1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 787 OF 2017

Varunarjun Trust and Anr. ….Petitioners  

Versus  

Union of India and Ors. ....Respondents

J U D G M E N T

A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

1. The petitioners made an application for establishment of a

new medical college at Banthra, Shahjahanpur, U.P., in the

name  and  style  of  Varunarjun  Medical  College  from

academic  session  2016-17  onwards,  to  the  Ministry  of

Health  and  Family  Welfare,  Government  of  India.  The

Ministry forwarded that application to the Medical Council

of  India  (for  short  “MCI”)  for  evaluation  and  making

recommendations under Section 10A of the Indian Medical

Council  Act,  1956  (for  short  “the  1956  Act”).  The  MCI

conducted an assessment of the petitioner college on 12th

2

and 13th January,  2016. On the basis of  the assessment

report, the Executive Committee of MCI, in its meeting held

on  30th January,  2016,  decided  to  make  negative

recommendations, in view of a large number of deficiencies

noticed in the assessment report. A formal communication

in that behalf was sent to the Central Government by MCI

vide  letter  dated 31st January,  2016.   The  Ministry  then

afforded an opportunity of hearing to the college before a

Hearing  Committee  on 25th February,  2016.  The  Hearing

Committee concurred with the recommendation of MCI and

submitted its observations to the Ministry to disapprove the

proposal. Later on, compliance verification assessment was

done by MCI on 30th March, 2016, which report was duly

considered  by  the  Executive  Committee  of  MCI  in  its

meeting held  on 13th May,  2016.  Once  again,  MCI  in  its

meeting held on 13th May,  2016 decided to  give  negative

recommendations in view of the deficiencies noticed in the

compliance  verification  assessment.  That  opinion  was

formally  communicated  by  the  MCI  to  the  Ministry  vide

letter  dated  14th May,  2016.  The  Ministry  accepted  the

recommendation of MCI and disapproved the application for

3

establishment of a new medical college for academic session

2016-17 vide letter dated 8th June, 2016.   

2.  The Oversight Committee (for short “OC”) constituted by

this Court,  however,  issued a directive  to the Ministry to

obtain fresh compliance from the college and forward it to

MCI.   Pursuant  to  the  said  directive,  MCI  submitted  its

compliance to the Ministry citing various reasons. However,

the  OC  approved  the  scheme  of  establishment  of  a  new

medical college with annual intake of 150 students for the

academic year 2016-17, on certain conditions. The Central

Government, therefore, issued a formal approval-cum-Letter

of  Permission  (for  short  “LOP”)  on  12th September,  2016

incorporating the conditions imposed by the OC.  

3.  As per the conditions noted in the said LOP, an assessment

with  regard  to  verification  compliance  submitted  by  the

college was conducted by the MCI on 18th & 19th November,

2016.  During the said verification, certain deficiencies were

noticed  which  were  mentioned  in  the  assessment  report.

The  assessment  report  was  duly  considered  by  the

Executive  Committee  of  MCI  in  its  meeting  held  on 22nd

December, 2016.  In view of the deficiencies, MCI decided to

4

send  a  negative  recommendation  to  the  Ministry.   The

deficiencies noticed were as follows:

“i. Deficiency of faculty is 16.79% as detailed in the report.  

ii.  Shortage  of  Residents  was  21.73%  as  detailed  in  the report.  

iii. There was only 1 Minor Operation on day of assessment.  

iv. There was 1 normal Delivery & NIL Caesarean Section on day of assessment.  

v. ICUs: There was only 1 patient each in MICU & SICU and 2  patients  each  in  ICCU  &  PICU/NICU  on  day  of assessment.  

vi. Details of Paramedical & Non-teaching staff available in the Institute are not provided.  

vii. MRD: ICD X classification of diseases is not followed for indexing.  

viii. Central Library: It is not air-conditioned.”  

4. The decision of the MCI was formally communicated to the

Ministry vide letter dated 26th December, 2016. After receipt

of the recommendation from the MCI, the Ministry decided

to afford a personal hearing to the college on 17th January,

2017 before the Director General of Health Services (DGHS).

