REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL    APPEAL NO. 9519  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.21859 of 2018)

MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA  ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

N.C. MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

ARUN MISHRA, J.

1. Medical Council of India (in short, ‘the MCI’) is in appeal as against the

judgment and order passed by the High Court allowing the writ petition of the

medical college to admit 150 students for the academic year 2018-19 and in

view of  G.O.  dated  31.5.2018 passed  by  the  Government  of  India  granting

permission subject to the outcome of the writ petition in view of mandatory

interlocutory order dated 29.5.2018 requiring the Government of India to accord

approval to the college by 31.5.2018, though the said interlocutory order dated

29.5.2018 also permitting provisional admissions was set aside by this Court in

Civil Appeal No.6001 of 2018.

2. The case has a chequered history. After the N.C. Medical College had

1

obtained Essentiality Certificate and affiliation of the University and thereafter

the conditional permission of the Oversight Committee enabled it to admit 150

students in the academic session 2016-2017.

3. Pursuant to the letter dated 11.8.2016 of the Oversight Committee, the

MCI  took  a  verification  inspection  on  7/8.11.2016  and  in  view  of  the

deficiencies noticed by the Inspectors, recommendation was made to the Central

Government to debar the college to admit students for two academic sessions

2017-2018 and 2018-2019. The Bank Guarantee was ordered to be encashed.

The recommendations of the MCI were accepted by the Government of India

vide its order dated 10.8.2017.

4. In the year 2015, on 9/10.12.2015 inter alia the deficiency of faculty was

found to be 87.7%, shortage of Residents 100%; in all  22 deficiencies were

found. On 1.4.2016 again inspection was carried out. The deficiency of faculty

was found to be 84.61%, shortage of residents 81.9%, OPD was found non-

operational, bed occupancy was zero, in all  13 deficiencies were found. The

Government  of  India  accepted  the recommendations  made by the  Executive

Council  of  the MCI on 13.5.2016.  However,  the Oversight  Committee gave

conditional  permission  to  remove  deficiencies.  Letter  of  permission  dated

20.8.2016 was issued for academic session 2016-17.

5. Again after fresh assessment MCI considered the matter in its meeting on

22.12.2016 and noted  various  deficiencies  inter  alia  that  of  faculty  27.69%,

residents’ shortage 36.95%, bed occupancy 46%, there was no ICCU, in all 13

2

deficiencies were noted. MCI on 26.12.2016 informed the Government of India

and recommended that the college be debarred from admitting students for two

academic sessions 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. Appellant was called for personal

hearing by Government of India on 17.1.2017. Thereafter, report was forwarded

to  the  Oversight  Committee  vide  letter  dated  14.5.2017.  The  Oversight

Committee recommended that opportunity of hearing be given to the college

which was afforded on 29.5.2017. The recommendations of Committee made

after hearing were accepted by MCI and the college was debarred vide letter

dated 9.6.2017 from admitting students for two academic sessions  i.e. 2017-

2018 and 2018-2019.

6. The petitioner filed W.P. No.432/2017 in this Court in which this Court

directed the Central Government to consider afresh the material on record after

giving opportunity of hearing to the college to the extent necessary. Thereafter,

petitioner was again granted opportunity of hearing on 3.8.2017 by Government

of India and Hearing Committee. In view of a large number of deficiencies, the

decision was reiterated by Government of India to debar the college for two

years and also to permit MCI to encash the bank guarantee of Rs.2 crores.

7. On 9.10.2017, this Court directed fresh inspection to be carried out for

the year 2018-2019. The MCI in compliance of order dated 9.10.2017 carried

out the inspection assessment on 17.11.2017 and 18.11.2017. Deficiencies of

faculty were found to be 9%, shortage of residents 10.2%, in all, 18 deficiencies

were noted by inspectors.

