ROHILKHAND MED. COLLEG. & HOSP. BAREILY Vs M.C.I
Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,A.K. SIKRI
Case number: W.P.(C) No.-000585-000585 / 2013
Diary number: 22646 / 2013
Advocates: RAJIV RANJAN DWIVEDI Vs
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.585 OF 2013
Rohilkhand Medical College & Hospital, Bareilly …. Petitioner
Versus
Medical Council of India & Another … Respondents
J U D G M E N T
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. The petitioners have invoked the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India to quash the letter dated 13.07.2013
issued by the Medical Council of India by which the
permission granted for renewal of admission for additional
Page 2
2
intake of students for the academic session 2013-2014 was
revoked.
2. Rohilkhand Medical College and Hospital was established
by Rohilkhand Educational Charitable Trust in the year 2005.
The Medical College started the first M.B.B.S. Course during
the year 2006-07 with an annual intake of 100 seats for
which permission was granted under Section 10A of the
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short “the IMC Act) by
the Central Government. Later, the Medical Council of India
(for short “the MCI”) granted recognition to the College to
award M.B.B.S. Degree granted by M.J.P. Rohilkhand
University, Bareily, U.P. The College is also conducting post-
graduate courses during the year 2011-12.
3. Permission was granted under Section 10A of the IMC
Act for admitting the second batch of 100 students in the
year 2007-08. The College later submitted an application for
extension of renewal of permission for the admission of 3rd
batch of 100 seats of M.B.B.S. for the academic year 2008-09
to the MCI. The MCI after processing the application
Page 3
3
constituted a medical team for inspection of the College. The
team conducted the inspection on 1st and 2nd April, 2008. The
-
MCI team then submitted its report to the Secretary, MCI,
New Delhi on 02.04.2008. The MCI team pointed out the
following deficiencies in the College as per the MCI
Regulations:
“There was a shortage of teaching faculty by 21.05% (24 out of 114) and residents by 37.03% (30 out of 81) As under:
(a) Professor – 4 (b) Associate Professor – 13 (c) Asstt. Professor – 3 (d) Tutor – 4 (e) Sr. Resident – 16 (f) Jr. Resident – 14”
4. The MCI team also noticed that OPD attendance on the
date of inspection was only 421 as against the minimum
requirement of 850-900 and OPD bed occupancy was only
55% as against the minimum requirement of 83-85%. The
MCI team inspection report, as per the Board Regulation, was
Page 4
4
placed before the Executive Committee in its meeting held on
14.04.2008 and it intimated its decision to the Central
Government not to renew the permission for the admission of
the 3rd batch of students for the academic session for the
year 2008-09, vide its letter dated 16.04.2008. A copy of the
letter was also sent to the Principal of the College with a
request to submit the compliance in respect of the
deficiencies pointed out by the MCI team on or before
30.04.2008.
5. The College later submitted its “compliance report”.
The MCI again constituted a team to examine whether the
College had rectified the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI
team. The MCI team again conducted an inspection on
20.05.2008 and submitted its report to the MCI. The report
pointed out the following deficiencies :
“(1) There was a shortage of teaching faculty by 18% (22 out of 110) and Residents by 5% (5 out of 82) as under:
(a) Professor – 6 (b) Associate Professor – 12 (c) Asstt. Professor – 4 (d) Tutor – NIL
Page 5
5
(e) Sr. Resident – 3 (f) Jr. Resident – 2 (ii) The OPD attendance on the date of
inspection was only 691 against the minimum requirement of 850-900.
(iii) IPD bed occupancy was only 55(74%) against the minimum requirement of 83- 95%.”
6. The MCI inspection report was later placed before the
Executive Committee of MCI in its meeting held on 13/14-06-
2008 and it was decided by the Committee not to renew the
permission for the admission of 3rd batch of students for the
academic year 2008-09. The Executive Committee’s decision
was communicated to the Central Government vide its letter
dated 14.06.2008. The then Under Secretary, Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi on 19.06.2008
forwarded the letter received from the MCI to the College
requesting to submit the compliance in respect of the
deficiencies pointed by the MCI inspection team. The College
then forwarded the compliance report to the Secretary, MCI
vide its letter dated 24.06.2008. The College also sent
Page 6
6
another letter dated 01.07.2008 to the Secretary, Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi stating that the
deficiencies pointed out by the MCI team were of minor
nature and, therefore, requested to grant necessary
permission by the Central Government for admission of the
3rd batch for the academic year 2008-09.