The  Hearing  Committee  considered  the  oral  and  written

submissions of the college, but was not satisfied with the

explanation  given  by  the  petitioners  for  want  of  proper

evidence.  The  Hearing  Committee  submitted its  report  to

5

the Ministry, which in turn forwarded the same to the OC

for  guidance.  The  OC  vide  letter  dated  14th May,  2017

conveyed its views to the Ministry as follows:    (i) Faculty:  In  the  Standard  Assessment  Forms  (SAF),

Principal has mentioned that 4 faculty members had gone for exchange/withdrawal of  money from the bank with permission  of  the  Principal  and  3  were  on  sanctioned leave. Considering this explanation, the deficiency would be 6.15%, which is within the acceptable limits.  

(ii) Residents:-  In  the SAF,  Principal  has mentioned that 5 Residents had gone for exchange/withdrawal of  money from the bank with permission of the Principal and 3 were on  sanctioned  leave.  Considering  these  residents,  the deficiency  would  be  4.34%,  which  is  within  the acceptable limits.  

(iii) Minor operation:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR.  (iv) Deliveries:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR.  (v) ICCU  &  PICU/NICU:-  This  deficiency  is  subjective.  No

MSR.  (vi) Non-teaching  staff:-  There  is  no  such  mention  in  SAF

2.24.  (vii) Central Library:- There is no such mention in the previous

assessment  report.  However,  the  explanation  of  the College is acceptable.  

LOP Confirmed.”

5. The Ministry after considering the recommendation of the

MCI, the report of the DGHS and the views received from

the OC, finally chose to accept the recommendation of the

MCI. The decision of the Ministry was communicated to the

petitioner college vide letter dated 31st May, 2017, debarring

the  college  from  admitting  students  for  two  years  i.e.

6

2017-18  &  2018-19,  and  also  authorising  the  MCI  to

encash the bank guarantee.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioners filed a

writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, being WP (C)

No.15302 of  2017 which was disposed of  on 8th August,

2017  following  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  the  case  of

Glocal  Medical  College  &  Super  Speciality  Hospital

and  Research  Centre  Vs.  Union  of  India  and  Anr.1,

decided on 1st August, 2017.

7. Pursuant to the aforementioned decision of the High Court,

the Ministry granted a hearing to the petitioner college on

16th August, 2017. It appears that the Hearing Committee

considered the record, oral and written submissions of the

college also the fresh representation given by the college.

The  Hearing  Committee  then  submitted  its  report  to  the

Ministry.  Relying  on  the  said  recommendation  of  the

Hearing  Committee,  the  Ministry  vide  order  dated  19th

August, 2017 reiterated its earlier decision dated 31st May,

2017, debarring the college from admitting students for a

period  of  two  years  i.e.  2017-18  &  2018-19  and  also,

authorising   MCI  to  encash  the  bank  guarantee  of  Rs.2

1   2017 (8) SCALE 356

7

Crore. This decision of the Ministry was communicated to

the  petitioners.  The  crucial  part  of  this  decision  is  in

paragraphs 17 and 18 which read as follows:  

“17. Now, therefore, in compliance with the above direction of  Court,  the  Ministry  granted  hearing  to  the  college  on 16.8.2017.  The  Hearing  Committee  after  considering  the records  and  oral  &  written  submission  of  the  college submitted  its  report  to  the  Ministry.  The  findings  of  the Hearing Committee are as under:

The college has tried to explain deficiency of 4 faculty and 5 residents in terms of visit to bank for currency  exchange  in  the  wake  of  demonetization. This  could  be  a  plausible  explanation  but  the Committee is not inclined to accept it as it cannot be proved.  Further,  such  absence  during  duty  hours cannot be overlooked.  The Committee inquired from the college why the 5 residents on night off could not come, even late, for the head count. They would have been accordingly reflected as such in the SAF.  

The college claimed 6 minor operations on the day of assessment but could not produce supportive document  or  evidence,  which  they  claimed  to  have submitted in the earlier hearing.  

The contention of college on MRD and library is accepted  and  the  deficiency  may  not  exist.  The college  should be having paramedical  non teaching staff  but  they  did  not  produce  the  list/documents before the Hearing Committee.  

In view of the above the Committee agrees with the  decision  of  the  Ministry  vide  letter  dated 31.05.2017 to  debar  the  college  for  two  years  and also permit MCI to encash bank guarantee.  

18. Accepting  the  recommendations  of  the  Hearing Committee, the Ministry reiterates its earlier decision dated 31.05.2017 to debar the college from admitting students for a period of two years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19 and also to authorize MCI to encash the Bank Guarantee of Rs.2 Crore.”