3

8. This Court vide order dated 17.1.2018 directed MCI and Government of

India to consider the case for the year 2018-2019 by 31.3.2018. On 19.1.2018

college  was  given  an  opportunity  of  hearing.  College  submitted  certain

documents.  On the basis of documents, college was informed on 9.2.2018 by

MCI that as per documents there were 13 deficiencies which were required to

be removed.   The college submitted  the  reply,  that  was  considered by Sub-

Committee of MCI on 5.3.2018. Appellant again filed a compliance letter dated

15.3.2018  pointing  out  that  certain  deficiencies  have  further  been  removed.

MCI carried out the inspection on 13.4.2018 in order to verify the compliance

that  was  reported  by  the  college  by  submitting  documents,  again  following

deficiencies were found:

1. “Deficiency of faculty is 9% as detailed in the report. 2. Shortage of Residents is 28.57% as detailed in the report. 3. 0n random verification, 14 Residents were found to be not staying

in the Residents' hostel.  4. Engineering college girls _Kajal Sharma, Anju, Sapexh & Pallavi –

are  staying  in  room  nos.  303,  310  &  316  allotted  to  junior Residents.

5. IN SR hostel, Room # 315 was allotted to Annu Khatri. SR, O.G; however on verification it was found that wife of Dr. Abu Siddiq, Asst. Prof. of Pharmacology was staying.

6. List of faculty & Residents joined or promoted after last assessment was not produced.  

7. OPD data as given by the Institute are inflated when correlated with investigations being carried out.  

8. Bed Occupancy at 10 a.m. on day of assessment as 50%. 9. Patients: 32 patients were not considered in departments of Surgery,

Medicine, Psychiatry, TBCD, Orthopedics, General Medicine:  Patient  Balkishna  admitted  in  female  medical  ward  with

complaints of muscle pain, Rash (there was no rash).  Mrs. Dhanpati IP no. 70318262 admitted in female ward for

Cataract operation, with controlled diabetes.

4

 Pt.  Shantidevi  IP  no.  50418176  admitted  for  controlled Diabetes and no complaints.

 Patient  Renu  IP no.  120418621  admitted  with  diagnosis  of Obesity.  

 Patient Aminaben IP no.  1204181621 without any symptoms with diagnosis of Anemia.  

 In  Psychiatry  Department  patient  Deepak  IP no.  030418314 was admitted from 3rd April with complaints of Anxiety.  

 Patient IP no.03041840 was admitted for mild depression.  Another patient was admitted for alcohol withdrawal tremors.   In  female  psychiatry  ward  patient  Santro  was  admitted  with

mild depression.   In  TB  Chest  ward  Pt.  Sube  Singh  was  having  only

mild weakness and burning sensations on tongue.   Patient Savitri Devi was admitted for COPD but no symptoms

were seen.   In  Surgery  ward  patient  Parveen  IP  no.  120418317

was admitted with complaints of Mild.  Patient Aminaben was kept after laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

done on 4th April having no symptoms.   Pt. Santosh was indoor for Excision Biopsy for Breast lump for

dressing only.   Patient Mrs. Suman No.10041833 admitted with Diagnosis of

Ureteric stone but USG was normal.   Pt.  Sunita  No.03041837  was  operated  for

laparoscopic Cholecystectomy on 4th  April  and kept  without any symptoms.

 Patient Seema IP no. 2803182 ureteric stone removal kept for 4 days without any symptoms.  

 Pt.  Angrejo  260318432  was  kept  after laparoscopic Cholecystectomy  done  on  4th April  without  any symptoms.  

 Patient  Saroj  IP no.  24031878  was  kept  after  ureteric  stone removal for 8 days without any symptoms.  

 Patient  Azar  admitted  in  male  surgical  ward  complained of burning all over the body and no surgical complaints.  

 Patient Tejbir Singh operated for Inguinal hernia kept  since 3rd

April without any complaints.    Patient  Ramesh  IP  10041828  admitted  with  very  small

umbilical hernia, which patient did not complain of.  Pt. Paleram 1304187 admitted with very small umbilical hernia,

which the patient did not complain of.   Another patient Paleram had incision and draingage of small

abcess.