7. The Chairman of the Roholhand Medical College and
Hospital on 03.07.2008 sent a letter to the Health Minister,
Government of India requesting to grant necessary
permission and the Central Government, for admission of the
3rd batch, followed by yet another letter on 04.07.2008 to the
Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi.
8. We notice, following the letter received by the Minister
as well as the Secretary, the Central Government constituted
a team of two doctors to carry out the compliance
verification/inspection of the College. The central team
conducted the verification inspection on 11.07.2008 and
submitted its report to the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of
Page 7
7
Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi on 10.07.2008. The
central team pointed out the following deficiencies:
“(i) The shortage of teaching staff was found more than 11% (13 out of 116) as under:
(a) Professor (b) Associate Professor – 7 (c) Asstt. Professor – 2 (d) Tutor – NIL (e) - (f) Sr. Resident – 1 (g) Jr. Resident – 1
(ii) The faculty members holding same post were getting different salaries. Some of faculty members were getting less salary than resident doctors. Some of the Junior Residents were old in age. Some of Sr. Residents presented with their declaration forms seemed to be specialists doing private practice, as they were in the town much before the inception of the College/Institution. Some of the area and buildings were under construction, which was not advisable in working in working areas.”
9. The then Under Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare, New Delhi then sent a letter dated 27.07.2008 to the
Chairman of the College requesting him not to admit any
fresh batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2008-09.
Page 8
8
The College was also advised to rectify the deficiencies and
send compliance report for consideration for the academic
year 2009-10 for further admission.
10. The Chairman of the College then filed a Writ Petition (C)
No.294 of 2008 before this Court which was clubbed with
other similar writ petitions filed by other medical colleges.
This Court passed an order on 03.09.2008 directing the MCI
to submit its recommendations to the Central Government
within two days and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
was directed to consider the issue of grant of permission
within a week. Further it was also directed that the College
be given an opportunity of being heard by the Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi.
11. The MCI, in the meantime, conducted yet another
inspection of the College on 19.08.2008 and the MCI team
submitted its report to the Secretary, MCI again pointing out
the following deficiencies:
“(i) The shortage of teaching staff was found to be 23.68% (27 out of 114):-
Page 9
9
Professor – 3 Associate Professor -13 Asstt. Professor - 5 Tutor – 5
(ii) The shortage of resident was found to be 20.9% (17 out of 81):-
Sr. Resident – 5 Jr. Resident – 12”
12. The MCI report was then placed before the Executive
Committee and the MCI in its meeting held on 21.08.2008,
decided to inform the Central Government not to renew the
permission for admission of the 3rd batch of students for the
academic year 2008-09. The decision of the Executive
Committee was communicated to the Central Government
vide its letter dated 04.09.2008 with reference to the order
passed by this Court on 03.09.2008 in Writ Petition (C)
No.294 of 2008, filed the College.
13. The Under Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare, New Delhi then sent a letter dated 09.09.2008 to the
Chairman of the College to appear before the Deputy
Secretary, (Medical Education), Ministry of Health and Family
Page 10
10
Welfare, New Delhi on 10.09.2008 along with the compliance
report and other documents mentioned in the order passed
by this Court on 03.09.2008. The Chairman of the College
then appeared, as directed, on 10.09.2008. The Under
Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi
then issued a letter to the Chairman of the College intimating
that after considering the facts submitted by the College at
the time of personal hearing and the recommendations of the
MCI, it was decided by the Ministry not to grant renewal of
permission for admission of 3rd batch of MBBS students for
the academic year 2008-09.
14. The Chairman of the College then vide his letter dated
12.09.2008, addressed to the Secretary, Medical Education,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi requested
him to grant permission for 50 students of MBBS for the
academic session 2008-09. The Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare, New Delhi again constituted a central team and
deputed the team to inspect the College and submit a report
by 25.09.2009 positively. The two doctors then conducted
Page 11
11
inspection of the College on 25.09.2008 and submitted the
report on 26.09.2008 to the Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare on the same day. On the basis of that report the
Central Government issued a letter dated 26.09.2008
according sanction for renewal of permission for admission of
3rd batch of 100 students for the academic year 2008-09.
