MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA Vs. MGR EDUCATIONAL & RESEARCH INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY & ANR.
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 1757-1759 of 2015, Judgment Date: Jan 14, 2015
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1757-1759 OF 2015
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)
Medical Council of India .... Appellant
versus
Dr. M.G.R. Educational and Research Institute ... Respondents
University & Anr.
WITH
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) 5153/2015 @ CC No.837/2015)
J U D G M E N T
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. Leave granted in S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014.
2. The question before us relates to the validity of admissions made in
the academic year 2009-10 by the Dr. M.G.R. Educational and Research
Institute, Chennai (for short 'the Institute') in the A.C.S. Medical
College and Hospital (for short 'the College') for the 2nd batch of MBBS
course. In our opinion, the admissions were unauthorized. However, we are
not visiting the students with the natural consequence of setting aside
their admissions, but are passing directions to deal with the exigencies of
the situation.
Preliminary
3. A few facts are not in dispute. The Institute was declared as a
Deemed to be University by a notification dated 21st January, 2003 issued
by the Ministry of Human Resource Development of the Government of India
(hereinafter referred to as 'the MHRD'). The declaration was in exercise of
powers conferred by Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956
(the 'UGC Act') and was for the purposes of the Act.[1] At that time the
Institute comprised of two institutions: a dental college and hospital and
an engineering college.
4. The Institute desired to establish a medical college being the ACS
Medical College and Hospital and the necessary paperwork for this was
carried out. However, the College was not within the ambit of the Institute
(Deemed to be University) when admissions were made in the academic year
2008-09 and in the academic year 2009-10. The admissions made in both
academic years were therefore unauthorized. However, the Medical Council of
India (for short 'the MCI') is not making an issue of the validity of the
admissions made in the academic year 2008-09 due to subsequent events and,
therefore, it is not necessary for us to dwell on that issue. The limited
scope of inquiry is only with reference to the admissions made in the
academic year 2009-10 for the 2nd batch of students.
Admissions made in 2009-10
5. Having admitted students in 2008-09 the Institute was required, in
terms of the Establishment of Medical Colleges Regulations, 1999 of the MCI
to renew the permission granted to admit the 2nd batch of students in the
academic year 2009-10. In this context, the MCI wrote to the College on
10th November, 2008 that, for the renewal of permission for admission of
the 2nd batch of students in the academic year 2009-10 it may send the
proposed dates for carrying out an inspection before 15th March, 2009 and
submit all requisite documents.
6. Pursuant to this, an inspection of the College was carried out by
the MCI on 23rd/24th March, 2009. The inspection report was placed before
the Executive Committee of the MCI and in its meeting held on 8th April,
2009 the MCI decided to recommend to the Central Government [the Ministry
of Health & Family Welfare or the MH&FW] to renew the permission to admit
the 2nd batch of students in the College in the academic year 2009-10.
7. Soon thereafter on 9th April, 2009 the MCI received a letter dated
1st April, 2009 from the Institute. The letter intimated that the
Institute would be forwarding the notification of approval for inclusion of
the College within the ambit of the Institute under Section 3 of the UGC
Act as soon as it was received. This indicated to the MCI that the College
was not yet under the ambit of the Institute. Accordingly, on 1st May,
2009 the MCI requested the Central Government [MH&FW] to keep in abeyance
the renewal of permission to admit the 2nd batch of students in the College
till it was brought within the ambit of a Deemed to be University by an
appropriate notification.
8. In light of the information received, the issue of renewal of
permission was considered by the Executive Committee of the MCI in its
meeting held on 9th May, 2009. The Executive Committee decided to ratify
the abeyance communication dated 1st May, 2009. It also decided to recall
the recommendation earlier made of the renewal of permission for admission
to the 2nd batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2009-10. This was
communicated by the MCI by a letter of 15th May, 2009 to the MH&FW while
reiterating its decision to recall the recommendation of renewal of
permission.
9. Thereafter on 24th June, 2009 the MCI once again wrote to the MH&FW
informing it of the decision of the Executive Committee to recall the
recommendation of renewal of permission for admission to the 2nd batch of
MBBS students for the academic year 2009-10 till the College is brought
within the ambit of the Institute by the UGC. This letter was also endorsed
to the Dean/Principal of the College with a request to submit a copy of the
notification for inclusion of the College in the ambit of the Institute
under Section 3 of the UGC Act.
10. Since the Institute was not able to produce any document to show that
the College was within its ambit, the MCI wrote a letter to the MH&FW on
15th July, 2009 reiterating its earlier decision of 15th May, 2009
recalling the recommendation for renewal of permission for admission of the
2nd batch of MBBS students in the academic year 2009-10 till the College is
brought within the ambit of a Deemed to be University.
11. Earlier, on 10th August, 2009 the MH&FW wrote to the Tmt. Kannammal
Educational Trust (or 'the Trust' which runs the Institute) with a copy to
the MCI and the Institute that in view of the recall of the recommendation
for renewal of permission it was decided that permission could not be
renewed for that academic year. A specific request was made to the College
that in view of the above it should not admit any fresh batch of students
for the academic year 2009-10 and also to comply with the observations made
by the MCI.
12. The Institute filed a writ petition in this Court on or about 10th
August, 2009 being W.P. No.349 of 2009 in which it was prayed, inter alia,
for a direction to the respondents therein, that is, the MH&FW, the UGC and
the MCI to consider grant of renewal of permission to admit students in the
academic year 2009-10 in terms of the decision taken by the MCI on 15th
April, 2009. It was also prayed that permission may be granted to admit
students from the academic year 2009-10.[2] This Court did not grant any
interim relief to the Institute to admit students for the academic year
2009-10.
13. The position as it stood was that the College was not within the ambit
of the Institute; the permission granted by the MCI to the Institute and
the College to admit students for the 2nd batch in the academic year 2009-
10 was initially kept in abeyance and thereafter withdrawn (with several
reiterations), and the Institute had petitioned this Court for permitting
admission for the 2nd batch of students for the academic year 2009-10 but
no interim relief was granted to the Institute in this regard.
14. Therefore, both the Institute and the College were fully aware that
they could not admit students for the 2nd batch in the academic year 2009-
10. Notwithstanding these facts and the specific direction (given on 10th
August, 2009) not to do so, the Institute and the College went ahead and
admitted students for the 2nd batch of MBBS course in the academic year
2009-10.
Justification for admissions made in 2009-10
15. The main hurdle faced by the Institute in making admissions in 2009-10
was the absence of any approval given by the MCI and no approval was
possible in the absence of any notification bringing the College in the
ambit of the Institute.
16. Apart from the writ petition filed in this Court, the Institute had
also filed W.P. No.13419 of 2009 in the Madras High Court for a direction
to the MHRD to take a decision regarding issuance of an appropriate
notification bringing the College in its ambit. This writ petition was
allowed by the High Court by an order passed on 17th August, 2009 with a
direction to take a decision within six weeks.
17. Pursuant to the direction given by the High Court, the UGC appointed a
committee on 2nd September, 2009 to inspect the College for bringing it
under the ambit of the Institute. The committee conducted an inspection on
7th/8th September, 2009. It is not clear when the report was given by the
committee, but on 10th September, 2009 the UGC recommended to the MHRD to
grant ex-post facto approval for bringing the College under the ambit of
the Institute from the academic year 2008-2009.
18. The College also received a letter dated 15th September, 2009 (though
the letter was of a general nature) from the MCI to all medical colleges to
furnish the list of students admitted for the academic year 2009-10.
Further, on 17th September, 2009 the MCI wrote to the College requesting
for some documents but more importantly informing it of a proposed
inspection for renewal of permission for admission to the 3rd batch of
students from the academic year 2010-11.
19. Be that as it may, in compliance with the letter dated 15th September,
2009 the College sent on 30th September, 2009 a list of students that it
had admitted in the 2nd batch of MBBS course from the academic year 2009-
10.
20. Learned counsel for the Institute justified the actions of the
Institute on the above facts and submitted that the admissions made were
bona fide and anticipatory. Three facts were highlighted in this regard:
(i) W.P. No.13419 of 2009 was allowed by the Madras High Court on 17th
August, 2009 and a recommendation given by the UGC on 10th September, 2009
to the MHRD to grant ex-post facto approval for bringing the College under
the ambit of the Institute from the academic year 2008-2009; (ii) The
College had received a letter dated 15th September, 2009 (though the letter
was of a general nature) from the MCI to all medical colleges to furnish
the list of students admitted for the academic year 2009-10; and (iii) More
importantly, on 17th September, 2009 the MCI wrote to the College
requesting for some documents and informing it of a proposed inspection for
renewal of permission for admission to the 3rd batch of students for the
academic year 2010-11. These three facts led the Institute to believe that
the admissions made in the academic year 2008-09 were now acceptable to the
MHRD and that the MCI also had no real objections if admissions were made
in the academic year 2009-10. In fact, there was even a possibility that
admissions could be made in the academic year 2010-11. On a cumulative
assessment of these facts the College admitted students in the 2nd batch
and sent the list of admitted students to the MCI on 30th September, 2009.
Discharge of students admitted in 2009-10
21. Pursuant to the directions given by the MH&FW to the Trust (on 10th
August, 2009) not to admit the 2nd batch of students for the academic year
2009-10, the MCI also wrote to the College on 4th February, 2010 that the
students who had been admitted by the College for the academic year 2009-10
may be discharged immediately and compliance submitted.
22. On 1st April, 2010 the MCI again wrote to the College reiterating its
request to discharge the students admitted in the academic year 2009-10
since the compliance report pursuant to the earlier letter dated 4th
February, 2010 had not yet been received. This was followed soon
thereafter by an order passed by the MH&FW on 5th April, 2010 that
regularization of admission of students in the academic years 2008-09 and
2009-10 cannot arise since there is no notification bringing the College
under the ambit of the Institute. It was also mentioned in the order that
the renewal of permission from the academic year 2010-11 could not be
considered for the same reason.
23. Despite the letter dated 4th February, 2010 and the order dated 5th
April, 2010 no steps were taken by the College for discharging the students
admitted to the 2nd batch in the academic year 2009-10. Accordingly, by a
letter dated 19th May, 2010 (the third in the series) the MCI wrote to the
College reiterating its request that the students admitted in the academic
year 2009-10 in the 2nd batch may be discharged and that no compliance
report had been received pursuant to the letter dated 4th February, 2010.
Bringing the College within the ambit of the Institute
24. The Institute continued to pursue its proposal to bring the College
under its ambit of the Institute. This eventually led to the UGC deciding
on 25th September, 2009 to accord ex-post fact approval to the admissions
made by the Institute in the College in the academic year 2008-09. However,
the MCI continued to hold the view that the admission of students of 2008-
09 cannot be regularized as no notification had been issued by the MHRD
bringing the College within the ambit of the Institute. This was
communicated by the MCI to the MH&FW on 18th March, 2010.
25. Apparently in view of this conflict of opinions, the Institute filed
W.P.No.13044 of 2010 in the Madras High Court and on 14th July, 2010 the
High Court passed an order to the effect that the notification under
Section 3 of the UGC Act may be issued in favour of the Institute subject
to the decision in a public interest petition pending in this Court being
W.P. No.142 of 2006 filed by one Viplav Sharma. Based on this order, the
Institute made a representation on 20th July, 2010 to the MHRD for
appropriate orders.
26. Since the MHRD did not pass orders on the representation made by the
Institute, yet another writ petition being W.P. No.18682 of 2010 was filed
by the Institute in the Madras High Court. This writ petition was decided
on 18th August, 2010 and a direction issued to the MHRD to pass appropriate
orders in terms of the earlier order of 14th July, 2010 after considering
the recommendations of the UGC within one week.
27. Upon receipt of the order passed by the Madras High Court in W.P. No.
18682 of 2010 an order was passed by the MHRD on 31st August, 2010
rejecting the recommendations of the UGC made on 30th September, 2009 to
bring the College in the ambit of the Institute. As a result, the ex-post
facto approval granted to the College by the UGC (on 25th September, 2009)
in the academic year 2008-09 stood rejected.
28. The order dated 31st August, 2010 passed by the MHRD was challenged by
the Institute by filing W.P. No. 20995 of 2010 in the Madras High Court.
29. Apparently since the writ petition was not being decided on a
priority basis by the Madras High Court, a petition being T.P.(C) No. 512
of 2011 was filed by the Institute in this Court for the transfer of W.P.
