Kumar Vinod 2013.10.04 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20981 of 2013 [1]. ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.20981 of 2013 Date of decision:30.09.2013 The Punjab Institute of Medical Sciences ...Petitioner Versus The Medical Council of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain Present: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Arjan Partap Atma Ram, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate, for the MCI/respondent No.1. Mr. Kamaljeet S. Mamrat, Advocate, for Mr. R.S.Khosla, Advocate, for UOI/respondent No.2. Mr. V. Ramsawroop, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent no.3. Mr. Manish Dadwal, Advocate, for respondent no.4. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
The petitioner is an unaided self-financing Medical College at Jalandhar, set up in Public Private Partnership (PPP) Mode in the year 2011, with the intake capacity of 150 seats for the MBBS Course. It is affiliated to Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot, and granted permission by the Medical Council of India (MCI) for admissions to 150 seats. The petitioner submitted an application for renewal of permission for admission of 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students for the Kumar Vinod 2013.10.04 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20981 of 2013 [2]. ***** academic session 2013-14. The inspection was carried out by the Council's Assessors on 1st & 2nd March, 2013. After considering the assessment report, the Board of Governors of the MCI found the following deficiencies:- "The Board of Governors noted the following deficiencies:
1. Although total number of Faculty is adequate, department wise shortage is observed as under: (i) shortage of Assoc. Prof. 01 each in Psychiatry, Community Medicine, Pediatrics & ENT2 No mention of Residential Quarters for Teaching & Non-Teaching staff.
3. AERB approval-documentary proof is only application for renewal.
4. No documentary proof of PNDT approval.
5. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report."
In view thereof, a show cause notice was issued on 20.04.2013 calling upon the petitioner to submit their compliance report within 15 days. The petitioner submitted the compliance report on 02.05.2013 in the following manner:- “No.1 Associate professor in Psychiatry, Community Medicine, Pediatrics and ENT. Following Professors have been recruited in the department of Psychiatry, Community Medicine and Pediatrics and will cover the shortage of Associate professors. Copies of their declaration forms and other documents are being Kumar Vinod 2013.10.04 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20981 of 2013 [3]. ***** enclosed. Dr. Gurpreet Singh, Professor of Psychiatry Dr. Elkam Elijah Daniel, Professor of Community Medicine Dr. A.S. Parate, Professor of Pediatrics As regards ENT department one Professor Dr. Harvinder is working in this Institution since 1-11-12 and Dr. Sonia Seth is working as Associate professor since 8-2-2010 scanned copies of Declaration forms and other documents have already been submitted along with the application and original at the time of inspection. Both were present at the time of inspection on 1 and 2-3-2013. However documents are being submitted again. No.2 Residential quarters for teaching and Non-teaching staff Teaching staff:- Furnished Residential accommodation has been provided to the Director Principal, Medical Superintendent and other faculty members in the faculty accommodation inside the PIMS campus as has already been submitted in their declaration forms alongwith allotment letter, copies being enclosed. Faculty members have also been provided with accommodation near the campus in rented accommodation. Rent deeds have already been submitted. Non-Teaching staff: - Residential accommodation has been provided to non-teaching staff inside the campus. Allotment list is being enclosed. Construction of separate new building is under progress and Kumar Vinod 2013.10.04 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20981 of 2013 [4]. ***** will be completed within one year. Undertaking of the same, already submitted at the time of inspection on 2-3-2013. Photographs of construction site being enclosed. No.3 Approval from AERB is being submitted. No.4 Documentary proof of PNDT approval being submitted. Hard copies, soft copies and CD of all the above documents are being enclosed.”
