9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... casts a steadfast and sacrosanct obligation on the adjudicator to ensure fairness in procedure and action, so much so that any remiss or dereliction in connection therewith would be at the pain of invalidation of the decision eventually taken. Every executive authority empowered to take an administrative action having the potential of visiting any person with civil consequences must take care to ensure that justice is not only done but also manifestly appears to have been done. 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 in course of the process undertaken, as alleged. We are thus of the considered opinion that in view of the persistent defaults and shortcomings in the decision making process of the Respondents, the Petitioner college/institution ought not to be penalised. Having regard to the progression of events, the assertions made by the Petitioners in the representations countering the deficiencies alleged, the observations/views expressed by the Oversight Committee in its communicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Government in purported compliance of the directions contained in this Court's order dated 01.08.2017 referred to hereinabove. 2. We have heard Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India and Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior Counsel for the Medical Council of India. 3. A brief preface of the factual backdrop has to be outlined being indispensable. The Petitioners, as required under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, (for short, hereafter to be referred to as The Act ) and the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 (abbreviated hereinafter as the Regulations ) framed thereunder did submit a scheme/application for establishment of a new medical college at Mathura, Uttar Pradesh in the name and style of Krishna Mohan Medical College Hospital, Mathura (hereinafter referred to as College as well) for the academic year 2016-17 before the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of Health and Family Welfare) Government of India. The Ministry forwarded the application to the MCI for evaluation and recommendations as per the Act, whereaft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 016, such college will be debarred from fresh intake of students for 2 years commencing 2017-18. 6. The letter, amongst others mentioned as well that the next batch of students in the MBBS Course for the academic year 2017-18 would be admitted in the College only after obtaining permission of the Central Government and fulfilling the conditions as above, as stipulated by the Oversight Committee. 7. While pursuant to the above letter of permission, the Petitioners admitted students for the academic year 2016-17 and furnished the bank guarantee of ₹ 2 crores as required and as claimed by them also did submit the affidavit affirming fulfillment of all deficiencies and statements made in the relevant compliance report, the MCI caused another inspection of the college to be made on 18th and 19th November, 2016, in course whereof, according to it, several deficiencies were noticed, amongst others in the faculty at 32.31% and in residents at 34.78%, which however at the spot itself, were disputed/denied by the authorized representatives of the Petitioners. This, to be precise, would be evident on the face of the inspection report annexed to the interim application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Committee sans the observations of the DGHS on the various aspects pertaining to the issue involved. Be that as it may, as the records testify, the Oversight Committee on an independent consideration of the materials on record laid before it by the Central Government, though belatedly, offered its observations on the various deficiencies pointed out in the inspection held on 18th and 19th November, 2016 and recommended confirmation of the conditional LOP granted on 12.09.2016. The order dated 31.05.2017 of the Central Government followed debarring the Petitioners college from admitting students for two academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and authorizing the MCI to encash the bank guarantee of ₹ 2 crores. To reiterate, this order was challenged in the writ petition in hand, wherein the following reliefs have been prayed for: (a) Issue a Writ Order or direction quashing the order of Respondent No. 1-Union of India contained in letter No. U-12012/127/2016-ME-I [3084749] dated 31.05.2017 debarring the Petitioners from taking admission in MBBS Course for academic sessions 2017-2018 and 2018-20189 and authorizing Respondent No. 2-MCI to encash the bank guarantee of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scheme and the recommendations of the Council Under Sub-section (3) and after obtaining, where necessary, such other particulars as may be considered necessary by it from the person or college concerned, and having regard to the factors referred to in Sub-section (7), either approve (with such conditions, if any, as it may consider necessary) or disapprove the scheme and any such approval shall be a permission under Sub-section (1); Provided that no scheme shall be disapproved by the Central Government except after giving the person or college concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard: 22. Though as the records testify, a hearing was provided to the Petitioner colleges/institutions through the Hearing Committee constituted by the DGHS (as mentioned in the proceedings dated 23.3.2017) qua the recommendations of the MCI contained in its letter dated 15.01.2017, as noted hereinabove, the proceedings of the Hearing Committee do reflect varying views of the Hearing Committee and the DGHS, the latter recommending various aspects bearing on deficiency to be laid before the OC for an appropriate decision. The Central Government did forward, albeit a pruned versio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can by no means be disregarded or left out of consideration. Noticeably, this Court did also empower the Oversight Committee to issue appropriate remedial directions. In our view, in the overall perspective, the materials on record bearing on the claim of the Petitioner institutions/colleges for confirmation of the conditional letters of permission granted to them require a fresh consideration to obviate the possibility of any injustice in the process. 