8

8. Aggrieved, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the

said order and further, directing respondent No.1 (Union of

India  through  Secretary,  Ministry  of  Health  and  Family

Welfare)  to  issue first  renewal  of  Letter  of  Permission for

admission of the 2nd batch of 150 MBBS students in the

petitioner college for the academic session 2017-18 and also

refrain  from  encashing  the  bank  guarantee  dated  15th

September, 2017 offered by the petitioners in favour of MCI

in the sum of Rs.2 Crore.    

9. According to the petitioners, they had placed all the relevant

material  before  the  Competent  Authority  of  the  Central

Government, clearly indicating that the deficiencies noticed

in the concerned assessment report were insignificant and

within permissible limit.  Our attention was invited to the

communication sent by the MCI dated 26th December, 2016,

highlighting  the  deficiencies  noticed  by  the  Council

Assessors on 18th & 19th November, 2016.  The petitioners

have also relied on the explanation offered by the petitioners

before  the  Hearing  Committee  as  well  as  OC.   It  is

contended that the explanation found favour with the OC.

The Competent Authority of the Central Government has,

9

however, completely disregarded the opinion of the OC. It

was then contended that the recent report of the Hearing

Committee  does  not  take  the  matter  any  further.  The

relevant  portion of  the  said  report  has been extracted in

paragraph 17 of the impugned decision of the Ministry.  On

the  one  hand,  the  Hearing  Committee  observed  that  the

explanation  offered  by  the  petitioner  college  regarding

absence of faculty and residents was plausible, but it still

chose to disregard that explanation on the specious ground

that it was not proved.  Further, no analysis as to why the

opinion  of  the  OC  should  be  deviated  is  found  in  the

observations of  the Hearing Committee.   It  is  contended

that  the  absence  of  faculty  and  residents  on  the  day  of

inspection  ought  to  be  excluded,  in  which  case  the

deficiency of faculty would stand reduced to only 6.15% and

of  residents  to  only  4.34%.  Further,  the  adverse

observations noted by the Hearing Committee with regard to

minor operations and paramedical non-teaching staff is not

consistent  with  the  record  produced  by  the  petitioner

college during the hearing. It is submitted that in view of

the recent pronouncements of this Court in respect of other

10

institutions,  similar  relief  be  given  to  the  petitioner

institution.  A  comparative  chart  of  the  deficiencies  in

respect of the said institutions was produced before us to

contend that in so far as the petitioner college is concerned,

the deficiencies were marginal and relatively less. The main

grievance of the petitioners is that despite clear directions

given by the Court to consider the proposal of the petitioner

college after taking into account the material produced and

explanation offered by the petitioners, including the fresh

representation,  neither  the  Hearing  Committee  nor  the

Competent  Authority  of  the  Central  Government  has

adverted to the explanation and material relied upon by the

petitioners. Moreso, neither the Hearing Committee nor the

Competent  Authority  of  the  Central  Government  has

analysed  the  opinion  of  the  OC which  had  accepted  the

explanation  or  recorded  any  reason  to  deviate  from  the

same. The fresh decision of the Competent Authority of the

Central  Government is,  again,  a mechanical  order,  if  not

perverse. It is against the spirit of the directions issued by

the  Court  to  reconsider  the  proposal  afresh  and  record

reasons.  It  is,  therefore,  submitted  that  the  impugned

11

decision deserves to be quashed and set aside and further

directions  should  be  issued  to  the  respondents  to  issue

confirmation  of  Letter  of  Permission  in  favour  of  the

petitioner college for the academic session 2016-17 and also

allow the  petitioner  college to  admit  150 students in the

second batch of the MBBS course for the academic session

2017-18.

10. Per  contra,  the  respondents  submit  that  the  final

decision  of  the  Competent  Authority  of  the  Central

Government is just and proper, in the fact situation of the

present case. Inasmuch as the Hearing Committee did not

accept the explanation offered by the petitioner regarding

the deficiencies relating to faculty members and residents.

The Hearing  Committee  was also  not  convinced with  the

explanation given by the petitioners about their claim of 6

(six) minor operations as the college had failed to produce

supporting  documents  and  evidence  in  that  regard.

Similarly,  the  college  failed  to  produce  material  to

substantiate that the college had paramedical non-teaching

staff which was one of the essential requirements. Learned

counsel  for  the  respondents  submitted  that  the  recent

12

decisions  rendered  by  this  Court  on  which  reliance  has

been placed, were on the facts of the concerned case. Our

attention was also invited to the relevant provisions of the

Act,  Regulations  and  Statutory  Scheme  formulated  for

consideration of  application for  permission to  establish a

medical college. It is submitted that the assessment done by

the  MCI  in  the  present  case  was  with  regard  to  the

verification of the compliance submitted by the college for

considering the proposal for confirmation of conditional LOP

granted to the petitioner college for the academic session

2016-2017.  For  that  reason,  the  minimum  standards

regarding  infrastructure  and  academic  requirements  as

postulated  in  the  Statutory  Scheme  must  govern  the

consideration of  the proposal.   The benchmark regarding

infrastructure and academics to be fulfilled by the applicant

college  for  permission  to  establish  medical  college  are

pre-conditions.  However,  without  fulfilment  of  those

conditions,  conditional  LOP was granted to the petitioner

college on the basis of direction issued by the OC, which

was then acted upon by the Central Government by issuing

a  formal  LOP   for  the  academic  session  2016-2017  on

13

conditions  specified  by  the  OC.  The  college  has  failed  to

fulfil those conditions as was noticed during the verification

of compliance. It is submitted that no indulgence be shown

to  the  petitioner  college,  much  less,  grant  further  relief

claimed to allow the petitioner college to admit students in

the  second  batch  of  the  MBBS  course  for  the  academic

session 2017-18.

11. Heard Mr. Rajiv Dhavan, learned senior counsel along

with  Mr.  Abdhesh  Chaudhary,  learned  counsel  for  the

petitioner, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor

General  for  Union of  India and Mr.  Vikas Singh,  learned

senior  counsel  along  with  Mr.  Gaurav  Sharma,  learned

counsel for the Medical Council of India.  

12. We must first answer the submission of the petitioners

that the satisfaction recorded by the OC whilst accepting

the explanation offered by the petitioners was binding on

the  Central  Government.  We  do  not  agree  with  this

submission.  It  is  one  thing  to  say  that  the

satisfaction/opinion recorded by the OC constituted by this

Court  is  a  relevant  matter  and  which  must  receive  due

attention of the Hearing Committee as well as the Central

14

Government. But it is not possible to accept the contention

that the opinion of OC must bind the Hearing Committee

and  the  Central  Government  whilst  discharging  their

statutory duties, moreso, when the legislative scheme of the

Act  has  bestowed  the  final  authority  upon  the  Central

Government to grant or refuse to grant permission in terms

of Section 10-A of the Act.  

13. Having  said  this,  we  may  now  advert  to  the

deficiencies  noticed  in  the  assessment  report  regarding

verification  of  compliance  submitted  by  the  college.  The

deficiencies noticed in the said report in respect of faculty

members and residents were sought to be explained by the

college - that 4 (four) faculty members and 5 (five) residents

had gone for exchange/withdrawal of money from the bank

with  permission  of  the  Principal  and  3  (three)  were  on

sanctioned leave. This explanation commended to the OC as

plausible and on that basis, the OC was of the view that

deficiency  in  respect  of  faculty  members  would  stand

reduced  to  the  permissible  limit.   Hence,  the  OC

recommended confirmation of LOP. The Hearing Committee,

however,  observed  that  the  petitioner  college  did  not

15

substantiate the stand so taken. Further, absence of such

large  number  of  faculties  and  residents  during

working-duty  hours  could  not  be  countenanced.

Additionally,  the Hearing Committee was of the view that

the college was not able to explain the absence of 5 (five)

residents who were on night off  and yet could not come,

even late, for the head count. Besides, no entry to that effect

was recorded in the Standard Assessment Forms (for short,

“SAF”). The OC, however, has not commented on this aspect

of the matter at all. In our opinion, the view taken by the

Competent  Authority  of  the  Central  Government  is  a

possible  view.   The  pre-conditions  to  maintain  high

academic standards for imparting MBBS course cannot be

undermined.  In this  case,   the deficiency of  faculty and

residents was significant, besides the other two deficiencies

taken note of  by the Hearing Committee and the Central

Government in the impugned decision. For that, the college

did  not  produce  supportive  documents  or  evidence  in

respect of its claim of 6 (six) minor operations and list of

paramedical  non-teaching  staff.  These  deficiencies cannot

16

be treated as trivial  or  unrelated to maintenance of  high

standards of imparting medical education.