. On receipt of the compliance report, the matter was again considered by the respondents and a compliance verification assessment to verify the physical and other teaching facilities was carried out on 28th & 29th June, 2013 and on the basis of its report and the report of the undergraduate Committee, considered by the Board of Governors of the MCI at their meeting held on 04.07.2013 and in view of the deficiencies noted, it was decided to not to approve the grant of renewal of permission for admission of third batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2013-14. Accordingly, the MCI vide its letter dated 10.07.2013, conveyed the decision of the Board of Governors to the petitioner-college. It is also pertinent to mention that the petitioner represented on 08.07.2013 requesting the Council for personal hearing, which was considered by the respondents and it was decided to reiterate the earlier decision dated 04.07.2013 and vide letter dated 14.07.2013, communicated the decision of the Board of Governors to the petitioner-college. The petitioner challenged the orders dated 04.07.2013 and 10.07.2013 by way of CWP No.14880 of 2013 which was decided on 22.08.2013 by this Court on the ground that the orders offended the Kumar Vinod 2013.10.04 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20981 of 2013 [5]. ***** principle of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before rejecting the prayer for renewal of permission on the grounds which were not the part of the show cause notice served upon it. However, the respondents was directed to take a fresh decision regarding the grant of renewal of permission after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and taking into consideration its reply, if any. The petitioner was directed to appear before the MCI on 03.09.2013 at 11.00 a.m. and the MCI was directed to decide the matter afresh by passing a speaking order in accordance with law, within one week after the appearance of the petitioner before it. After the aforesaid order, the respondents granted opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on 03.09.2013 in which the petitioner had alleged that the deficiency in faculty on the day of assessment was due to the fact that half of the staff was on summer vacation and the college followed for grant of leave the schedule prescribed by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences. However, vide order dated 09.09.2013, the grant of renewal of permission for admission of 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students for the academic session 2013-14 in the petitioner-college was declined, with the following observations:-
“4. The Board of Governors after the hearing on 03.09.2013 directed the Undergraduate Section to examine the documents submitted by the College authorities during the course of hearing. Thereafter, the UG committee considered the documents submitted by the college authorities at the time of hearing (i.e. on 03.09.2013) on 06.09.2013 and noted as under:
1. Anatomy There is a shortage of one tutor. Kumar Vinod 2013.10.04 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20981 of 2013 [6]. ***** 2 Physiology Dr. Shiveta Bansal was on maternity leave and there is a shortage of one tutor. 3 Forensic There is no faculty in Second half as per their Medicine vacation roaster dated 28.05.2013. There is no tutor by the name of Dr. Jasleen. 4 Pathology There is no faculty in the first half only tutors have run the department. 5 Community List submitted during surprise assessment Medicine shown 14 staff members. The vacation list submitted accounts for 08 staff members. 6 Medicine 3 SR's were given off in the first half. 6 SR's were shown and they were not found in vacation list. 7 Surgery Vacation list does not have names of SR's that are shown in inspection list. 8 Paediatrics On the day of inspection list shows name of 10 SRs, out of which 5 were on Vacation, 01 is on Study level, 02 have resigned and 02 were present, whereas vacant list shows 05 names of SR that were on vacations. This creates serious doubt on the list submitted by the college as it is very difficult to run the ward without senior residents. 9 OBG - 01 professor Dr. Manisha Aggarwal, Associate professor who has shown their name does not appear in the surprise assessment but she was present in first inspection and vacation list. - Further photocopy of declaration form which is submitted is not signed by the faculty (Dr. Manish Aggarwal) and is only signed by the Dean. Dr. Shally Magon, Associate Professor who has also submitted her declaration form without her signature but is signed by the Dean of the Institution. 10 Psychiatry Dr. Gurpreet Singh shown on inspection day but his name does not appear in vacation list. Kumar Vinod 2013.10.04 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20981 of 2013 [7]. ***** 11 Skin & V.D. There is no faculty available in first half, wards are run only by the Senior Residents. 12 Orthopaedic Dr. Salim Kamal whose name has been shown as associate professor in first assessment dated 1st & 2nd March, 2013 and surprise assessment dated 28 & 29 June, 2013 has not been shown in vacation list. Names of 04 senior residents appear in first half of vacation list, out of which only 01 senior resident is present. 