LexMEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA versus V.N. PUBLIC HEALTH & EDUCATIONAL TRUST & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A [2016] 2 S.C.R. 364 MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. V.N. PUBLIC HEALTH & EDUCATIONAL TRUST & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.3964 of20 I 6) B APRIL 18, 2016 [DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.) Education/Educational Institutions: Medical College - Establishment of - Commencing from C academic year 2016-2017 -Application for establishment of medical college - Medical Council of India (MCI) recommended to the Govem111ent to disapprove the application on the ground that the 'Essentiality Certificate' was not in accordance with the format prescribed by 1999 Regulations - Disapproval of the scheme of establish111ent by the Govern111ent - