MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA versus N.C. MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 12 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 13-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
  MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
v.
N.C. MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9519 of 2018)
SEPTEMBER 13, 2018
[ARUN MISHRA AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions:
Medical College – Recommendation of Medical Council of
India (MCI) to Central Government not to renew permission for
admitting students for academic session 2018-2019 – Writ petition
challenging the recommendation – High Court by interim order dated
29.5.2018 directed Central Government to grant permission to
College by 31.5.2018 – Central Government by G.O. dated
31.5.2018 granted permission in compliance of the order dated
29.5.2018 subject to outcome of the writ petition – Subsequently
the order dated 29.5.2018 was set aside by Supreme Court by its
order dated 4.7.2018 – High Court allowed the writ petition relying
on the G.O. dated 31.5.2018 passed by Central Government – On
appeal, held : The G.O. dated 31.5.2018 issued by Central
Government was a conditional order and was passed in compliance
of the interim order dated 29.5.2018 – The interim order dated
29.5.2018 was also subsequently set aside by Supreme Court vide
its order dated 4.7.2018 – Thus, the order of High court lacks
judicial propriety and also tantamounts to ignoring the effect of
order dated 4.7.2018 – Court cannot sit in appeal over report of
the assessors – In view of the deficiencies found by the
assessors, permission could not have been accorded for the
session 2018-2019.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The impugned order of High Court is not
sustainable. The High Court had issued a mandatory interim
direction on 29.5.2018 to Central Government to accord
permission by 31.5.2018.  It was not open to High Court to rely
upon order dated 31.5.2018, which was a provisional order passed
in compliance of the interim order dated 29.5.2018, said order
 [2018] 12 S.C.R. 1
  1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
was set aside by this Court. Once the order has been set aside,
the order of Government of India dated 31.5.2018 which was
passed pursuant to order dated 29.5.2018 could not have been
relied upon by the High Court to allow or to dispose of the writ
application holding that Central Government has tacitly accepted
the claim of the college.   Thus, the order passed by the High
Court lacks judicial propriety and also tantamounts to ignoring
the effect of the order dated 4.7.2018 passed by this Court.
[Para 15] [12-F; 13-B-C]
2. The college was given permission by the Oversight
Committee of this Court for the session 2016-2017. It was a
conditional permission as deficiencies existed at the given time.
The Government of India as well as MCI on their own, did not
grant permission at any point of time in view of the reports of
inspections which were undertaken time and again during the
last three years. [Para 16] [13-D]
3. The observations made by the High Court that
correspondence by MCI indicated that certain deficiencies have
been removed. The High Court has also referred to the website
contents of the college to hold the deficiencies of the faculty to
be 4-5% i.e., within permissible limit.  The aforesaid reasonings
and exercise done by the High Court is not in accordance with
law.  As a matter of fact, when certain deficiencies have been
pointed out and paper compliance thereof has been reported by
the college that cannot by itself be said to be enough and it cannot
be presumed that by reporting paper compliance, it can be
assumed that in fact compliance had been made. Once the
compliance report has been submitted that has to be verified by
making inspection and when it has been carried out and various
other deficiencies have been found, they have to be taken into
consideration and could not have been ignored as done by the
High Court. [Para 17] [13-E-H]
4. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the report of the
assessors.  On the one hand, the High Court has doubted the
report of inspection and for that  relied on the self-serving contents
of the website of the college. There is nothing to vouch for the
authenticity of the website information.  It is not what the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
institution asserts on website but what is actually found on
inspection, that has to be considered by the court.  The  deficiency
of faculty has been culled out in the inspection report in detail.
Report of the assessors cannot be faulted; the court cannot sit in
appeal over it and cannot go into the disputed facts.
[Para 18 and 20] [14

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.