5

 Patient Mr.Nanu admitted with diagnosis of BPH had no USG done although he was admitted on 7lh April.  

 In  Orthopedics  patient  Ritesh  was  admitted  with  small  hand injury.  

 Patient  Kidara  0204183  was  admitted  since  2nd April  with diagnosis  of  Cervical  Spondylosis,  on  asking.  the  patient complaint of kneelpain.  

 Patient Sunii admitted without any Diagnostic X Ray.  Total 32 such patients were not counted.   Hence 32 patients were deducted out of 182 admitted patients.

So bed occupancy is calculated at 150 patients.  

10.  There  were  only  6  Major  &  4  Minor  Operations  on  day  of assessment.  11. There was NIL Normal Delivery on day of assessment. 12. CT Scan is not available. 13. In many wards, Demonstration rooms are non-functional & not furnished.  14. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report.”

On consideration of report of assessors, the Executive Committee of MCI

decided to recommend to Central Government not to renew the permission for

academic  session  2018-2019.  On  4.5.2018,  a  decision  was  taken  by  the

Oversight Committee to approve the decision of the Executive Committee.

9. At the aforesaid stage even before the decision was taken by Government

of India W.P. [C] No.13366/2018 came to be filed in the High Court of Punjab

& Haryana at Chandigarh, in which interlocutory order was passed by the High

Court  on  29.5.2018.   The  High  Court  directed  provisional  admissions  for

current year i.e. 2018-2019 and mandatory interim directions to Government of

India to grant permission to College by 31.5.2018. Following interim order was

passed by the High Court:

“We permit the provisional admission for the current Session

6

2018-19 but subject to the following condition:- The  MCI shall  conduct  the  inspection  as  indicated  above

within a period of 2 weeks from today and in case the College is still found deficient, it shall apprise the college within one week of its  inspection  so that  they  can  make  the  college  compliant  with respect to the latest inspection of the MCI.

MCI would then again conduct an inspection within a period of one week of the compliance report submitted by the College, to ensure no deficiency.  

Report in this regard would also be submitted to the Court by the  next  date  of  hearing.  The students  shall  be  put  on notice while granting them admission about the pendency of the instant writ  petition.  The petitioner  institute  shall  also  furnish  an undertaking that they would abide by all the conditions required by the MCI in this regard.  

The  UOI  shall  issue  necessary  Letter  of  Permission by 31.05.2018.  

To come up on 11.07.2018 for further proceedings.”

10. The aforesaid interlocutory order was questioned in this Court in C.A.

No.6001/2018.  This  Court  on  4.7.2018  allowed  the  appeal  and  order  dated

29.5.2018 was set aside. It was noted by this Court that inspection was taken

repeatedly, deficiencies were found, scheme was never approved by the MCI

and Central Government. It was only because approval accorded by this Court

mandated Oversight Committee, college was permitted to make admissions for

the academic year 2016-17 and thereafter a decision was taken to debar the

college  for  two  years.  On  physical  verification  in  compliance  of  the  order

passed by this Court, again deficiencies were found and when the matter was

pending at the level of Central Government, writ petition was filed in which

aforesaid interim direction was passed. This Court relying upon the decisions in

Medical Council of India v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences & Ors.

7

(2004) 6 SCC 76,  Medical Council  of  India v.  JSS Medical  College & Anr.

(2012) 5 SCC 628,  Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical

Sciencess (KIMS) & Ors. (2016) 11 SCC 530 and Dental Council of India v. Dr.

Hedgewar Smruti  Rugna Seva Mandal,  Hingoli  & Ors.  (2017)  13 SCC 115

observed  that  the  High  Court  was  not  at  all  justified  in  passing  interim

directions.