15. On receipt of the said letter dated 12.09.2008 from the
Chairman of the College, the Under Secretary, Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, wrote a letter on 24.09.2008 to
the Secretary, MCI requesting to furnish their
recommendations regarding reduced intake. The Secretary,
MCI, in turn, intimated that on the basis of the deficiencies
pointed out by the MCI team during the inspection of the
College on 19.08.2008 the College was grossly lacking
facilities even for admission of 50 students.
16. MCI team, it is seen, constituted yet another Committee
to conduct an inspection of the College on 01.10.2008 and a
report was submitted to the MCI on the same day pointing
out various deficiencies. The report was submitted to the
Page 12
12
Executive Committee of MCI in its meeting held on
06.10.2008 and the Committee took a decision to inform the
Central Government not to renew the permission for the
academic year 2008-09 and urge the Central Government to
recall the letter of permission dated 26.09.2008 issued to the
College. The decision of the Executive Committee of the MCI
was communicated to the Central Government vide its letter
dated 06.10.2008.
17. We have noticed that the Central Government had
accorded approval for 3rd batch of 100 students for the
academic year 2008-09 on 26.09.2008, despite the repeated
negative recommendations made by the MCI and before the
grant of permission on 26.09.2008, the MCI was not even
consulted. We have indicated the facts to show the situation
that prevailed in the year 2008-09 and the manner in which
permission was accorded for intake of 100 students by the
Central Government.
18. The MCI, following its decision taken on 04.06.2013, vide
its letter dated 20.06.2013 decided to convey its approval for
Page 13
13
renewal of permission for admission for the second batch of
MBBS students against the increased intake i.e. from100 to
150 seats to the College for the academic year 2013-14. The
approval was granted taking into consideration of the
assessment report dated 26/27-02-2013 submitted to the
Board of Governors of MCI subject to certain conditions which
are extracted herein below:
“I am further directed to inform that you and your institution are fully responsible to fulfill and maintain norms including the infrastructure both physical and human resource, teaching faculty and clinical material, etc. throughout the academic year, as stipulated in Regulation of Medical Council of India. In case false/wrong declaration or fabricated documents have been used for procuring permission of the Board of Governors for the increased intake and the said misconduct is brought to notice or comes to the knowledge of MCI at any stage during the current academic year, your institution is not liable to be considered for renewal of permission against increased intake for the next academic year and this renewal of permission against the increased intake for the next academic year and this renewal of permission against the increased intake is also liable to be revoked for current academic year. Besides, MCI is entitled to take all such measures against you and your college/institution as permissible under the law.”
Page 14
14
19. The MCI, in the meantime, received a confidential letter
dated 11.07.2013 from the Central Bureau of Investigation
(for short “the CBI”) informing that the CBI has registered a
case against the Chairman of the College and officers of the
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi under
Section 120B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)
(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the
PC Act”). Charge-sheet was also enclosed along with the
letter, which was placed before the Board of Governors of the
MCI in its meeting held on 12.07.2013. The Board then
revoked its decision dated 04.06.2013 and communicated the
same to the College vide its letter dated 20.06.2013. The
Board of Governors of the MCI informed the College that the
letter of permission accorded for renewal of admission of the
2nd batch of students against the increased intake i.e. from
100 to 150 for the academic year 2013-14 would stand
revoked with immediate effect.
20. The legality of that decision, as already indicated, is the
main issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition.
Page 15
15
21. Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioners submitted that the letter dated 13.07.2013
revoking the permission granted for admission for the
increased intake was mala fide and in violation of the
principles of natural justice. Learned senior counsel
submitted that a right has already been accrued to the
petitioners by virtue of the decision taken by the MCI on
04.06.2013, which was communicated to the College vide its
letter dated 20.06.2013. Learned senior counsel submitted
that such a decision was validly taken on the inspection
report dated 26/27.02.2013. Learned senior counsel
submitted that since the College has complied with all the
conditions stipulated in the Regulations and that there is no
deficiency, as reported by the inspection team, there is no
justification in revoking the permission already granted, that
too, without giving the petitioners an opportunity of being
heard. Learned senior counsel also submitted that mere fact
that the CBI has registered a case against few officers of the
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi and also
Page 16
16
against the Chairman of the College is not a ground at all to
revoke the permission already granted for the additional
intake of students for the academic year 2013-14 since the
College has satisfied all the requirements under the
Regulations for Establishment of Medical College Regulations,
1999. Learned senior counsel also submitted that even
though the Chairman of the College has been charge-
sheeted, that itself is not a ground to revoke the letter of
permission accorded by the Board of Governors, unless he
has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction in a
criminal investigation. Learned senior counsel made a
reference to Regulations 3(5) of the “Enhancement of Annual
Intake Capacity in Under-graduate Courses in Medical College
for the Academic Session 2013-14 Only Regulation, 2013 (for
short “the Regulation 2013).
22. Shri Amrendra Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing
for the students submitted that on the basis of the decision of
the MCI dated 20.06.2013, 21 students have already secured
admission in the College by 10th July, 2013, since they were
Page 17
17
allotted the College after successfully competing the U.P.
Combined Medical Entrance Test (for short “the UPCMET) and
the decision taken by the MCI on 13.07.2013 would have
serious consequences so far as the students are concerned
since they would not be able to get admission in any other
private institution for this academic year. Learned senior
counsel also submitted that the College has facilitated as per
the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations and
there is no justification in not permitting the students to
continue with their study in the College even if there was
some infirmity in the grant of permission granted by the
Central Government for the additional intake during the year
2008-09.
23. Shri Amit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
Medical Council of India, on the other hand, justified the
decision taken by the MCI on 13.07.2013. Learned counsel
submitted that the MCI has the power to revoke its earlier
decision taken on 04.06.2013 if sufficient materials have
been brought to its knowledge which have got a vital bearing
Page 18
18
in the matter of conduct of courses in the College. Learned
counsel also submitted and referred to the letter dated
20.06.2013 and pointed out that permission was accorded
subject to certain conditions and those conditions have been
violated by the College. Learned counsel submitted that as
per clause 8(3)(1)(d) of the Establishment of Medical
Regulations (Amendment 2010 Part II), the MCI has got the
power not to renew the permission/recognition, if it is
observed later that any institute is found to have acted on
fake/forged documents, such an institute could not be
considered for renewal of permission/recognition for the post-
graduate courses for two years i.e for the academic year and
the next academic year also. Hence, the decision taken by
the MCI revoking the letter of permission for renewal of
admission of the 2nd batch of students against the increased
intake from 100 to 150 students for the academic year 2013-
14 was justified.
24. We may notice with concern the unprecedented growth
of the Technical and Medical Institutions in this country which
Page 19
19
has resulted in widespread prevalence of various unethical
practices. Collection of large amount by way of capitation
fee running into crores of rupees for MBBS and Post-Graduate
seats, exorbitant fee, donation etc, by many of such self
financing institutions, has kept the meritorious financially
poor students away from those institutions. Pressure, it is
also seen, is being extended by various institutions, for the
additional intake of students, not always for the benefit of the
student community and thereby serve the community, but for
their own betterment.
25. We are not commenting upon the acceptability, or
otherwise, of the charges leveled against the Minister,
bureaucrats or the Chairman of the College. But the fact
remains, the CBI after conducting an investigation had to
charge-sheet them under Section 120B, 468, 471 IPC and
Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. CBI’s
investigation prima facie establishes the criminal conspiracy
between the Chairman of the College and the then Union
Minister of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India,
Page 20
20
New Delhi along with the then Deputy Secretary, Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, two doctors, one is the
head of Nephrology VMMV and Safdarjung Hospital and the
other is Professor of Department of Community Medicine,
VMMC and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi which lead to the
issuance of the order passed for the additional intake of 50
students for the academic year 2008-09 on 26.09.2008. For
the prosecution of both the doctors necessary prior sanction
was obtained from the competent authority by the CBI.