No. 20995 of 2010 to this Court for disposal. While declining the request,
this Court passed an order on 24th February, 2012 requesting the Madras
High Court to dispose of the pending writ petition preferably within three
months without waiting for the decision in Viplav Sharma's case.[3] Acting
upon the request, a learned Single Judge disposed of the pending writ
petition on 9th November, 2012 and quashed the order dated 31st August,
2010 passed by the MHRD. While doing so, a direction was given to the MHRD
to issue a notification under Section 3 of the UGC Act bringing the College
under the ambit of the Institute with effect from 2008-09. The MHRD was
also directed to consider regularizing admissions made by the Institute and
the College in 2009-10 and to grant renewal of permission for admissions
for the academic year 2010-11.
30. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned
Single Judge, the MCI and the MHRD filed writ appeals being Writ Appeal
Nos. 2772/2012 and 256/2013 before the Division Bench of the Madras High
Court. By its judgment and order dated 15th April, 2013 the Division Bench
set aside the direction given by the learned Single Judge for issuing a
notification under Section 3 of the UGC Act and remanded the entire matter
for reconsideration by the MHRD.
31. Pursuant to the decision rendered by the Division Bench, the MHRD gave
a hearing to the Institute on 8th May, 2013 and passed an order on 23rd
May, 2013 to the effect that the College was a constituent unit under the
ambit of the Institute for two academic years that is 2008-09 and 2009-10
subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions and also subject to the
decision in Viplav Sharma's case.
32. On 24th May, 2013 the Institute sent a representation to the MH&FW
in respect of the order passed by the MHRD on 23rd May, 2013. This
representation was forwarded to the MCI which decided to make an assessment
of the College for recognition of the admissions made in 2008-09. The
assessment was made on 7th/8th August, 2013 and the consequent report was
then considered by the Under Graduate Committee of the MCI and subsequently
by the Board of Governors of the MCI. By a decision taken on 2nd
September, 2013 the Board of Governors of the MCI decided to recognize the
admissions made in the academic year 2008-09 but reiterated the earlier
decisions that the students admitted in the 2nd batch in the year 2009-10
be discharged. The Board of Governors also decided to black list the
Institute and the Trust for a period of five years.[4]
33. A copy of the assessment report of 7th/8th August, 2013 was sent by the
MCI to the MH&FW on 12th September, 2013 and on the same day the MCI passed
a detailed order on the lines of the resolution of the Board of Governors
to the MCI and communicated it to the College.
34. Acting upon the order passed by the MCI, the MH&FW issued a
notification on 1st October, 2013 under Section 11(2) of the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 recognizing the MBBS degree for the students admitted in
the academic year 2008-09.[5] The Institute was also included in the First
Schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
35. However, the Institute was not fully satisfied with the order of 12th
September, 2013 passed by the MCI and so it filed W.P. Nos.1959 and 1964 of
2014 in the Madras High Court challenging that order. By a decision
rendered on 14th July, 2014 a learned Single Judge of the High Court did
not interfere with the recognition of the admissions made of the 2008-09
batch of students but the order passed by the MCI to discharge the students
of the 2009-10 batch was set aside. The MCI was also directed to consider
the case of those students in the light of the order passed by the MHRD on
23rd May, 2013 after giving a hearing to the Institute.
36. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 14th July, 2014 the MCI preferred
an appeal before the Division Bench and that came to be disposed of by the
order dated 13th August, 2014 impugned before us. The Division Bench did
not interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and
affirmed the remand with respect to the students admitted for the academic
year 2009-10. The order dated 13th August, 2014 underwent a minor
clarification on 19th August, 2014 to the effect that the MCI may pass an
order (on remand) without being influenced by the findings of the learned
Single Judge. It is under these circumstances that the MCI does not
challenge the admission of students in the College in the academic year
2008-09 but questions the admissions made in 2009-10.
Subsequent events
37. After the order dated 13th/19th August, 2014 passed by Madras High
Court, the MHRD constituted an Expert Committee to re-examine the issue of
bringing the College under the ambit of the Institute and that Expert
Committee gave a recommendation on 22nd September, 2014 that there is no
provision for the grant of an ambit order only for two years that is 2008-
09 and 2009-10 but that the ambit order "should have been for the
entirety."
38. While accepting the recommendation of the Expert Committee the MHRD
passed an order on 25th September, 2014 to the effect that the College is a
constituent unit under the ambit of the Institute for the purposes of
conducting an academic course from 2014-15 batch onwards, subject to the
decision in Viplav Sharma's case.
39. These facts would indicate that the admissions made by the Institute
and the College in 2008-09 are not in issue and this was in fact reiterated
by the learned Additional Solicitor General who appeared for the MCI. The
only issue is with regard to the validity of the admissions made by the
Institute and the College in 2009-10 despite specific directions given by
the MCI and the MH&FW and the consequence of the possibility of holding
those admissions as being unauthorized.
Discussion and findings
40. There is no doubt from the narration of facts that the Institute and
the College, in complete defiance of the directions given by the MCI and
the MH&FW admitted students to the 2nd batch of the MBBS course in the
academic year 2009-10. It is true that the Institute gave some
justification for doing so namely that it was expecting grant of approval
for admissions and that this was fortified by some communications received
from the MCI. However, this justification wears extremely thin considering
the specific directions given by the MCI and the MH&FW not to admit
students in the 2nd batch in the academic year 2009-10. The Institute had
also approached this Court praying for permission to admit students in the
2nd batch in 2009-10 but no permission or interim order was granted by this
Court. Notwithstanding this, the Institute went ahead and made admissions.
41. To make matters worse, there is nothing to suggest that at the relevant
time the College was within the ambit of the Institute. In fact it is only
when the MHRD passed an order on 25th September, 2014 (after the judgment
under appeal) that recognition was given to the Institute but limited only
to conducting the MBBS course commencing from 2008-09 and 2009-10 and
thereafter in 2014-15. Clearly, the admission of the students in the
academic year 2009-10 was unauthorized at the relevant time.
42. It is a little disturbing that the MCI and the MH&FW were completely
helpless for several years in taking any action against the Institute and
the College in respect of the admission of the 2nd batch of students. The
UGC and the MHRD were also passive spectators. It is quite clear that the
statutory authorities and the Government were toothless tigers when it came
to retaining admission of the 2nd batch of students in the academic year
2009-10 or taking quick remedial steps after the admissions were made.
Unless the statutory authorities and the Government realize and appreciate
that by their inaction they are encouraging blatant defiance of their
directions and are putting society at risk with possibly not fully
competent doctors, the possibility of improving the health of our people
will remain a pipe dream.
43. It is also necessary to point out that though the MCI and the MH&FW
accorded recognition and approval to the admissions made by the Institute
in the academic year 2008-09, no recognition or approval was accorded to
the admissions made by the Institute to the 2nd batch of students in the
academic year 2009-10. However, the MHRD went a step ahead and accepted the
report of the Expert Committee set up by it and brought the College within
the ambit of the Institute from 2009-10 onwards. Clearly one Ministry of
the Government is completely oblivious of the views of another Ministry of
the Government and this absence of coordination is what perhaps enabled the
Institute and the College to make admissions in the academic year 2008-09
and present a fait accompli to the statutory authorities and the Government
resulting in the approval and recognition of the admissions made in that
academic year. It is also this absence of coordination which perhaps
enabled the Institute and the College to take similar advantage in respect
of the admissions to the 2nd batch of MBBS students in the academic year
2009-10.
44. We are pained to point out that without the College being under the
ambit of the Institute and having made unauthorized admissions in the
academic year 2008-09, the MCI conducted an inspection of the facilities
available in the College on 23rd/24th March, 2009 for renewal of permission
to admit the 2nd batch of students in the academic year 2009-10. Not only
was the inspection carried out but a positive recommendation was made by
the MCI to the MH&FW to renew the permission.
45. Again, when the College was not within the ambit of the Institute and
could not admit students in the 2nd batch beginning in the academic year
2009-10, the MCI sent a letter to the College on 15th September, 2009 to
furnish the list of students admitted in the academic year 2009-10. It is
true that the letter was of a general nature but obviously it was sent
without any application of mind and the Institute sought to take advantage
of this in the submissions made before us. What is worse is that on 17th
September, 2009 the MCI wrote to the College proposing an inspection for
renewal of permission for admission to the 3rd batch of students from the
academic year 2010-11. The mechanical manner in which the MCI has acted is
extremely unfortunate to say the least.