04 Senior Residents name appears in first half vacation list and 01 Senior Resident is only present and second half of vacation no name of senior residents appears. For second half no senior resident is posted. This shows discrepancies in the presence of the Senior Residents. 13 Radiology Out of 04 Senior Residents, 03 are shown on vacation list in first half and only 01 is shown in second half. It is observed that: (a) There is discrepancy in various lists, like the faculty shown in regular assessment, figure in surprise assessment also, yet their names are not in vacation roaster. (b) There is huge mismatch in the pattern of staff posting in vacation.”. “7. The Board of Governors has also taken note of the assessment report dated 28th & 29th June, 2013, that in a medical college and hospital where almost 50 per cent of Senior Residents, 80 per cent of Junior Residents, 51 per cent of Associate Professors, 27 per cent of Assistant Professors, Kumar Vinod 2013.10.04 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20981 of 2013 [8]. ***** 55 per cent of Tutors are absent on the plea of summer vacation, the hospital cannot be said to be functional. The Board of Governors also noted that the requirement as laid down in “Minimum Requirements for 150 M.B.B.S. Admissions annually Regulations, 1999 and noted the following provision: “B. TEACHING HOSPITAL B.1 GENERAL REMARKS B.1. 1 A functional teaching hospital with 300 beds having a minimum of 60% indoor bed occupancy shall be available at the time of submission of application to Medical Council of India, at the time of inception of the hospital by Medical Council of India and upto 2nd renewal of the medical college. There shall be a minimum of 75% bed occupancy at the time of inspection for third renewal and thereafter for subsequent renewals and recognition.”. 8. A perusal of above provision shows that a functional hospital is required throughout year and on the ground that there was summer vacation and therefore, the medical faculty was not available as per requirement is indicative of the fact that the teaching hospital is hardly functional. Any hospital cannot function if 50 per cent senior residents and 80 per cent junior residents are not available in the hospital. Residents are the backbone of a teaching hospital. The teaching hospital cannot be closed down during summer vacation of the medical college and it continues to function but not with Kumar Vinod 2013.10.04 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20981 of 2013 [9]. ***** skeleton staff as noticed by the Assessors during surprise assessment. Therefore, the Board of Governors is of the opinion that no permission can be granted to admit 150 more students as there is every possibility that the increase in number of students which will go upto 450 if the permission is granted may not be adequately and properly trained to treat human being.”. “10. It has been found by the team of Assessor that shortage of residents/teaching faculty during inspection was more than 30 per cent and therefore, in terms of Regulation 8(3)(1)(a), the college cannot be considered for renewal of permission for current academic year. Moreover, the leave of the medical faculty from the hospital cannot be in violation of the above provisions. Hence on this ground also, no permission can be granted.”
. Aggrieved against the order dated 09.09.2013, which is allegedly given to the petitioner on 16.09.2013, the present writ petition has been filed in which learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Undergraduate Committee constituted by the Board of Governors of the MCI has wrongly noted the deficiencies, which has been explained in para 22 of the writ petition, in the following manner:-
“22. That still further the finding recorded by the Undergraduate Committee constituted by the Board of Governors has wrongly noted and observed (as produced in the impugned order) the notations by the Undergraduate Committee and the correct position on facts is given as Kumar Vinod 2013.10.04 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20981 of 2013 [ 10 ]. ***** under:- Anatomy There is a As per MCI norms there is shortage of one requirement of one Professor, two tutor Associate Professors, three Assistant Professors and four tutors. The Department has one Professor, two Associate Professors, four Assistant Professors and three tutors. One extra Assistant professor covers the (deficiency) of one tutor. The Qualification for Assistant Professor is M.D. Whereas the qualification of tutor is only MBBS. Thus there are additional persons having higher qualification. Accordingly a person with higher qualification cannot be said to be unqualified for a post requiring a lower qualification. The Anatomy department has Dr. Tripta Sharma Professor, Dr. Ambica Wadhwar, Dr. Mamta Sharma, Associate Professors, Dr. Sherry Sharma, Dr. Neelamjit Kaur, Dr. Jasveer Kaur, Mrs. Paramjeet kaur, Assistant Professors and Dr. Ashok Bhatt, Dr. Jasveen Kaur and Dr. Paramjeet Kaur Tutors. Kumar Vinod 2013.10.04 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20981 of 2013 [ 11 ]. ***** Physiology Dr. Shiveta As per MCI norms there is Bansal was on requirement of one Professor, two maternity leave Associate Professors, three and there is Assistant Professors and four shortage of one tutors. tutor The Department has one Professor, two Associate Professors, four Assistant Professors and three tutors. Dr. Shiveta Bansal Assistant professor was on maternity leave from 1-4-2013 to 29-6-2013 and has joined back on duty on 1-7- 2013, 30-6-2013 being Sunday. The Qualification for Assistant Professor is M.D. Whereas the qualification of tutor is only MBBS. Thus, there are additional persons having higher qualification. Accordingly a person with higher qualification cannot be said to be unqualified for a post requiring a lower qualification. The Physiology department has Dr. Rajiv Arora, Professor, Dr. Seema Maini, Dr. Avjot K. Miglani Associate Professors. Dr. Shiveta Bansal has joined back duty after availing maternity leave. Photo copy of the joining report is appended herewith as Annexure P- 13, Dr. Upneet Bedi and Dr. Poonam Kholi Assistant Professors and Dr. Amardeep Singh, Ms. Amandeep Kaur and Dr. Jagir Singh Tutors. Kumar Vinod 2013.10.04 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20981 of 2013 [ 12 ]. ***** Forenic There is no Faculty members were on duty in Medicine faculty in 1st half & given vacation in 2nd half Second half as as students also had vacation during per their 2nd half. vacation roster dated Dr. Jasleen Kaur was present 28.05.2013. during regular inspection on 1 & 2- there is no 3-2013 but had resigned as she got tutor by the Govt. Job. name of Dr. Jasleen. Temporary arrangement were made by posting J.Rs from other Departments for smooth function of the department. All junior residents are MBBS irrespective of the department they are assigned to. Copies attached as Annexure P-14. One Tutor Dr. Kanwarpreet Singh has been appointed in July. Copy of his appointment order is attached as Annexure P-15. Pathology There is no 2 Tutors Dr. Kulwant Kaur and Dr. faculty in the Parneet Kaur were on vacation in first half only 1st half & not on duty. tutors have run the department Rest of the faculty was present and appearing during compliance verification. Dr. Kulbir Kaur, Director Principal & Professor Dr. Usha Bandlish Professor, Dr. Vaneeta Bhardwar Assistant Professor, Dr. Neha and Dr. Maninder both tutors were on duty in both halves. Copy of the Vacation Roster is attached as Annexure P-16. Kumar Vinod 2013.10.04 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20981 of 2013 [ 13 ]. ***** Community List submitted On regular inspection carried out Medicine during surprise on 1st & 2nd March 2013, out of 14 assessment faculty/doctors, 7 were tutors shown 14 staff against the requirement of 4. All members. The the 7 had appeared for the vacation list inspection on 1st & 2nd March. submitted for 08 staff The list referring details 14 persons members. is in fact the list of the entire staff faculty in the department. The vacation list was supplied to the assessors during compliance verification inspection on 28th and 29th June 2013. Out of seven tutors, 3 tutors Dr. Inderpreet Kaur has resigned as she has got Govt. Job, Dr. Jaspinder Kaur have resigned. Dr. Himika Dalia and Dr. Saurav Datta were present on the day of inspection and two were absent from duty without any information, so their names were not included in the vacation. Two new tutors namely Dr. Gourav Chopr4a and Dr. Amarinder Singh and one LMO Dr. Hiteshi Aggarwal have been recruited. Photo copies of Appointment letter & joining report are attached herewith as Annexure P-17. The requirement is of one professor 2 associate professors, 5 Assistant professors and 6 tutors. There are 3 Professors, 5 Assistant Professors and 6 tutors. Kumar Vinod 2013.10.04 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20981 of 2013 [ 14 ]. ***** Medicine 3 Senior Vacation Roster is prepared and Residents' were recommended by the HOD's of given off in the concerned Departments as per first half. requirement for the smooth 6 Senior working of their Department and Residents's the names of only those were shown faculty/Residents are included in and they were the vacation roster which are not found in recommended by the HODs. vacation list. Vacation roster received from the medicine department is attached as Annexure P-18. The fact that 6 Senior residents were present at the time on inspection itself speaks to the fallaciousness of this deficiency. The persons who have been shown as Senior residents have appeared and signed the proceedings before the assessors. Their declaration forms are part of the official record. Surgery Vacation list Vacation Roster is prepared and recommended by the HOD's of does not have concerned Departments as per names of requirement for the smooth working of their Department and Senior the names of only those Residents' that faculty/Residents are included in the vacation roster which are are shown in recommended by the HODs. inspection list Vacation roster received from the Surgery department is attached as Annexure P-19. The fact that Senior residents were present at the time on inspection itself speaks fallaciousness of this deficiency. The person who have been shown as Senior residents have appeared and signed the proceedings before the assessors. Their declaration forms are part of the official record. Kumar Vinod 2013.10.04 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20981 of 2013 [ 15 ]. ***** Paediatrics On the day of 7 Senior Residents have been shown in the list No.10. inspection list shows name of As per MCI Norms 5 Senior 10 Senior Residents are required. Residents, out Dr. Neeraj Mahajan and Dr. Rohit of which 5 Chopra were on duty in 1st half and were on were present during inspection. vacation, 01 is 3 Senior Residents were on on Study level, Vacation in first half, 1 Senior 02 have Resident is on study leave, 2 were off duties that are extra. resigned and 02 were At any point in time only one present, Senior resident is required to be on duty and minimum 5 are to be whereas vacant employed in the department. There list shows 05 are 5 senior Residents in the names of department. Senior Residents that were on vacations. This creates serious doubt on the list submitted by the colelge as it is very difficult to run the ward without senior residents. Kumar Vinod 2013.10.04 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20981 of 2013 [ 16 ]. ***** OBG01Prof. Dr. As both were on vacation at the Manisha time of surprise compliance Aggarwal, verification report, so the forms Associate were not signed by the teachers as professor who the signatures are done in the has shown her presence of assessors. name does not As original declaration forms were appear in the signed in the presence of Assessors surprise and submitted at the time of regular assessment but inspection on 1st & 2nd .3.2013. she was Only photo copies of all the present in first faculty-/Residents were submitted inspection and at the time of compliance vacation list. verification inspection carried out Further photo on 28 & 29.2013. copy of The requirement as per MCI declaration standards is 1 professor and 3 form which is associate professors. The petitioner submitted is has 2 professors and 2 associate not signed by professors including Dr. Manisha the Faculty Aggarwal. (Dr. Manisha Aggarwal) and is only has also submitted her declaration form without her signature but also submitted her declaration form without her signature but is signed by the Dean of the Institution. Kumar Vinod 2013.10.04 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20981 of 2013 [ 17 ]. ***** Psychiatry Dr. Gurpreet His name is in the Vacation list. A Singh shown copy of the Vacation roster was on inspection supplied to the assessors and is day but his attached herewith as Annexure P- name does not 20. appear in vacation list. Skin & VC There is no As per MCI norms only 1 Assistant faculty Professor is required. Dr. Dilraj available in Kaur Longowal is working as first half, Assistant professor, she applied for wards are run vacation in 1st half and same was only by the approved therefore she was on Senior vacation in 1st half and Senior Residents. Residents looked after the department. She has rejoined the department on 08.07.2013. Kumar Vinod 2013.10.04 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20981 of 2013 [ 18 ]. ***** Orthopedics Dr. Salim Dr. Salim Kamal proceeded on Kaml whose leave and did not join his duty after name has been that. shown as As per MCI norms the qualification associate and experience is same for professor in Assistant professors and senior first residents is same and they are assessment performing same duties. dated 1st & 2nd March 2013 The vacation of Assistant and surprise professors and senior residents is assessment recommended by the HODs as per dated 28 & 29 their requirement in the department. June, 2013 has One Assistant professor and 4 not been Senior Residents were on vacation shown in in first half and two assistant vacation list. professors and one Senior Resident Names of 04 Dr. Manish Bansal was on vacation nd senior residents in 2 Half. appear in first The deficiency is totally vague and half of not substantiated. vacation list, out of which only 01 senior resident is present. 04 Senior Residents name appears in first half vacation list and 01 Senior Resident is only present and second half of vacation no name of senior residents appears. For second half no senior resident is posted. This shows discrepancies in the presence of Senior Residents. Kumar Vinod 2013.10.04 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20981 of 2013 [ 19 ]. ***** Radiology Our of 04 One Associate Professor, one AP Senior and one Senior Resident were on Residents, 03 duty in 1st half and one Professor & are shown on 3 Senior Residents were available vacation list in in the 2nd half. first half and only 01 is shown in second half. It is further submitted that the deficiencies pointed out by the respondents is because of the confusion created by it in mis-interpreting the vacation roster of the hospital. It is alleged that the vacation roster prepared by the petitioner is in terms of the roster of the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, which is followed by all other medical colleges in the State of Punjab. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the hearing granted by the respondents in view of the order passed by this Court on 22.08.2013 was a farce because it is alleged in the impugned order that the explanations and documents submitted by the petitioner during the hearing cannot become the substitute to remarks made by the Assessors. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the impugned order is based upon the regular inspection and not on the surprise inspection as it is mentioned that “during any regular inspection of the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 30% and/or bed occupancy is < 60%, such an institute will not be considered for renewal of permission in that Academic Year...”
.. It is further submitted that the regular inspection was carried out on 1st & 2nd March, 2013 and, Kumar Vinod 2013.10.04 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20981 of 2013 [ 20 ]. ***** thereafter, the compliance report was submitted by the petitioner which was not accepted by the respondents and the surprise inspection was carried out which has become the bone of contention in the present case. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in case the renewal of permission is not granted then the respondents be saddled with the liability of `38.5 Crores which has been a loss by the petitioner on account of fee which could have been received from 150 admissions. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that during the inspection dated 28th & 29th June, 2013, the deficiencies in the faculty and the residents were found more than 30% which is the maximum relaxation permissible under the Regulations at a given point of time and it is clear from the language of the proviso (a) to Regulation 8(3)(1) that such an institution will not be granted renewal for that academic year. It is further submitted that although no details have been given in the reply in respect of the averments made in paragraph 22 of the writ petition but he has submitted that the explanation given by the petitioner is the justification in the presentie. It is further submitted that wherever they say that the concerned faculty had resigned or was on leave, no record has been attached with the writ petition and it is further submitted that the Board of Governors of the MCI, after hearing the petitioner on 03.09.2013, directed the Undergraduate Section to examine the documents submitted by the College authorities during the course of hearing and the Undergraduate Committee, after considering the documents submitted by the college authorities at the time of hearing, noted the deficiencies on 09.09.2012 which is provided in para 4 of the impugned order. Kumar Vinod 2013.10.04 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20981 of 2013 [ 21 ]. ***** Counsel for the respondents has further submitted that even otherwise no renewal of permission can be granted in the current academic session in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattishgarh and others, (2012) 7 Supreme Court Cases 433 and he has also relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Manohar Lal Sharma v. M.C.I. and others, Writ Petition (Civil) No.590 of 2013, decided on 12.09.2013 and Medical Council of India v. Chintpurni Medical College and & Hosp. & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.28480 of 2012, decided on 27.09.2012. It is contended that as per the time schedule provided in Priya Gupta's case (supra), no approval for the current year can be granted after 15.07.2013. It is further submitted that the order declining the prayer for renewal of permission to the petitioner was passed on 10.07.2013 and even the admission cannot be granted after 30.09.2013 because it is the last date meant for the seats remaining vacant in exceptional circumstances or surrender of seats. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner on 19.09.2013, listed for preliminary hearing on 20.09.2013, notice issued to the respondents for 25.09.2013 and it was ordered to be shown in the urgent list. On the adjourned date, respondents appeared and asked further time to file reply and the case was adjourned to 27.09.2013 for reply and arguments. No doubt that in the first inspection, which is called regular inspection by the petitioner, certain deficiencies were found. Surprise Kumar Vinod 2013.10.04 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20981 of 2013 [ 22 ]. ***** inspection was conducted and certain more deficiencies were also noticed and the renewal of permission was declined but keeping in view the principles of natural justice, one more opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain the deficiencies noticed and relied upon by the respondents for declining the renewal of permission. The petitioner, by producing documents, explained to the Undergraduate Committee that there were no deficiencies which have been pointed by the Inspection Committee or the Assessors, but still in the impugned order, the deficiencies have been maintained which are in the nature of fake faculty on the record which were not found in person at the spot. The petitioner has tried to explain in para 22 of the writ petition about the deficiencies pointed out by the respondents and has contended that it was all because of mis-appreciation and confusion in interpreting the vacation roster of the hospital, which has been strongly denied by the respondents on the ground that it is only a ploy to justify the deficiencies at this stage. Be that as it may, the pivotal question is as to “whether the petitioner can be granted renewal of permission at this stage or not?.”. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to the decision in Priya Gupta's case (supra) in which the Apex Court had laid down the schedule for completion of admission process, which is reproduced as under:- “APPENDIX E TIME SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF THE ADMISSION PROCESS FOR FIRST MBBS COURSE Schedule Seats filled up by Seats filled up by the for the Central State admission Government Governments/instituti through All India ons Entrance Examination Kumar Vinod 2013.10.04 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20981 of 2013 [ 23 ]. ***** Conduct of Month of May Month of May entrance examination Declaration of By 5th June By 15th June result of qualifying exam/entrance exam First round of To be over by 30th To be over by 25th July counselling/adm June ission Last date for Within 15 days 31st July joining the from the date of allotted college allotment of seats and course Second round of To be over by 8th Up to 28th August conselling for August allotment of seats from waiting list Last date for Within 15 days 31st August joining for from the date of candidates allotment of seats allotted seats in (seats vacant after second round of 22nd August will counselling from be surrendered the waiting list back to the States/colleges) Commencement 1st August of academic session Last date up to 30th September which students can be admitted against vacancies arising due to any reason The other relevant portions of the said judgment are as under:- “46.3 After 15th July of each year, neither the Union of India nor the Medical or Dental Council of India shall issue any recognition or approval for the current academic year. If any such approval is granted after 15th July of any year, it shall Kumar Vinod 2013.10.04 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20981 of 2013 [ 24 ]. ***** only be operative for the next academic year and not in the current academic year. Once the sanction/approval is granted on or before 15th July of the relevant year, the name of that college and all seats shall be included in both the first and the second counseling, in accordance with the Rules.”
. “46.4 Any medical or dental college, or seats thereof, to which the recognition/approval is issued subsequent to 15th July of the respective year shall not be included in the counseling to be conducted by the authority concerned and that college would have no right to make admissions in the current academic year against such seats.”
. “46.7 If any seats remain vacant or are surrendered from all- India quota, they should positively be allotted and admission granted strictly as per the merit by 15th September of the relevant year and not by holding an extended counselling. The remaining time will be limited to the filling up of the vacant seats resulting from exception circumstances or surrender of seats. All candidates should join the academic courses by 30th September of the academic year.”
. “47.5 The college which grants admission for the current academic year, where its recognition/approval is granted subsequent to 15th July of the current academic year, shall be liable for withdrawal of recognition/approval on this ground, in addition to being liable to indemnify such students who are denied admission or who are wrongfully given admission in the college.”
. Kumar Vinod 2013.10.04 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20981 of 2013 [ 25 ]. ***** Further more, recently, in Manohar Lal Sharma's case (supra), the issue was with regard to renewal of permission to the Chintpurni Medical College & Hospital for the academic year 2013-14. In that case, there was the inspection and surprise inspection and, ultimately, the following order was passed by the Supreme Court:-
“17. MCI, with the previous sanction by the Central Government, in exercise of its powers conferred by Sections 10A and 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, made the Regulations known as the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999. Regulation 8 of the Regulations 1999 deals with grant of permission for establishment of new college. Application/scheme submitted by the applicants is evaluated and the verification takes place by conducting physical inspection by the team of inspectors of the MCI. The Board of Governors may grant LoP to the applicant for making admissions in the first year of MBBS course in the medical college and the permission is renewed every year subject to the college achieving the yearly target mentioned in “Minimum Standard Requirements for the Medical College for 150 Admissions Annually Regulations, 1999”.. Schedule I of the above mentioned Regulation provides for accommodation in the medical college and its teaching hospital. Schedule II deals with equipment required for various departments in the college and hospital. The requirements are statutorily prescribed and, therefore, the Board of Governors has no power to dilute the statutory Kumar Vinod 2013.10.04 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20981 of 2013 [ 26 ]. ***** requirements mentioned in the above mentioned Regulations.
18. We have also gone through the report of the surprise Inspection Team dated 06.07.2013 submitted by Dr. Mukesh Kalra and Dr. Ajay Aggarwal. The MCI has got the power to conduct a surprise inspection to find out whether the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI have been rectified or not, especially when the College submits a compliance report. Surprise inspection naturally contemplates no notice, if the notice is given in advance, it would not be a surprise inspection and will give room for the College to hoodwink the assessors by springing a surprise, by making perfect what was imperfect. Surprise inspection, in this case, was conducted to ascertain whether compliance report could be accepted and to ascertain whether the deficiencies pointed out in the regular inspection were rectified or not. By pointing out the deficiencies, MCI is giving an opportunity to the College to rectify the deficiencies, if any noticed by the Inspection Team. It is the duty of the College to submit the compliance report, after rectifying the deficiencies. The MCI can conduct a surprise inspection to ascertain whether the deficiencies had been rectified and the compliance report be accepted or not.
19. MCI, while deciding to grant permission or not to grant permission, is not functioning as a quasi-judicial authority, but only as an administrative authority. Rigid rules of natural justice are, therefore, not contemplated or envisaged. Rule 8 (3)(1) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations Kumar Vinod 2013.10.04 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20981 of 2013 [ 27 ]. ***** (Amendment) Act, 2010 (Part II), provides for only an “opportunity and time to rectify the deficiencies”.. Compliance report is called for only to ascertain whether the deficiencies pointed out were rectified or not. If the MCI is not satisfied with the manner of compliance, it can conduct a surprise inspection. After that, no further time or opportunity to rectify the deficiencies is contemplated, nor further opportunity of being heard, is provided.
20. We have already dealt with, in extenso, the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI team in its report dated 06.07.2013. In our view, the deficiencies pointed out are fundamental and very crucial, which cannot be ignored in the interest of medical education and in the interest of student community. MCI and the College authorities have to bear in mind, what is prescribed is the minimum, if the MCI dilutes the minimum standards, they will be doing violence to the statutory requirements. MCI is duty bound to cancel the request if fundamental and minimum requirements are not satisfied or else College will be producing half-backed and poor quality Doctors and they would do more harm to the society than service. In our view, the infirmities pointed out by the Inspection Team are serious deficiencies and the Board of Governors of the MCI rightly not granted approval for renewal of permission for the 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students for the academic year 2013-14.
21. We are also of the view that such an order is not Kumar Vinod 2013.10.04 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.20981 of 2013 [ 28 ]. ***** vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice, especially, when no allegation of bias or mala fide has been attributed against the two doctors who constituted the Inspection Team, which conducted the surprise inspection on 06.07.2013. When the Inspection Team consists of two doctors of unquestionable integrity and reputation, who are experts in the field, there is no reason to discard the report of such inspection. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the MCI has rightly passed the order of rejecting the approval for renewal of permission of 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students granted for the academic year 2013-14. Consequently, Writ Petition (C) No.590 of 2013 is allowed and IA No.2 of 2013, filed in SLP (C) No.28480 of 2012, is disposed of, as above.”
. In view of the above, the renewal of permission for admission of 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students for the academic session 2013-14 cannot be granted to the petitioner and I also do not find any reason to accept the alternative prayer of the petitioner for compensation as no mala fides have been alleged against the respondents and the respondents has acted, in exercise of their powers, in accordance with law. Thus, the present writ petition is dismissed accordingly. September 30, 2013 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge