Non-Reportable  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No.3340 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.5964 of 2019)

BOARD OF GOVERNORS IN SUPERSESSION OF  MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA

.... Appellant(s) Versus

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES  AND RESEARCH & ANR.

…. Respondent (s)   

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.  

1. The Appellant has approached this Court  aggrieved

by the direction given by the High Court of Rajasthan to

conduct  inspection  of  Respondent  No.1-Institute  for

enhancement  of  seats  in  M.S.  (Orthopedics)  and  M.D.

(Radio Diagnosis).  The Appellant was further directed to

submit its report before 28.02.2019 which would be dealt

1

with  by  the  Second  Respondent-Union  of  India  in

accordance with law.  

2. The First Respondent-Medical College was established

in the year 2004.  In the year 2011, a letter of permission

was granted to the First Respondent to start M.D. (Radio

Diagnosis)  course  with  an  annual  intake  of  one  student

from the academic year 2011-2012.  The First Respondent

was informed that the permission would be valid till such

time as the first batch of  students admitted against the

said course appear for the final examination.   The College

was directed to take up the matter for recognition of the

qualifications  under  Section  11(2)  of  the  Indian  Medical

Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) at

the  time  the  students  appear  for  the  final  year

examination.    Permission  was also  granted in  2011 for

starting   M.S. (Orthopedics) course with an annual intake

of  two  students.   The  First  Respondent  applied  for

recognition on 18.07.2013.  Thereafter, several inspections

were  conducted  by  the  Appellant  and  deficiencies  were

pointed out to the First Respondent.   Compliance reports

were sent by the College with which the Appellant was not

2

satisfied.    Ultimately,  a  decision  was  taken  that  Post

Graduate  courses  in  M.S.  (Orthopedics)  and M.D.  (Radio

Diagnosis)  cannot  be conducted in  the First  Respondent

Institute as the requirement of the Post Graduate Medical

Education  Regulations,  2000  (hereinafter  referred  to  as

‘the  Regulations’)  in  respect  of  clinical  material,  human

resources,  and  infrastructure  were  not  fulfilled.    As

students admitted during the academic years 2011-2012,

2012-2013, and 2013-2014 in M.S. (Orthopedics) and M.D.

(Radio  Diagnosis)  have  completed  their  courses  it  was

decided by the Appellant that the qualifications awarded

by the First Respondent in favour of such students should

be recognized and included in the First  Schedule to the

Act.      

3. The Committee also decided on 07.03.2017 that the

Respondent  shall  be  restrained  from  making  any

application  for  starting  the  M.S.  (Orthopedics)  and  M.D.

(Radio Diagnosis) courses for a period of five years.  On

14.04.2017,  the  Appellant  recommended  to  the  Second

Respondent-Union  of  India  to  notify  the  qualifications  of

the students who have completed M.S. (Orthopedics) and

3

M.D.  (Radio  Diagnosis)  in  the  First  Respondent-Institute

during the years 2011-2012,  2012-2013 and 2013-2014.

The  Post  Graduate  Medical  Education  Committee

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Committee’) decided that

the admissions made by the First Respondent-Institute to

M.S. (Orthopedics) and M.D. (Radio Diagnosis) after 2014

were  in  violation  of  Regulations  6(2)  and  (3)  of  the

Regulations.    

4. The  Second  Respondent  issued  a  notification  on

07.06.2017 including  the  Post  Graduate  courses  of  M.S.

(Orthopedics)  and  M.D.  (Radio  Diagnosis)  of  the  First

Respondent-Institute in the First Schedule to the Act.   It

was categorically  mentioned in the said notification that

students who were admitted for the academic years 2011-

2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 and trained at the First

Respondent-Institute “on or after 2014” shall  be entitled

for a recognized medical qualification.  In the note to the

said notification, it was stated that the recognition granted

to  the  Post  Graduate  courses  shall  be  for  a  maximum

period of five years after which it shall have to be renewed.

It is relevant to note that the notification dated 07.06.2017

4

is  not  restricted  to  the  First  Respondent-Institute  but

applied to other colleges as well.  The First Respondent had

filed  a  Writ  Petition  questioning  the  proceedings  dated

14.04.2017  of  the  Appellant  insofar  as  it  pertained  to

refusal to recognize certain courses.  A further relief that

was sought in the said Writ Petition filed in the High Court

of  Delhi  was  to  set  aside  the  bar  imposed  on  the  First

Respondent-Institute  from  admitting  students  for  future

academic years.  However, the First Respondent withdrew

the said Writ Petition with liberty to approach the Court at

a  later  stage.  Later,  a  corrigendum  was  issued  by  the

Second Respondent  to the notification dated 07.06.2017

and the words “on or after 2014” were removed.  After the

removal of the above portion from the notification, Column

3  pertaining  to  M.D.  (Radio  Diagnosis)  and  M.S.

(Orthopedics)  of  the  First  Respondent-Institute  reads  as

follows:

“Doctor of Medicine (Radio Diagnosis). MD (Radio Diagnosis) (This  shall  be  a  recognized  medical  qualification when  granted  by  NIMS  University  (Deemed University) in respect of students admitted for the academic  session  2011-12,  2012-13  &  2013-14 only  and  trained  at  National  Institute  of  Medical Sciences, Jaipur.)

5

Master of Surgery (Orthopedics) MS (Orthopedics) (This  shall  be  a  recognized  medical  qualification when  granted  by  NIMS  University  (Deemed University) in respect of students admitted for the academic  session  2011-12,  2012-13  &  2013-14 only  and  trained  at  National  Institute  of  Medical Sciences, Jaipur.)”  

Further, it was mentioned that the note contained in

the notification dated 07.06.2017 does not  apply  to  the

Courses  mentioned  in  the  corrigendum.    The  First

Respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi

questioning the corrigendum dated 09.04.2018 and for a

direction to the Appellant to accord recognition to the Post

Graduate  courses  in  M.S.  (Orthopedics)  and M.D.  (Radio

Diagnosis)  from the academic  year  2014-2015.    By  an

order dated 03.08.2018, the Delhi High Court issued notice

in the said Writ Petition but refused to grant interim relief.   

5. Thereafter, the First Respondent approached the High

Court  of  Rajasthan  by  filing  a  Writ  Petition  seeking  a

direction  to  the  Appellant  to  conduct  an  inspection  for

enhancement  of  seats  in  M.S.  (Orthopedics)  and  M.D.

(Radio  Diagnosis)  courses  for  the  academic  year  2019-

2020.  As the Advocates were on strike, the President of

6

the  Petitioner-  Institute  (First  Respondent)  appeared  on

21.02.2019 and submitted that the deadline for granting

permission  was  28.02.2019  and  hence,  urgent  interim

order was required to be passed in the Writ Petition.  By

recording  a  prima  facie finding  in  favour  of  the  First

Respondent  that  the  recommendation  made  by  the

Appellant  baring  admissions  in  the  First  Respondent-

Institute  was  not  accepted  by  the  Second  Respondent-

Union of India and that it was incumbent on the Appellant

to  conduct  inspection,  the  High  Court  directed  the

Appellant to conduct an inspection and submit a report to

the Second Respondent before 28.02.2019.  The Second

Respondent  was  directed  to  take  suitable  action  in

accordance with law for enhancement of the seats in M.S.

(Orthopedics)  and M.D.  (Radio  Diagnosis)  courses  in  the

First Respondent-Institute.   

6. We  have  heard  Mr.  Vikas  Singh,  learned  Senior

Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Niraj Kishan Kaul and Mr.

Ranjit  Kumar,  learned  Senior  Counsels  for  the  First

Respondent-Institute.     Mr. Vikas Singh submitted that the

proceedings dated 14.04.2017 along with the corrigendum

7

dated 09.04.2018 would disclose that the First Respondent

was  restrained  from  making  admissions  to  M.S.

(Orthopedics)  and  M.D.  (Radio  Diagnosis)  courses  for  a

period of five years.   According to him, the ambiguity in

the  notification  dated  07.06.2017  was  clarified  by  the

corrigendum  dated  09.04.2018.  The  corrigendum

recognized the courses in respect of students admitted in

the  First  Respondent-Institute  for  the  academic  years

2011-2012,  2012-2013 and  2013-2014 only.   He  further

submitted that any ambiguity in the interpretation of the

note  attached  to  the  notification  dated  07.06.2017  was

also  cleared  by  the  non-applicability  of  the  note  to  the

aforementioned  courses.   He  submitted  that  the  First

Respondent  had  indulged  in  forum  shopping  by

approaching the Rajasthan High Court as the earlier Writ

Petitions were filed by the First  Respondent in the Delhi

High Court.   He submitted that  the High Court  was not

right in  holding that the recommendations made by the

Appellant were not accepted by the Second Respondent.

He  stated  that  the  decision  taken  by  the  Committee

constituted under Section 20 of the Act had become final

8

as it was accepted by the Appellant Council.  He further

urged  that  there  would  be  no  surprise  element  in  the

inspection which was directed to be conducted by the High

Court within a period of one week.   