14. We are conscious of the fact that the proposal under

consideration  was  for  establishment  of  a  new  medical

college from academic session 2016-17 and that has to be

examined  keeping  in  mind  the  norms  specified  in  the

statutory  scheme  formulated  regarding  permission  to

establish a new medical college. That scheme postulates the

minimum  standard  of  education,  which  has  been

formulated by the MCI in terms of Section 19-A of the Act.

The scheme provides for minimum infrastructure facilities

and staff requirements for 100 admissions. It also provides

guidance as to how deficiency in respect of those matters

should  be  calculated.  The  Medical  Council  of  India  has

published those norms and the schemes for requirements to

be fulfilled by the applicant College(s) for obtaining Letter of

Intent and Letter of Permission for establishment of a new

medical college and for yearly renewal under Section 10-A of

the Act. Inter alia, it provides as follows:-

“Notes: For purpose of working out the deficiency: (1)  The  deficiency  of  teaching  faculty  and  Resident  Doctors  shall  be

17

counted separately.

(A) For Teaching Faculty: (a) For calculating the deficiency of faculty, Prof. Assoc Prof., Asst. Prof & Tutor in respective departments shall be counted together. (b) Any excess teaching faculty in higher cadre can compensate the deficiency of lower cadre of the same department only. (c)  Any  excess  teaching  faculty  of  lower  cadre/category  in  any  department cannot  compensate  the  deficiency  of  any  teaching  faculty  in  the  higher cadre/category of the same department or any other department. e.g. excess of Assistant Professor cannot compensate the deficiency of Associate Professor or Professor. (d)  Excess/Extra teaching  faculty  of  any department cannot compensate  the deficiency of any teaching faculty in any other department.  

(B) For Resident Doctors: (a)  Excess  of  SR  can  be  compensated  to  the  deficiency  of  JR  of  the  same department only.  (b) Excess SR/JR of any department cannot compensate the deficiency of SR/JR in any other department. (c)Any excess of JR cannot compensate the deficiency of SR in same or any other department. (d) Any excess/extra teaching faculty of same or any other department cannot compensate the deficiency of SR/JR. e.g. excess of Assistant Professor cannot compensate the deficiency of SR or JR.

(2) A separate department of Dentistry/Dental faculty is not required where a dental  college  is  available  in  same  campus/city  and  run  by  the  same management.

(3)  College  running  PG  programme  require  additional  staff,  beds  &  other requirements as per the PG Regulations – 2000.

Designat ion

LOP (1st Batch)

Ist Renewal  (2nd Batch)

IInd Renewal (3rd Batch)

IIIrd Renewal (4th Batch)

IVth Renewal (5th Batch)  

Recog- nition

Faculty total

59 85 89 97 106 106

Resident Total

45 47 47 54 62 62

15. It may be useful to advert to the Scheme dealing with

grant  of  permission  as  substituted  in  terms  of  Gazette

Notification dated 08.02.2016. The same reads thus:-

18

“8. GRANT OF PERMISSION: (i)  The  Central  Government,  on  the  recommendation  of  the Council for Letter of Permission, may issue a letter to set up a new medical college with such conditions or modifications in the original proposal as may be considered necessary.  This letter can  also  include  a  clear  cut  statement  of  preliminary requirements to be met in respect of  buildings, infrastructural facilities,  medical  and  allied  equipments,  faculty  and   staff before  admitting  the  first  batch  of  students.    The  formal permission  may  be  granted  after  the  above  conditions  and modifications are accepted and performance bank guarantee for the  required  sums  are  furnished  by  the  person  and  after consulting the Medical Council of India.  

(1) The formal permission may include a time bound programme for the establishment of the medical college and expansion of the hospital facilities.  The permission may also define annual targets as may be fixed by the Council to be achieved by the person to commensurate with the intake of students during the following years.   