46. When the MCI came to know and was given the list of students admitted
to the 2nd batch in 2009-10 by a communication dated 30th September, 2009
sent by the College, it kept quiet till 4th February, 2010 that is for a
period of about four months. The MCI could have and should have acted
swiftly and taken some remedial steps but it permitted the unwitting
students to continue their studies for which they would have had to pay a
heavy price with the loss at least of one year of their education. Even
the MH&FW kept quiet till 5th April, 2010 that is for a period of about 5
months. It is unfortunate that unauthorized admissions to a medical
college are being taken in such a casual manner by the concerned statutory
authorities and the Government.
47. In its order dated 12th September, 2013 the MCI referred to A.P.
Christian Medical Educational Society v. State of Andhra Pradesh[6] to the
effect that no direction can be issued contrary to the provisions of the
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 or the Regulations framed thereunder.
Therefore, it was observed in the order that the Board of Governors in the
MCI cannot regularize the admission of the 2nd batch of students in the
academic year 2009-10.
48. In the referred decision, one of the submissions made was that the
interests of the students who had been admitted into the MBBS course of
that institute "should not be sacrificed because of the conduct or folly of
the management and that they should be permitted to appear at the
University examination notwithstanding the circumstance that permission and
affiliation had not been granted to the Institute." It was noticed that
the students concerned had not only lost their money to gain admission into
the institute but had lost one or two years of their precious time thereby
virtually jeopardizing their future careers. Therefore, this Court left it
open to the State Government to devise suitable ways, legislative and
administrative to compensate the students, at least monetarily.
49. Insofar as the present appeals are concerned, the fact situation is
somewhat different inasmuch as the MHRD has now brought the College within
the ambit of the Institute not only for the academic year 2008-09 (about
which there is no dispute) but also for the admissions made to the 2nd
batch in the academic year 2009-10. This is notwithstanding the objections
of the MCI and the MH&FW. That being the position, it is not as if the
admissions made by the Institute and the College in 2009-10 continue to be
completely unauthorized. The admissions made were completely unauthorized
at the relevant time but have now been granted approval and recognition as
a result of certain subsequent events which have been taken into
consideration by the MHRD. The MCI and the MH&FW as well as the UGC have
therefore little option but to fall in line in this regard.
50. We also find a substantial difference between the referred case and the
present appeals inasmuch as in A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society,
the students had undergone one or two years of study. However, in the
present appeals they have undergone the entire course of study and are now
waiting to commence their internship. Having spent five years in pursuing
their MBBS course, to now tell the students that they have simply wasted
their time would hardly be a just and fair view to take. The students in
the present case appear to be mere pawns in a bigger game played by the
Institute and the College in which the MCI, the MH&FW, the UGC and the MHRD
have participated as spectators. We cannot let the matter rest at that
simply because the admission of the 2nd batch of students in the academic
year 2009-10 has been recognized and approved by the MHRD.
51. In view of this, we requested learned counsel for the parties to
address us on the consequential orders that may be passed keeping in view
the fact that it is not very clear whether the course of study undergone by
the students admitted in the 2nd batch in the academic year 2009-10 matches
up to the quality expected by the MCI and the MH&FW.
52. Learned counsel for the parties (other than the MCI) suggested[7] a
few alternatives to save the careers of the students. We heard and took
note of various suggestions made in the consequence hearings and are of the
view that given the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this
Court is required to play the role of a bridge over troubled water. The
careers of the students certainly require to be saved but at the same time
the interests of potential patients who may be treated by what might
possibly be not fully qualified doctors has also to be considered. It is
far too dangerous for our society to be treated by doctors who may not be
fully qualified or equipped to handle the exigencies of medical aid and
services. Lives of common men and women cannot be put to grave risk under
these circumstances.
53. Therefore, since this issue has been debated and discussed from various
points of view, and to strike a balance between competing interests, we are
of the opinion that:
(1) A student admitted by the Institution in the academic year 2009-10
should be required to once again undergo the final examination - this time
under the auspices of a State Health University located outside the State
of Tamil Nadu, preferably Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,
Bengaluru. The examination should be held within three months from today.
The Institute will bear the expenses for conducting the said examination.
(2) The Institute/State Health University/Rajiv Gandhi University of
Health Sciences shall intimate to the Medical Council of India the proposed
date of examination and the Medical Council of India shall appoint
examiners to oversee the conduct of such examination. The Institute will
bear the expenses for conducting the said examination.
