LexMEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA versus MEDICITI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (MIMS) & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c (2015) 14 S.C.R. 164 MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. MEDICITI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (MIMS) & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 13957-13958 of 2015) DECEMBER 01, 2015 [ANIL R. DAVE AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] Education/Educational Institution: Medical College - MBBS course - Application by Medical Institute-respondent no. 1 - Seeking renewal of permission for increase in admission capacity of MBBS students for the academic year - Pursuant thereto inspection D of Medical Institute - Certain deficiencies found and decision taken by Committee not to renew the permission for admission of increased students - Communication of the said decision to respondent no. 1 -Another inspection carried E out, deficiencies found and the same decision conveyed - Writ petition challenging the said decision - Direction by High Court to Medical Council of India-appellant to conduct a re- inspection of respondent no. 1-institute - On appeal, held: If infrastructure of any training institute is not sufficient to train F and groom its students, even if they pass out at the final examination, may not turn out to be good professionals - Once the apex body supervising education in the field of medicine has set-up a particular set of standards, it would not be proper on the part of the judiciary to direct that body to G digress from the standards so fixed - Since all the norms had not been fulfilled, which were necessary for the purpose of grant of permission to have 50 additional students, the High Court was not justified in dir(!cting the appellant to have additional inspection - Direction by the High Court was .also H not in consonance with the schedule of dates fixed - Thus, 164 MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. MEDICITI INSTITUTE OF 165 MEDICAL SCIENCES (MIMS) the direction given by the High Court is set aside - A Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999. " Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India (2013) 10 sec 60 : 2013 (9) SCA 325; Royal Medical Trµst (Regd.) and Anr. v. Union oflndia & B Anr. (2015) 9 SCALE 68 - referred to. 2013 (9) SCA 325 (2015) 9 SCALE 68 Case Law Reference referred to referred to Para 14 Para 17 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 13957-13958 of 2015. c From the Judgment and Order dated 13.08.2015 of the D High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 7101 of 2015 & C. M. No. 13021 of 2015. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia for the Appellant. Dr. Raj iv Dhawan, Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Advs., A. Ramesh, Amit Kumar, Ankit for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Looking at the facts of the case and at the request of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it was decided to hear the appeals expeditiously. 3. A short issue that has come up for consideration in these appeals is whether it was open to the High Court to give E F G a direction to the Medical Council of India (for short, the MCl)- the appellant herein, by its order dated 13.08.2015, to conduct H 166 SUPREME GOU.RT REPORTS (2015] 14 S.C.R. A a re-inspection of Respondent no.1 institute. The said direction was. given in relation to an application made by Respondent no.1 for renewal of permission for increase in admission capacity of MBBS students from 100 to 150 for the academic B year 2015-16. 4. Respondent no.1 is a hospital-cum-medical college, which had been formerly granted permission to teach 100 MBBS students per academic year. From 2012-2013, respondent no.3 had permitted increase in intake capacity from c 100 to 150 MBBS students. For the academic year 2013-14, respondent no.3 had renewed the said permission. Respondent no.1 wanted to get the said permission renewed for the academic year 2014-15 and therefore, it had submitted an application, as prescribed under the Establishment of D Medical College Regulations, 1999. The said application had been rejected as the Executive Committee of the MCI found certain deficiencies in the functioning of Respondent no.1 institute. Some litigation had taken place with regard to the said rejection, but the said rejection is not much relevant for E the present petition. 5. For renewal of the said permission for additional 50 MBBS students for the academic year 2015-16, another application was made by respondent no.1 and in pursuance F of the said appli
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.