The following shall be added:

“(3)(1). The  permission  to  establish  a  medical college and admit students may be granted initially for a period of one year and may be renewed on yearly basis subject  to  verification  of  the  achievements  of  annual targets.  It shall be the responsibility of  the person to apply  to  the  Medical  Council  of  India  for  purpose  of renewal  six  months  prior  to  the  expiry  of  the  initial permission.  This process of renewal of permission will continue till such time the establishment of the medical college  and  expansion  of  the  hospital  facilities  are completed  and  a  formal  recognition  of  the  medical college  is  granted.  Further  admissions  shall  not  be made  at  any  stage  unless  the  requirements  of  the Council are fulfilled.  The Central Government may at any stage convey the deficiencies to the application and provide  him  an  opportunity  and  time  to  rectify  the deficiencies.  

PROVIDED that in respect of  

(a) Colleges  in  the  stage  upto  II  renewal  (i.e. Admission of third batch):

If it is observed during any regular inspection of the  institute  that deficiency of  teaching  faculty

19

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.  

(b) Colleges  in  the  stage  from  III  renewal  (i.e. Admission of fourth batch till recognition of the institute for award of M.B.B.S. degree:

If it is observed during any regular inspection of the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 20% and/or bed occupancy is <70% , such an institute will not be considered  for  renewal  of  permission  in  that Academic Year.  

(c  )  Colleges  which  are  already  recognized  for award  of  M.B.B.S.  degree  and/or  running Postgraduate Courses:

If it is observed during any regular inspection of the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 10% and/or bed occupancy is <80%, such an institute will not be considered  for  processing  applications  for postgraduate courses in that Academic Year and will be issued show cause notices as to why the recommendation for withdrawal of  recognition of the  courses  run by that institute  should  not be made  for  Undergraduate  and  Postgraduate courses  which  are  recognized  u/s  11(2)  of  the IMPC Act, 1956 along with direction of stoppage of admissions in permitted Postgraduate courses.  

(c) Colleges  which  are  found  to  have  employed teachers with faked/forged documents:

If it is observed that any institute is found to have employed a teacher with faked/forged documents and have submitted the Declaration Form of such a teacher, such an institute will not be considered for renewal of  permission/recognition for award of  M.B.B.S.  degree/processing  the  applications for postgraduate courses for two Academic Years – i.e. that Academic Year and the next Academic Year also.   

However,  the  office  of  the  Council  shall  ensure that such inspections are not carried out at least 3

20

days before upto 3 days after important religious and  festival  holidays  declared  by  the Central/State Govt.

(2)The recognition so granted to an Undergraduate Course for award of  MBBS degree shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon which it shall have to be renewed.

(2) The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award of recognition.  

(3) Failure to seek timely renewal of  recognition as required in sub-clause (a)  supra shall  invariably  result  in   stoppage of admissions to the concerned Undergraduate Course of MBBS at the said institute.”

As per the terms of Notification published on 16.04.2010 in the Gazette of India.  

In terms of Gazette Notification dated 18.03.2016 the following additions/modifications/deletions/substitutions, shall be, as  indicated therein:

3.(1) In Clause 8(3)(1)(a) under the heading of “Colleges in the  stage upto II renewal (i.e. Admission of third batch)” shall be  substituted as:-  (a) Colleges in the stage of Letter of Permission upto II renewal  (i.e. Admission of third batch). If  it  is  observed  during  any  inspection/assessment  of  the institute  that  the  deficiency  of  teaching  faculty  and/or Residents is more than 30% and/or  bed occupancy is <50% (45%  in  North  East,  Hilly  terrain,  etc.),  compliance  of rectification of deficiencies from such an institute will not be considered for issue of Letter of Permission (LOP/renewal of permission that Academic Year.   

In Clause 8(3)(1)(b) under the heading of “Colleges in the stage from III renewal (i.e. Admission of fourth batch) till recognition of  the  institute  for  award  of  M.B.B.S.  degree”  shall  be substituted as:-

(b) Colleges in the stage of III & IV renewal (i.e. Admission of fourth & fifth batch)

21

If it is observed during any inspection of the Institute that the deficiency of  teaching faculty and/or residents is more than 20% and/or bed occupancy is <65% compliance of rectification of deficiencies from such an institute will not be considered for renewal of permission in that Academic Year.   

In Clause 8(3)(1)(c) under the heading of “Colleges which are already  recognized  for  award  of  M.B.B.S,  degree  and/or running Postgraduate courses” shall be substituted as:-

(  C)  Colleges  which  are  already  recognised  for  award  of M.B.B.S. degree  and /or running Postgraduate courses.  