(3) If a student qualifies in the said examination, he/she may be
allowed to begin his/her internship programme and on successful completion
thereof, an MBBS degree shall be awarded by the Institute, subject to the
final decision in Viplav Sharma's case. If a student does not qualify in
that examination, he or she may be given another chance to qualify after a
gap of six months in a similar examination conducted under the auspices of
a recognized University (but not Deemed to be University) located outside
the State of Tamil Nadu. The Institute will bear the expenses for
conducting the said examination.
(4) The MHRD and the MH&FW should put their house in order and ensure
better and more effective coordination with each other as well as the MCI
and the UGC.
(5) The MCI, the MH&FW, the UGC and the MHRD should take a joint
inspection of the facilities in the College within a period of two months
from today to ascertain and determine whether the College should be allowed
to admit students in the academic year 2015-16 and whether it provides
necessary facilities as required by law and the regulations.
(6) Costs of Rs.5 crores deserve to be imposed on the Institute for
blatantly violating the directions of the MCI and the MH&FW and creating a
complete mess insofar as the students admitted to the 2nd batch of MBBS
course in the College in the academic year 2009-10 are concerned. The
amount will be deposited by the Institute in the Registry of this Court
within four weeks from today. The amount of Rs.5 crores so deposited
towards costs shall not be recovered in any manner from any student or
adjusted against the fees or provision of facilities for students of
subsequent batches.
54. We direct accordingly and dispose of the appeals with these directions.
A copy of this judgment and order be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of
Human Resource Development, Government of India and the Secretary,
University Grants Commission.
55. List for compliance after six weeks.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.5153/15 @ CC No.837/2015)
56. Delay condoned. The SLP is disposed of in terms of the decision in
civil appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014.
............................J
( Madan B. Lokur )
............................J
(Uday Umesh Lalit)
New Delhi;
February 11, 2015
-----------------------
[1] 3. Application of Act to institutions for higher studies other than
Universities.-The Central Government may, on the advice of the Commission,
declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that any institution for
higher education, other than a University, shall be deemed to be a
University for the purposes of this Act, and on such a declaration being
made, all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such institution as if
it were a University within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2.
[2] The reliefs prayed for in the writ petition were:
Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith
consider the renewal of permission in terms of the decision of April 2009
of the Medical Council of India and accord permission to admit the second
batch of students for the academic year 2009-10.
Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to allow the first
batch of students admitted during the academic year 2008-2009 to pursue the
course in the second year MBBS course.
Issue a Writ of Mandamus restraining the MCI in any manner in seeking
to recall the recommendation of renewal of permission for admission of
second batch of students; and
Pass such other order and/or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
[3] The order passed by this Court reads: "The petitioner - Institute has
filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No.20995/2010) before the High Court
of Judicature at Madras for bringing the ACS Medical College and Hospital
under the ambit of the Deemed University, which is pending before the High
Court. This transfer petition has been filed by the petitioner - Institute
under Article 139A of the Constitution for transfer of Writ Petition
No.20995/2010 from Madras High Court to this Court for being decided by
this Court along with W.P.(C)No.142/2006:Viplav Sharma Vs. Union of India &
Ors. (Deemed University case).
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are not inclined
to transfer the writ petition. However, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case, we request the High Court of Judicature at
Madras to dispose of the Writ Petition No.20995 of 2010 as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within three months from the date of communication of
this order, without waiting for the decision of this Court in Viplav
Sharma's case (supra).
The parties would be at liberty to complete pleadings before the High
Court within six weeks from today.
The transfer petition is disposed of with the aforementioned
observations."
[4] The order of black listing has since been set aside and is not an
issue before us.
[5] 11. Recognition of medical qualifications granted by Universities or
medical institutions in India.-(1) The medical qualifications granted by
any University or medical institution in India which are included in the
First Schedule shall be recognised medical qualifications for the purposes
of this Act.
(2) Any University or medical institution in India which grants a
medical qualification not included in the First Schedule may apply to the
Central Government to have such qualification recognised, and the Central
Government, after consulting the Council, may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, amend the First Schedule so as to include such
qualification therein, and any such notification may also direct that an
entry shall be made in the last column of the First Schedule against such
medical qualification declaring that it shall be a recognised medical
qualification only when granted after a specified date.
[6] 1986 (2) SCC 667
[7] Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Senior Advocate for the students and Mr. Rajeev
Dhavan, Senior Advocate for the Institute.