11. Thereafter,  the High Court  by yet  another interim order directed fresh

inspection to be made by MCI within seven days during the pendency of the

writ petition in the High Court. Against the said interim order also SLP was

filed  by  MCI  in  this  Court  and  vide  order  dated  30.7.2018  in  SLP  [C]

No.19405/2018, this Court observed that the High Court should have taken a

call whether further inspection was required at the time of hearing of the case

finally as inspection report was not to be considered by the High Court. This

Court  directed  that  the  matter  be  decided  finally.  Thereafter  by  impugned

judgment and order, allowing the writ petition, has been passed by the High

Court. High Court has relied upon the order dated 31.5.2018 passed by Central

Government though it was passed pursuant to the mandatory interim direction

issued on 29.5.2018 and was subject to ultimate outcome of writ application by

the High Court.  The High Court has held that since the Central Government has

granted permission and there is candid acceptance of the claim of petitioner by

the  Government,  the  petition  had  been  allowed.  Following  is  the  operative

portion of the order passed by High Court:

8

“During the course of hearing the Government granted its approval  to  the   College  but  observed  it  is  conditional,  without specifying any of them. For the purpose of reference, the relevant portion  of  the  communication  dated 31.5.2018  is  extracted herebelow:

“i. This permission is valid for one year and for admitting only one batch  of  150  MBBS  seats  during  the  academic  year  2018-19. Admission in next batch of students for the year 2019-20 will be made only after renewal permission of the Central Govt.  

ii.  Admissions made in violation of the above conditions will  be treated as irregular and shall  be liable for action under lMC Act 1956 & Regulations made thereunder.  

iii. The aforesaid permission shall be subject to further orders to be passed by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in this Writ Petition.  

4. The permission is further subject to the conditions stipulated by the Hon'ble High Court in the interim order dated 29.5.2018.”  

This  exposes  them equally to  a charge of  arbitrariness  and also betrays that the left hand knows not what the right is doing. We are  thus  of the  opinion  that  the  impugned  orders  debarring  the college  for  making  admission  for  two  academic  sessions  and encashment of Bank guarantee suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and deserve to be set aside.

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Government  has  granted  an approval to the College for the academic session 2018-19 which was, however, made subject to the orders passed by this Court, we are of the opinion that in view of the candid acceptance of the claim of the petitioner by the Government, instant petition deserves to be disposed of.“

12. The High Court has also taken into consideration the correspondence and

compliance  reports  which  were  filed  by the  college  and  has  considered  the

contents of even what was placed on the website as information by the college

as to the strength of its faculty. As per that, the deficiency was of three members

9

i.e. 4.6% as such the report of MCI assessors that the deficiency was 9.2% has

been rejected. High Court has observed that once the compliance report was

submitted and in response thereto MCI had written that  still  there were few

specific deficiencies, the High Court inferred that in view of the letter of MCI,

other  deficiencies  had  been  removed.   As  such  the  fresh inspection  report

finding  out  the  new  deficiencies  has  been  discarded.  High  Court  has  also

observed that due and proper opportunity has not been given to the college.

13. It was urged by learned senior counsel on behalf of MCI that the High

Court  has  virtually  tried  to  sit  in  appeal  on  the  report  of  assessors.  The

deficiencies  were  found  by  a  team  of  inspectors  consisting  of  independent

persons  of  repute,  there  was  nothing  to  doubt  its  correctness.  Permission

accorded by Government of India on 31.5.2018 could not have been relied upon

by the High Court. Even the self-serving website contents of the college, have

been taken into consideration for ignoring the report  of  the inspectors.  High

Court  has  committed  illegality  while  allowing  the  writ  application.  The

impugned  order  is  liable  to  be  set  aside.  Learned  counsel  has  relied  upon

decisions of this Court in Ashish Ranjan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2016)

11 SCC 225 and Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute of Medical Sciences v. Union

of India & Anr. (2017) 16 SCC 719.

14. On the other  hand,  learned senior  counsel  appearing on behalf  of  the

college, made an endeavor to convince this Court that report of the assessors

based on inspection dated 13.4.2018 deserves to be discarded. Deficiencies of

10

faculty and residents were not there and as some of them reported late and few

were on leave,  the members of faculty and residents have been excluded by the

assessors on impermissible grounds. Bed occupancy was also adequate. Patients

were wrongly excluded.  There was normal delivery on the date of inspection.