If   it  is  observed  during  any inspection/assessment of  the institute  that  the  deficiency  of  teaching  faculty  and/or Residents is more than 10% and/or bed occupancy is <70%, compliance of rectification of deficiency from such an institute will not be  considered for issue of renewal of permission in that Academic Year and further such ain institute will not be considered  for  processing  applications  for  Postgraduate courses in that Academic Year and will be issued show cause notices  as  to  why  the  recommendations  for  withdrawal  of recognition of the courses run by that institute should not be made for undergraduate and postgraduate courses which are recognised u/s 11(2) of the IMC Act, 1956 along with direction of stoppage of admissions in permitted postgraduate courses.  

In  Clause  8(3)(1)(d)  under  the  heading  “Colleges  which  are found to have employed teachers with fake/forged documents: the second paragraph shall be substituted as:-

“However,  the  office  of  the  Council  shall  ensure  that  such inspections are not carried out at least 2 days before and 2 days after important religious and festival holidays   declared by the Central/State Govt.”

4. The  Council  may  obtain  any  other  information  from  the proposed medical college as it deems fit and necessary.

Whenever the Council in its report has not recommended the issue of  Letter of  Intent to the person, it may upon being so required by the Central Government reconsider the application and take into account new or additional information as may be forwarded by the Central  Government.    The Council  shall,

22

thereafter, submit its report in the same manner as prescribed for the initial report.”

Considering the requirements of the scheme and as the petitioner

college  failed  to  fulfil  the  conditions  specified  by  the  OC  as

incorporated in the formal conditional Letter of Permission dated

12th September, 2016, the question of confirming the Letter of

Permission for the academic session 2016-17 without removal of

deficiencies in all respects does not arise. The petitioner college

must  first  remove  all  those  deficiencies  to  become eligible  for

confirmation of LOP, as per the undertaking given by the college

in that regard.   

16. The petitioners  have  relied  upon recent  decisions  of

this Court dealing with similar issues in the cases viz Dr.

Jagat  Narain  Subharti  Charitable  Trust  &  Anr.  Vs.

Union of India and Ors. 2 ; Gangajali Education Society

&  Anr.  Vs.  Union  of  India  &  Ors.3;  Saraswati

Educational Charitable Trust & Anr. Vs. Union of India

&  Ors. 4;  Apollo  Institute  of  Medical  Sciences  &

Research & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. 5, to contend

that in similar situations, this Court preferred to rely on the

2  Writ Petition (C) No. 513 of 2017, decided on 30.08.2017. 3  Writ Petition (C) No.709 of 2017, decided on 31.08.2017. 4  Writ Petition (C) No. 515 of 2017, decided on 01.09.2017. 5  Writ Petition (C) No. 496 of 2017, decided on 31.08.2017.

23

opinion  given  by  the  OC  and  overturned  the  conclusion

reached  by  the  Competent  Authority  of  the  Central

Government for  debarring  the  concerned  institution from

admitting students for a period of two years and authorising

MCI  to  encash  bank  guarantee  of  Rs.2  Crore.   This

submission does not commend us. For, the dictum in those

cases  is  contextual  and on facts  of  those  cases.   In  the

present case, the Hearing Committee has duly considered

the  explanation  offered  by  the  college.  It  has,  however,

rejected the same for the reasons recorded in the impugned

decision.  The fact that specific reference to the opinion of

the OC is absent in the conclusion recorded by the Hearing

Committee,  it does not follow that the issue has not been

considered  by  the  Hearing  Committee  or  by  the  Central

Government. The Competent Authority in the final decision

after adverting to the observations of the OC and also of the

Hearing  Committee  has  noted  that  the  absence  of  such

large number of faculties and residents during duty hours

was  unacceptable  and,  moreso,  failure  of  the  college  to

ensure presence of  5 (five)  residents on night off  and yet

could not come, even late, for the head count nor was it

24

reflected in the SAF. This aspect has not been dealt with by

the  OC  in  its  opinion  dated  14th May,  2017.  Therefore,

non-acceptance of the explanation offered by the college by

the Hearing Committee and the Competent Authority of the

Central Government, cannot be said to be irrelevant, unjust

or for extraneous consideration.   