-
26. The CBI, in its charge-sheet, points out serious
infirmities in the report submitted by the central team, which
conducted the inspection of the College on 25.09.2008, which
are as follow:
“The above chart clearly proves that accused Dr. Vindu Amitabh and accused Dr. S.K.Rasania were party to the larger conspiracy and they deliberately by way of limiting the shortage of faculty to 2% in their report; had glossed over the glaring deficiencies in the strength of the faculty members (15% i.e. 17 out of 115) and thereby, facilitated the private College in getting permission of the Central Govt.
Page 21
21
Their involvement in the criminal conspiracy is further established by the fact that during the inspection they did not ask the faculty members as to whether they (faculty members) were full timers or part-timers/merely called to make up the members for the purpose of inspection. The investigation has established that at least 5 doctors, namely, Dr. Harbeer Singh Sodhi, Dr. Anil Madan, Dr. Birendra Kumar Sinha, Dr. Jamaludin and Dr. Shiv Nath Banerjee, who have been shown as full time faculty members and residents in the records of Rohilkhand Medical College, Bareily during 2008, have confirmed that they had never worked as full- timers in the said College during 2008, but were rather, visiting faculty. These facts prove that the inspection report of accused Dr. Vindu Amitabh and accused Dr. S.K. Rasania was perfunctory and biased in favour to the private Medical College.
The investigation further disclosed that accused Dr. Vindu Amitabh and accused Dr. S.K. Rasania have claimed to have done personal inspection of the -
wards and the departments. In their inspection report, they mentioned that the presence (of patients in the OPDs of all Departments was good, the bed occupancy was about 90% and that the ICU was full to its capacity. However, during the investigation , physical verification of 14 patients, who were shown present in the OPD registers on the date of inspection, i.e. 25.09.2003, was got conducted through the Postal Deptt. on the random basis. It was revealed that 09 of them were fake or non-existent. The claim of the accused doctors of the Central Team of having done personal inspection of the wards and the departments, which was one of the important criteria, on the basis of which they gave a green signal to the College, thus turns out to be devoid of merit and a falsehood.
Page 22
22
The investigation further revealed that the Central Team comprising of accused Dr. Vindu Amitabh and accused Dr. S.K. Rasania has stated in its report that it accepted the photocopies of the declaration forms, submitted to MCI, for verification. During the investigation, it has been revealed that declaration forms are provided by the College concerned, include details of all faculty members, their educational qualification, appointment letter, identification documents (like PAN card, etc.) documents in support of their residence in the Medical College (like ration card, in order to certify their being permanent faculty members there).
During the investigation, 5 so called faculty members (Dr. Harbeer Singh Sodhi, Dr. Anil Madan, Dr. Birendra Kumar Sinha, Dr. Jamaludin and Dr. Shiv Nath Banerjee) have stated that they used to be called only for the inspections of the said College. They were at best, visiting faculty members. Incidentally, the MCI rules have not provision for part-timers or visiting faculty members. Though the -
said 5 doctors have owned their signatures on their Declaration Forms, they have denied receiving the appointment letters shown to be annexed with their respective declaration forms. They have also stated that the ration cards, residential certificates, Form-16 (Income Tax) etc. shown as having been issued in their names, were never given to them. Besides, it has been found that they are all bogus/fake and forged, as they (the doctors) were neither resident on the addresses shown in the records nor had they ever applied for any ration card. The District Supply Officer, Bareilly has denied their issuance and confirmed that the said ration cards are fake and forged. It is pertinent to mention that the fake ration cards have been used
Page 23
23
by the College authorities to falsely establish before the MCI Inspectors that th said doctors were their permanent faculty members. Similarly no Form-16 was ever issued to them by the College.
The investigation further disclosed that in case of the aforesaid doctors, the appointment letters were issued in their name by the College authorities without their knowledge and the details of appointments do not even bear the signatures of their doctors/employees of the College in the acceptable column. This proves the fabrication and use of (forged) documents by the College authorities, for the purpose of obtaining the approval of Govt. of India on the recommendations of MCI/Central Team deputed by GOI. However, the accused doctors i.e. Dr. Vindu Amitabh and Dr. S.K. Rasania of the Central Team in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy did not confirm the genuineness of the documents put up by the College authorities and without verifying the documents accepted photocopies of the Declaration Forms and furnished a positive report in favour of the College on the very next day. It is pertinent to mention that despite mentioning about the presence -
of such doctors, who were even practicing in Bareilly and the non-production of the original appointment letters, even when asked for, the said Central Team still went ahead to give a clean chit to the College. ”
27. We can also take judicial notice of the fact that many a
times the medical colleges and engineering colleges and
others are being established after availing large amounts by
way of loans from the financial institutions and other
Page 24
24
borrowings, with no funds of their own, and once the college
gets approval and students are admitted, loan availed of is
being repaid from the capitation fee charged from the
students and ultimately that amount constitute their capital.