Anyhow or somehow deliberately the deficiencies have been culled out in the

inspection report. Thus, the decision of the High Court is appropriate and does

not call for interference.

15. After  hearing the learned counsel,  we are of the opinion that  order of

High Court is not sustainable. It is apparent from impugned judgment and order

that High Court has totally ignored and overlooked that order dated 29.5.2018

passed by it had been set aside by this Court in CA No.6001/2018.  The High

Court  had  issued  a  mandatory  interim  direction  on  29.5.2018  to  Central

Government to accord permission by 31.5.2018, it was not open to High Court

to rely upon order dated 31.5.2018, which was a provisional order passed in

compliance of the interim order dated 29.5.2018, said order was set aside by this

Court in C.A. No.6001/2018 as it was not legally permissible to pass such order.

Nothing more need be said about the interim order. Once the order has been set

aside,  the  order  of  Government  of  India  dated 31.5.2018 which was passed

pursuant to order dated 29.5.2018 could not have been relied upon by the High

Court  to  allow  or  to  dispose  of  the  writ  application  holding  that  Central

Government  has  tacitly  accepted  the  claim  of  the  college.   It  was  wholly

impermissible act and it virtually gave premium to the college on the basis of

11

the interim order that was set aside by this Court. The High Court gravely erred

in law to rely upon the very permission granted by Government of India under

an interim mandatory order dated 29.5.2018, which could not have been passed

and was set aside. The Government of India has clearly mentioned in the order

dated 29.5.2018 that the permission was subject to condition stipulated by the

High Court in interim order dated 29.5.2018. High Court could not have acted

upon it as that is clearly derogatory to order of this Court dated 4.7.2018 passed

in C.A. No.6001/2018.  Thus, the order passed by the High Court lacks judicial

propriety and also tantamounts to ignoring the effect of the order dated 4.7.2018

passed by this Court.

16. It  is  apparent  that  the college  was given permission by the  Oversight

Committee  of  this  Court  for  the  session  2016-2017.  It  was  a  conditional

permission as deficiencies existed at the given time. The Government of India

as well as MCI on their own did not grant permission at any point of time in

view of the reports of inspections which were undertaken time and again during

the last three years.

17. The observations made by the High Court that correspondence by MCI

indicated that certain deficiencies have been removed. The High Court has also

referred to the website contents of the college to hold the deficiencies of the

faculty to be 4-5% i.e., within permissible limit.   The aforesaid reasonings and

exercise done by the High Court is not in accordance with law.  As a matter of

fact,  when certain deficiencies have been pointed out  and paper compliance

12

thereof  has  been reported  by the college that  cannot  by itself  be said to  be

enough and it cannot be presumed that by reporting paper compliance it can be

assumed that in fact compliance had been made.  Otherwise, it would become

easy to  report  paper  compliance in  no time without  doing it  actually  in  the

hospital/college.   As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  has  to  be  actual  verification  of

authenticity of such claim in the inspection. Once the compliance report has

been submitted that has to be verified by making inspection and when it has

been carried out and various other deficiencies have been found, they have to be

taken into consideration and could not have been ignored as done by the High

Court.

18. On the one hand, the High Court has doubted the report of inspection and

for that surprisingly relied on the self-serving contents of the website of the

college.   There  is  nothing  to  vouch  for  the  authenticity  of  the  website

information.  It is not what the institution asserts on website but what is actually

found on inspection, that has to be considered by the court and while exercising

judicial review it is settled law that court cannot sit in appeal over the report of

the assessors as observed in  Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of

Medical Sciences (KIMS), (2016) 11 SCC 530  thus :

“21. A perusal of the decision of the High Court clearly indicates that it considered the latest report of the Inspection Team as if it was hearing an appeal  against  the  report.  In  doing so,  the  High Court went into great details on issues relating to the number of teaching  beds  in  the  hospital,  the  limitations  in  the  OPD Department,  the  number  of  units  available  in  the  subjects  of General  Medicine,  Pediatrics  etc.,  bed  occupancy,  number  of

13

Caesarean  sections,  discrepancy  in  data  of  major  and  minor operations, computerization in the institution, number of patients in the  ICU,  number  of  static  X-ray  machines,  deficiency  of examination halls, lecture theatres, library, students hostel, interns hostel, playground etc. etc. Surely, this was not within the domain of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

22.  The  High  Court  did  not  appreciate  that  the  inspection  was carried out by eminent Professors from reputed medical institutions who  were  experts  in  the  field  and  the  best  persons  to  give  an unbiased report on the facilities in KIMS. The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was certainly not tasked to minutely examine  the  contents  of  the  inspection  report  and  weigh  them against the objections of KIMS in respect of each of its 18 items. In our opinion, the High Court plainly exceeded its jurisdiction in this regard in venturing into seriously disputed factual issues.”

19. It was contended on behalf of college that deficiency of faculty has been

found to be 9% as given in the report of MCI. In fact, there was no deficiency.

Two faculty members were on leave.  The appointments of two more faculty

members  were  under  process.  The residents’ doctors  shortage  has  also  been

found to be 28.57%. CT scan machine was stated to be under installation. Bed

occupancy was found at 10 a.m. at 50%, 32 patients were excluded as they were

not genuine as per the assessors for reasons given in the report.  Major and

minor  surgeries  were found to be very less.  College contended that  patients

were genuine and adequate surgeries were done. Other deficiencies found on

inspection have also been disputed by the college.

20. In our opinion, the contentions are baseless, the deficiency of faculty has

been culled out in the inspection report in detail.  There was deficiency of 9

members of teaching faculty and deficiency of 14 resident doctors out of a total

14

of 49. Some girls getting engineering education were found to be staying in the

residents’ hostel. Duty roster of faculty and Residents was not produced till 2.00

p.m.  List  of  faculty  and  Residents  joined  after  the  last  assessment  was  not

produced. In many wards, demonstration rooms were not functional and non-

furnished.  It was submitted that certain members of faculty reported late on that

day and one member suffered fracture and brother of another member was ill

who breathed  his  last  on  the  same day.  Even if  2  incumbents  on  leave  are

excluded still there was shortage, 11.00 a.m. time was fixed in guidelines so as

to  make  the  assessment.  The  Faculty  Members  came  too  late,  cannot  be  a

ground to find fault with the report of the assessors which has to be undertaken

as per norms fixed for them. At the time of inspection, the Faculty should be

present  otherwise  in  a  few hours  any number  of  members  can be arranged,

otherwise very purpose of  inspection would be defeated.  Be that  as  it  may.

Report of the assessors cannot be faulted; the court cannot sit in appeal over it

and cannot go into the disputed facts.

21. In Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (R) v. Union of India & Anr. (2017)

15  SCC  702  it  has  been  observed  that  affected  party  should  be  given  an

opportunity  to  meet  the  case  effectively  and  the  passing  of  just  decision

supported by reasons is part of fair hearing. It is the duty of the adjudicator to

ensure fairness in procedure and action, the Court observed:

“21. No endeavour whatsoever, in our comprehension, has been  made  by  the  Respondents  and  that  too  in  the  face  of  an unequivocal  direction by this  Court,  to  fairly  and consummately