25. In the above persuasive premise, the Central Government is hereby ordered to consider afresh the materials on record pertaining to the issue of confirmation or otherwise of the letter of permission granted to the Petitioner colleges/institutions. We make it clear that in undertaking this exercise, the Central Government would re-evaluate the recommendations/views of the MCI, Hearing Committee, DGHS and the Oversight Committee, as available on records. It would also afford an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner colleges/institutions to the extent necessary. The process of hearing and final reasoned decision thereon, as ordered, would be completed peremptorily within a period of 10 days from today. The parties would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring Committee, the Ministry reiterates its earlier decision dated 31.05.2017 to debar the college for 2 years and also permit MCI to encash bank guarantee. 14. A plain reading of the above quoted text would yield the following reasons, as recorded by the Central Government, to justify the impugned decision: (a) The college did not allow inspection on 09.12.2016 on the ground that compliance inspection had already been carried out on 18th/19th November, 2016. (b) The letter dated 09.12.2016 of the Principal of the college/institution clearly mentions that the college was not ready for inspection. (c) The Assessors have noted that the college appeared to be closed on 09.12.2016. (d) In the SAF Form for November inspection, the deficiency relating to faculty and residents each is in excess of 30%. (e) In the opinion of the Hearing Committee, MCI was not precluded from conducting successive inspections subject to sufficient reason and justification. (f) The Hearing Committee agrees with the decision of the Ministry conveyed by the letter dated 31.05.2017 to debar the college for two academic years and to permit MCI to enca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r college/institution on 09.12.2016, Mr. Patwalia has drawn our attention to the communication dated 14.05.2017 of the Oversight Committee addressed to the Central Government wherein it observed that only eight institutions including the Petitioner institution/college were attempted to be subjected to two inspections in quick succession for the same purpose, which according to it, was not authorized by it. Mr. Patwalia, thus sought to underline that the proposed inspection of 09.12.2016 of the Petitioner college/institution, in the attendant facts and circumstances, was an act of selective victimization, which cannot receive judicial imprimatur. 17. As against this, the learned senior Counsel for the Respondents in unison have urged that in absence of any legal bar, as noted in the impugned order dated 10.08.2017, successive inspections can be conducted by the MCI, if warranted. According to them, the Petitioner college/institution in not cooperating in the inspection on 09.12.2016 did attempt to withhold the correct state of affairs, for which it is not entitled to any equitable consideration. They argued further, that as would be crystal clear from the materials on recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was incumbent on it or its Hearing Committee to scrupulously analyze all the materials on record and arrive at a dispassionate decision on the issue. This visibly has not been done. The factum of non-cooperation of the Petitioners in the second inspection on 09.12.2016 was available before this Court at the time of passing of the order dated 01.08.2017 and thus could not have been extended a decisive weightage to conclude against them. 19. As the impugned order dated 10.08.2017 would reveal, it is apparent that for all practical purposes, the Hearing Committee/Central Government did not undertake a dispassionate, objective, cautious and rational analysis of the materials on record and in our view, returned wholly casual findings against the Petitioner college/institution. This order thus has to be held, not to be in accord with the spirit and purport of the order dated 01.08.2017 passed by this Court. Suffice it to state, the order does not inspire the confidence of this Court to be sustained in the attendant facts and circumstances. 20. In the predominant factual setting, noted hereinabove, the approach of the Respondents is markedly incompatible with the essence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that in view of the persistent defaults and shortcomings in the decision making process of the Respondents, the Petitioner college/institution ought not to be penalised. Having regard to the progression of events, the assertions made by the Petitioners in the representations countering the deficiencies alleged, the observations/views expressed by the Oversight Committee in its communication dated 14.05.2017 and the DGHS in the hearing held on 17.01.2017 negate the findings with regard to the deficiencies as recorded by the assessors of the MCI in the inspections held. 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 college/institution on 12.09.2016 for the academic year 2016-17 deserves to be confirmed. We order accordingly. However, as the Act and Regulations framed thereunder have been envisioned to attain the highest standards of medical education, we direct the Central Government/MCI to cause a fresh inspection of the Petitioner college/institution to be made in accordance therewith for the academic year 2018-19 and lay the report in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
