be evident that Regulation 11.7 prescribes the procedure to be followed by an IoE to establish Off-campus centre and the requirement to be met by it for such purpose. Regulation 11.7.1 provides for filing of an application before the Ministry of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of India in the prescribed proforma with the Detailed Project Report. Regulation 11.7.2 provides that the IoE applying for off-campus centre(s) shall have to meet the stipulation given thereunder within a reasonable period not exceeding five years. As per Regulation 11.7.6, the functioning of the off-campus centre will be reviewed by the Empowered Experts Committee independently and/or along with the IoE in accordance with the provisions available under regulation 13.0

and if the Empowered Experts Committee is not satisfied with the performance of the off-campus centre, it may recommend for discontinuation of the off-campus centre to the Central Government. In such cases, the interest of the students enrolled at the off-campus centre shall be protected and the IoE shall be asked to seek affiliation of the off campus centre from the State University having territorial jurisdiction.

46. Thus, an off-campus centre cannot claim right to continue unless it maintains the requirement to be fulfilled by it. The petitioner no.2 is also required to meet the target given to it failing which, as a penalty, it may be removed from the status of an IoE and may be treated as an ordinary/general deemed to be university. The status of either IoE or off-campus centre of IoE is not permanent which can be claimed as a matter of right, rather they are to achieve the goal set for them which is subject to regular supervision by the Empowered Expert Committee.

47. I am, therefore, of the view that though the Regulations, 2021 have been made effective from the date of its publication in the official gazette i.e. with effect from 01.01.2021, the petitioners cannot escape from following the requirements to be met for establishment of off- campus centre as also they are not immune from review of the functioning of the off campus centre by the Empowered Expert Committee.

48. Though the students admitted in the petitioner no.1-College after getting LoP issued under section 10-A of the IMC, 1956 and in compliance of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are not to be disturbed, yet the petitioner no.2 is required to get permission mandated under Regulation 11.7.1 of the Regulations, 2021 as while dealing with the application of the petitioner no.2, the MCI on receipt of the reply of the respondent no.1 and 2 had proceeded with the application of the petitioner no.2 after observing that the approval as required from UGC/MHRD should be obtained by them.

49. The petitioner-college, which has been allowed to take admission on the basis of LoP given by the MCI, cannot avoid the requirements to be met by an off-campus Centre of IoE as provided under Regulation 11.7.2 of Regulations, 2021. In the given facts of the case, the petitioners also cannot seek exemption from following the requirement

of getting such permission on the ground of prospective operation of the Regulations, 2021.

50. It may, however, be observed that the permission as sought under Regulations, 2019 could not be granted to the petitioner no.2, as in the meantime it was declared as an IoE and since the Regulations, 2017 has now been amended by the Regulations, 2021, the petitioners are required to take post facto permission by following the procedure provided under Regulation 11.7.2.

51. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:-

(i) The notice dated 06.11.2020 issued by the Office of ADG(ME), Govt. of India, Directorate General Health Services, Medical Counselling Committee is hereby quashed and set aside.

(ii) The admission of the MBBS students taken by the petitioner no.1-College in view of the order dated 20.11.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.13609 of 2020 is hereby confirmed.

(iii) The petitioner-college shall make an application under Regulation 11.7.1 of the Regulations, 2021 for getting post facto permission for establishment of off campus centre (the petitioner no.1) which shall be processed by the concerned respondents expeditiously as an exceptional case.

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

Sanjay/AFR