15

examine the materials on record in details before recording a final decision  on  the  issue  of  confirmation  or  otherwise  of  the  LOP granted to the Petitioner's college/institution as on 12.09.2016. True it  is  that  the  Regulations  do  provide  for  certain  norms  of infrastructure  to  be  complied  with  by  the  applicant college/institution  for  being  qualified for  LOP depending on the stages  involved.  This,  however,  does  not  obviate  the  inalienable necessity of affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the person or the college/institution concerned vis-à-vis the scheme for establishment  of  a  college  before  disapproving  the  same.  The manner in  which the Respondents,  in  the  individual  facts  of the instant  case,  have  approached  the  issue,  leads  to  the  inevitable conclusion  that  the  materials  on  record  do  not  support determinatively  the  allegation  of  deficiency,  as  alleged.  The Respondents  having  failed  to  persuasively  establish  the  said deficiencies, as noted in the impugned order dated 10.08.2017, in spite of opportunities available including the one granted by this Court,  such a determination cannot be sustained in the facts and circumstances of the case. We are of the considered opinion that in view of  the  persistent  defaults  and shortcomings in  the  decision making  process  of  the  Respondents,  the  Petitioner's college/institution ought not to be penalised. Consequently, on an overall view of the materials available on record and balancing all relevant  aspects,  we  are  of  the  considered  opinion  that  the conditional  LOP granted to  the  Petitioner's  college/institution  on 12.09.2016  for  the  academic  year  2016-17  deserves  to  be confirmed.”

There is no dispute with the aforesaid proposition. However, in the instant

case fair opportunity has been given and the reasons in detail were mentioned

by the assessors and MCI. It was a case of repeated inspections having been

made. In view of deficiencies found permission could not have been accorded

for session 2018-19.   

22. Yet for another reason we do not propose to interfere. In Ashish Ranjan v.

Union of India, (2016) 11 SCC 225, this Court has referred the time schedule

for  granting  permission  etc.  under  the  MCI  Regulations  by  which  date

admissions etc. are to be granted  thus:

16

“1.(i)  These  Regulations  may  be  called  the  'Regulations  on Graduate Medical Education, 2015. (ii) They shall come into force from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. 2.  In  the  'Regulations  on  Graduate  Medical  Education,  1997', Appendix E shall be replaced as under:

TIME SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF THE ADMISSION PROCESS FOR FIRST MBBS COURSE

Sl.Nos .

Schedule  for admission

Seats to be filled up by  the  Central Government through the  All-India Entrance Examination

Seats  to  be  filled up  by  the  State Government/Insti tution

1. Conduct  of entrance examination

Between  1st to  7th May

Between  10th to 17th May

2. Declaration  of the  result  of  the qualifying exam/ entrance exam

By 1st June By 1st June

3. 1st round  of counselling/admi ssion

To  be  over  by  25th June

Between  6th July to 15th July

4. Last  date  for joining  the allotted  college and the course

By 5th July By 22nd July

5. 2nd round  of counselling/admi ssion  for vacancies.

Between 23rd July to 30th July

Between  10th to 22nd August

6. Last  date  of joining  for  the 2nd round  of counselling/admi ssion.

By 9th August By 28th August

7. Commencement of  academic session/term

1st of August 1st of August

17

8. Last  date  up  to which  students can  be admitted/joined against vacancies arising due  to  any reason.

By 31st August

Note 1.- All India Quota Seats remaining vacant after last date for joining, i.e. 9th August will be deemed to be converted into state quota. 2.  Institute/college/courses  permitted  after  31st  May  will  not  be considered for  admission/allotment of  seats  for  current  academic year. 3. In any circumstances, last date for admission/joining will not be extended after 31st August.”

The aforesaid dates are over, as such, in the instant case, it is not possible

to issue directions at this juncture for the session 2018-2019.  In view of the

deficiencies and the law enunciated by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, the

High Court has clearly exceeded its power while allowing the writ application,

passing of repeated interim orders was also not warranted.  

23. Thus, unhesitatingly we have no option except to set aside the judgment

and order passed by High Court.  At the same time, it  would be open to the

college to apply for the next academic year 2019-2020 by depositing requisite

fees etc.    Thus,  we allow the appeal  and set  aside the judgment and order

passed by the High Court.

No costs.

…………………………J.

18

(Arun Mishra)

New Delhi; ………...……………….J. September 13, 2018. (Indira Banerjee)

19