7. It  was  submitted  by  the  learned  Senior  Counsel

appearing  for  the  First  Respondent  that  there  is  no

complaint  of  lack of  infrastructure and other  facilities  in

respect  of  the  College  which  has  been  running  Under

Graduate  courses  from  the  year  2004.  Permission  was

granted  to  start  Post  Graduate  courses  and  seats  were

enhanced  for  M.S.  (Ophthalmology)  and  M.D.  (General

Medicine).  It was submitted that from 2014 onwards, the

First  Respondent-Institute  was  being  harassed  by  the

Appellant  by  not  accepting  the  compliance  reports

submitted  by  the  First  Respondent  regarding  the

deficiencies  pointed  out.   Mr.  Kaul  submitted  that

admissions made to the PG courses after the year 2014

were  being  regularly  intimated  to  the  Appellant.   He

submitted  that  the  recommendation  made  by  the

Appellant  Council  to  restrain  the  First  Respondent  from

making admissions for five years by the proceedings dated

9

14.04.2017 was not accepted by the Second Respondent.

The notification dated 07.06.2017 dealt with recognition of

the  qualifications  in  respect  of  the  students  who  were

admitted  for  the academic  years  2011-2012,  2012-2013

and  2013-2014  and  trained  in  the  First  Respondent-

Institute “on or after 2014”.   He submitted that the words

“on  or  after  2014”  are  significant  and  such  of  those

students who were trained after the year 2014 were also

entitled for a recognized medical qualification.  He relied

upon a note to the notification dated 07.06.2017 to argue

that the recognition granted to the Post Graduate courses

shall be for a maximum period of five years after which it

shall have to be renewed.  In response to the allegation of

forum shopping, he submitted that the First Respondent is

situated in  Jaipur  and there was no bar  on filing a  Writ

Petition in the Rajasthan High Court.  Mr. Kaul urged that

the First Respondent cannot be accused of forum shopping

for approaching Rajasthan High Court merely because the

earlier two Writ Petitions were filed at the Delhi High Court.

8. Mr. Ranjit Kumar submitted that there is no shortage

of the requisite facilities and the First Respondent-Institute

10

fulfils the minimum requirements which is evident from the

fact that the Appellant conducted inspections for the other

P.G.  courses.   He  stated  that  the  application  filed  for

enhancement  of  seats  on  06.04.2018  has  not  been

considered  by  the  Appellant  and  having  no  other

alternative,  the  First  Respondent  approached  the  High

Court  as  the  last  date  for  grant  of  permission  was

28.02.2019.   The learned Senior Counsel  urged that the

interim order passed by the High Court does not warrant

interference.   

9. The  interim  order  passed  by  the  High  Court  on

21.02.2019 is on the basis that the recommendation made

on 14.04.2017 by the Appellant to bar admissions for five

years  to  M.S.  (Orthopedics)  and  M.D.  (Radio  Diagnosis)

courses has not been accepted by the Second Respondent.

Consequently, the High Court was of the opinion that the

Appellant was obliged to conduct an inspection.  The High

Court failed to examine the notification dated 07.06.2017

and the corrigendum dated 09.04.2018 before passing the

impugned order.   No notice was issued to the Appellant

before the interim order was passed by the High Court.

11

The direction to conduct an inspection within a period of

one  week  ought  not  to  have  been  passed  by  the  High

Court as the surprise element of the inspection would not

be there. In Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of

India1, this Court observed: “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.”  The

Three Judge Bench in  Royal Medical Trust v. Union of

India2 while  laying  down  guidelines  regarding  medical

college  admissions  emphasized  that  there  must  be  a

surprise element in the inspection conducted by the MCI.

10. Having challenged the corrigendum dated 09.04.2018

before  the  Delhi  High  Court,  any  further  direction  in

connection  with  the  enhancement  of  seats  to  the  PG

courses should have been sought by the First Respondent

only in the Delhi High Court.  We are refraining ourselves

from entering into the merits of the matter pertaining to

the  interpretation  of  the  proceedings  dated  14.04.2017,

1 (2013) 10 SCC 60, Para 23 2 (2015) 10 SCC 19, Para 31 (B)

12

the  notification  dated  07.06.2017,  and  the  corrigendum

dated  09.04.2018  as  it  is  the  subject  matter  of  a  Writ

Petition pending in the Delhi High Court.  The High Court

ought  to  have  given  an  opportunity  of  hearing  to  the

Appellant before passing the impugned order.   Prima facie

satisfaction  of  the  High  Court  in  favour  of  the  First

Respondent is without appreciation of the entire material

pertaining to the dispute.  Moreover, no useful purpose will

be served by an inspection before the adjudication of the

dispute  relating  to  the  bar  imposed  on  the  First

Respondent  from  making  admissions  to  the  M.S.

(Orthopedics) and M.D. (Radio Diagnosis) courses.  In any

event, the inspection which was directed to be conducted

within  a  period  of  one  week  will  not  show  the  correct

picture pertaining to the infrastructure and other facilities.

11. For the aforementioned reasons, the interim direction

of  the  High  Court  to  conduct  inspection  of  the  First

Respondent-Institute is set aside.   Accordingly, the appeal

is allowed.          

                   ..…................................J.                            [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

13

                       ..…................................J.                  [M.R. SHAH]

New Delhi, April 01, 2019

14