17. As  stated  earlier,  the  college  had  failed  to  produce

supportive  documents  or  evidence  about  6  (six)  minor

operations  on  the  day  of  assessment.  No  doubt,  the  OC

accepted the explanation of the college by holding that there

was no Minimum Standard Requirement (for short ‘MSR’) in

that behalf. The finding in the assessment report was that

there  was  only  one  minor  operation  on  the  day  of

assessment whereas the college  claimed to have conducted

6  (six)  operations.   Nothing  prevented  the  college  from

producing documents or evidence in support of that claim

before  the  Hearing  Committee.   It  was  open  to  the

petitioners to invite the attention of the Hearing Committee

to such documents, if already placed on record during the

earlier  hearing.  That  was  obviously  not  done.  Else,  the

Hearing  Committee  in  its  conclusion  submitted  to  the

25

Ministry may have referred to it.  The Hearing Committee

has noted that even the relevant list/documents in relation

to paramedical non-teaching staff was not produced before

it.   There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  correctness  of  this

factual  position  noted by  the  Hearing  Committee.  In any

case,  since the deficiencies in respect of  faculty (16.79%)

and  residents  (21.73%)  remains  unexplained  and  being

significant, the same cannot be overlooked. This appears to

be  the  view  taken  by  the  Hearing  Committee  and  the

Competent Authority of the Central Government.  

18. Be  that  as  it  may,  the  opinion  of  the  Hearing

Committee,  which is  the  basis  for  passing  the  impugned

decision, is founded on the performance of the college on

the day of inspection dated 18th – 19th November, 2016. The

question  is:  whether  absence  of  faculty  members  and

residents on the given day, assuming it to be substantial in

number,  per  se,  could  be  the  basis  for  determining  the

efficiency and performance of the college for the rest of the

academic session while considering the proposal for grant of

permission?  There is nothing in the opinion of the Hearing

Committee or the decision of the Competent Authority that

26

requisite number of faculty members and residents was not

employed in the petitioner college or that the claim of the

petitioner college in that behalf  was bogus. The noting is

about  the  absence  of  such  large  number  of  faculty  and

residents  on  the  day  of  inspection  and  during  the  duty

hours.  Assuming  that  the  college  could  not  secure  the

presence of those persons at the time of inspection, it does

not follow that those faculty members and residents were

not on the pay roll and in the employment of the petitioner

college.  This  aspect  certainly  requires  proper  verification

and consideration by the concerned authority.    

19. A priori,  we may adopt the course as in the case of

World  College  of  Medical  Sciences  &  Research  Vs.

Union of India6, by directing the respondents to allow the

students already admitted in the petitioner college on the

basis of conditional LOP for the academic session 2016-17,

to continue their studies.  The MCI shall send its Inspection

Team  within  a  period  of  three  months  to  submit  an

assessment  report  regarding  the  overall  performance  and

efficiency of the petitioner college and deficiencies, if  any,

and  give  time  to  the  petitioner  college  to  remove  those

6  Writ Petition (C) No. 514 of 2017, decided on 05.09.2017.

27

deficiencies  within  the  time  specified  in  that  regard.  The

petitioner medical college shall then report its compliance

and  communicate  the  removal  of  deficiencies  to  MCI,

whereafter it will be open to the MCI to verify the position

and  then  submit  its  recommendation  to  the  Central

Government.  The Ministry shall take a final decision within

one month of the receipt of the recommendation from the

MCI. Until such decision is taken and communicated to the

petitioners, the Bank Guarantee offered by the petitioners

in the sum of Rs. Two Crore shall not be encashed by the

MCI but the petitioners shall keep the same alive. In the

event the final decision of the Competent Authority of the

Central Government is adverse to the petitioners, it will be

open to them to take recourse to such remedies as may be

available in law.   

20. Be it noted that the purpose of the stated inspection

would be to consider the confirmation of LOP in favour of

petitioner college for the academic session 2016-2017. We

further  direct  the  respondents  to  treat  the  renewal

application  submitted  by  the  petitioner  college  for  the

academic  session  2017-18  as  having  been  made  for  the

28

academic  session  2018-19  and  process  the  same  in

accordance with law with promptitude.   

21. Writ  petition  is  disposed  of  in  the  aforementioned

terms. No order as to costs.

   ……………………………….CJI.     (Dipak Misra)

………………………………….J.     (Amitava Roy)

………………………………….J.     (A.M. Khanwilkar)

New Delhi, Dated: September 12, 2017.