Many a times, even without any sufficient facilities they put
pressure on the various agencies and the Central
Government and get approval overlooking the regulatory
authority, like MCI, which adversely affects the quality of
medical education in this country. For instance, the MCI has
taken in the instant case a consistent view and sent negative
reports to the Central Government, but overlooking all the
reports submitted by the MCI, the Central Government got a
report of its own and granted permission vide its letter dated
26.09.2008. CBI in its charge-sheet has categorically and
clearly reported that this was done on the basis of bogus,
fake and forged records. CBI noticed that the college
authorities had produced fabricated and forged documents
before the inspection team and the team failed to verify the
correctness or otherwise of those documents. CBI
investigation has revealed that fraud has been practiced by
Page 25
25
the Central team as well as the college to get the sanction for
the 3rd batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2008-
09.
DUTY OF INSPECTION TEAM:
28. The Medical Council Act, 1956, especially Section 10A,
mandates that when a new medical college is to be
established or the number of seats to be increased, the
permission of the Central Government is a pre-requisite.
Section 19A obliges the MCI to prescribe minimum required
standards for medical education and the recommendation
made by MCI to the Central Government carry considerable
weight, it being an Expert Body. MCI had prescribed the
regulation – “Minimum Standard Requirements for the
Medical College for 100 Admissions Annually Regulations,
1999” which is germane for our case, was published in the
Gazette of India dated 29.1.2000. In order to verify the
minimum requirements, MCI gets the inspection conducted
by Inspectors, who are experts, submit their reports on the
Page 26
26
availability of the staff - teaching and residents - and other
infrastructural facilities, clinical availability, etc. as per the
regulations.
29. We notice, in this case, constantly on all the occasions,
the MCI Team decided to recommend to the Central
Government not to renew permission for admission of the
third batch for the academic year 2008-09. Consistent stand
of the MCI was communicated to the Central Government on
various occasions, but without even ascertaining their view, a
Central Team was appointed, got a favourable report and
permission was accorded by the Central Government for the
year 2008-09, which was the subject matter of CBI
investigation.
30. We have now to examine the legality of decision of the
MCI taken on 13.07.2013 in the light of the above factual and
legal scenario. We have already indicated that when sanction
was accorded on 20.06.2013 it was categorically stated by
the MCI that the same was accorded subject to certain
conditions. It was stated therein that in case false/wrong
Page 27
27
declaration or fabricated documents have been used for
procuring permission of the Board of Governors of the
increased intake and if said misconduct was brought to the
notice or comes to the knowledge of the MCI, at any stage
during the current academic year (2013-14)
institution/college would not be liable to be considered for
renewal of the permission against increased intake for the
next academic year and that renewal of permission against
the increased intake for the academic year 2013-14 and for
the next academic year and the same would be liable to be
revoked.
31. Having received the letter of the CBI as well as the
charge-sheet the impugned order dated 13.07.2013 was
issued by the MCI revoking the letter of permission granted
for the academic year 2013-14.
32. We are of the view that the above decision taken by the
MCI is in accordance with the Establishment of Medical
Colleges Regulation (Amendment 2010 Part II). The above-
mentioned Regulation was issued by the MCI in exercise of its
Page 28
28
powers under Section 33 of the IMC Act, 1956 with the
previous sanction of the Central Government. Clause 8.3 of
the Regulation deals with the Grant of Permission, sub-clause
8(3)(1)(d) deals with the colleges which are found to have
employed teachers with faked/forged documents. Those
provisions are extracted herein below:
“8(3)(1)(d) 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 days before upto 3 days after important religious and festival holidays declared by the Central/State Government.”
33. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, as already
indicated, submitted that only if the Chairman of the College
is convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction in a criminal
Page 29
29
investigation then only the sanction accorded could be
revoked. Such an argument was raised relying upon 2013
Regulations, which in our view, would not apply to the facts
of this case. Regulation 3 of Regulations 2013 reads as
follow:
“3. Eligibility to make application : (1) the application for enhance of annual intake capacity in the existing Medical Colleges may be made by the recognizations that have established the Medical College to the Board of Governors in supersession of the Medical Council of India. The format of application for Government and non-governmental owned Medical College is prescribed in Schedule I appended to these Regulations.
(2) Only such existing Medical Colleges shall be eligible to apply under these Regulations that enjoy minimum ten years of standing from the date of grant of initial letter of permission by the Central Government and the MBBS qualification awarded by them stands included in the First Schedule of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (Act No.102 of 1956).
(3) The Medical Colleges with an annual intake of 50 or more but below 100 MBBS seats shall be eligible to apply for enhance for annual intake capacity to 100, as one-time measure.
- (4) The Medical Colleges with an annual intake of 100 or more but below 150 MBBS seats shall be eligible to apply for enhancement for annual intake capacity to 150, as one-time measure.
Page 30
30
(5) Such Medical Colleges that have not been granted letter of permission by the Board of Governors in Super-session of the Medical Council of India in accordance with clause 8(1)(3)(d) of the Establishment of Medical Colleges Regulations, 1999 (notified in the Official Gazette on 16.04.2010) and/or the person who has established the Medical College has been convicted by a Court of Competent jurisdiction in a criminal investigation initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation or Police.”
34. Clause (2) of Regulation 3 clearly states that only such
medical colleges shall be eligible under these Regulations
that enjoy minimum 10 years of standing from the date of
grant of initial letter of permission by the Central
Government. So far as the petitioner is concerned, they have
completed only eight years, consequently, Regulations 2013
would not apply to them.
35. The petitioners are governed by Establishment of
Medical Colleges Regulations, (Amendment), 2010 (Part II),
especially clause 8(3)(1)(d), in the event of which, when MIC
finds that the college has employed fake/forged documents
for renewal of -
Page 31
31
permission/recognition for processing applications etc., that
institute will not be able to be considered for renewal of
permission/ recognition for award of MBBS Degree/
processing the application for post-graduate courses for two
academic years i.e. that academic year and the next
academic year. In this case, CBI letter was received on
11.07.2013 by the MCI and it was placed before the Board of
Governors on 12.07.2013 and the revocation order was
passed on 13.07.2013 revoking the renewal of permission for
the 2nd batch of students against the increased intake from
100 to 150 students for the academic year 2013-14.
36. We are of the considered view that the MCI need not
wait till the culmination of the trial initiated on the basis of
the charge-sheet filed by the CBI. The investigation by a
premier agency like the CBI has prima facie revealed that the
college has used fake and forged materials to get sanction for
the intake for the year 2008-09, in our view, that is sufficient
for the MCI to take action in accordance with the Regulations
8(1)(3)(d) of Regulations 2013.
Page 32
32
37. We are also not impressed by the argument raised by
Mr. Amrendra Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing for
the students that they have already joined the course on
10.07.2013. The information brochure issued by the UPCMET
refers to two important dates. The important dates are the
date of results declaration as 15.06.2013 and counseling
would start after 15.07.2013. If that be so, we fail to see how
students could be admitted on 10.07.2013. Counsel,
however, made reference to the newspaper ‘Dainik Jagran’
where it is indicated that the first counseling would be on July
5, 2013. We cannot give sanctity to that news items
compared to the information brochure published by the U.P.
Unaided Medical Colleges Welfare Association for the conduct
of UPCMET. Even otherwise, in our view, once the medical
council finds that the sanction had been obtained on the
basis of fake and forge documents, clause 8(3)(1)(d) kicks in
and the fraud unravels everything. We make it clear that the
criminal case charge-sheeted by the CBI will, however, be
Page 33
33
disposed of uninfluenced by observations, if any, made by us
in this judgment.
COURT’S CONCERN
38. We think, this is an apt occasion to ponder over whether
we have achieved the desired goals, eloquently highlighted
by the Constitution Bench judgments of this Court in T.M.A.
Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka and
others (2002) 8 SCC 481 and P.A. Inamdar and others v.
State of Maharashtra and others (2005) 6 SCC 537. TMA
Pai Foundation case (supra) has stated that there is nothing
wrong if the entrance test being held by self financial
institutions or by a group of institutions but the entrance test
they conduct should satisfy the triple test of being fair,
transparent and not exploitative. TMA Pai Foundation
(supra) and Inamdar (supra) repeatedly stated that the
object of establishing an educational institution is not to
make profit and imparting education is charitable in nature.
Court has repeatedly said that the common entrance test
conducted by private educational institutions must be one
Page 34
34
enjoined to ensure the fulfillment of twin object of
transparency and merits and no capitation fee be charged
and there should not be profiteering. Facts, however, give
contrary picture. In Inamdar, this Court, in categorical
terms, has declared that no capitation fee be permitted to be
charged and no seat can be permitted to be appropriated by
payment of capitation fee.
39. The CBI’s investigation, however, reveals a sorry state of
affairs, which is an eye-opener for taking appropriate
remedial measures in future so that medical education may
attain the goals envisaged by the IMC Act and the
Regulations and serve the community. CBI had to charge-
sheet none other than the then Union Minister of Health and
Family Welfare, itself which depict how the educational
system in this country is deteriorating. Many of regulatory
bodies like MCI, AICTE, UGC etc. were also under serious clout
in the recent years. CBI, in the year 2010, had to arrest the
President of the MCI for accepting bribe to grant recognition
to one Medical College in Punjab. Later, it is reported that
Page 35
35
the CBI found that the President of the MCI and its family
members possessed disproportionate assets worth of 24
crores. We have referred to these instances only to indicate
the falling standards of our educational system at the highest
level, sometime even at the level of the Central Government
making a serious inroad to the right to life guaranteed to the
citizens of the country under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India.
40. Mushrooming of large number of medical, engineering,
nursing and pharmaceutical colleges, which has definitely
affected the quality of education in this country, especially in
the medical field which call for serious introspection. Private
medical educational institutions are always demanding more
number of seats in their colleges even though many of them
have no sufficient infrastructural facilities, clinical materials,
faculty members, etc. Reports appear in every now and then
that many of the private institutions which are conducting
medical colleges are demanding lakhs and sometimes crores
of rupees for MBBS and for post-graduate admission in their
Page 36
36
respective colleges. Recently, it is reported that few MBBS
seats were sold in private colleges of Chennai. We cannot
lose sight of the fact that these things are happening in our
country irrespective of the constitutional pronouncements by
this Court in TMA Pai Foundation that there shall not be
any profiteering or acceptance of capitation fee etc. Central
Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Central
Bureau of Investigation or the Intelligence Wing have to take
effective steps to undo such unethical practices or else self-
financing institutions will turn to be students financing
institutions.
41. We notice that the current policy of the Central
Government in the higher education is to provide autonomy
of institutions, but adoption of unfair practices is a serious
violation of the law. Few States, like Karnataka, Tamil Nadu,
Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Kerala, Delhi etc. have passed
some legislation to prohibit demand/collection of capitation
fee which have no teeth, the institutions who indulges in such
practices can get away by paying some fine, which is meager.
Page 37
37
42. We, therefore, emphasise the extreme necessity of a
Parliamentary Legislation for curbing these unfair practices,
which is the demand of our society. “The Prohibition of Unfair
Practices in Technical Educational Institutions, Medical
Educational Institutions and University Bill, 2010” has already
been presented to both the Houses of Parliament. It is
reported that the States have welcomed such a legislation,
but no further follow up action has been taken. We are
confident, earnest efforts would be made to bring in proper
legislation, so that unethical and unfair practices prevalent in
higher technical and medical institutions can be effectively
curbed in the larger public interest.
43. We, therefore, find no good reason to invoke Article 32
of the Constitution of India and none of the fundamental
rights guaranteed to the petitioners stand violated. The
Petition, therefore, lacks merits and is dismissed.
……………………….…J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)
………………………….J. (A.K. Sikri)
Page 38
38
New Delhi, September 06, 2013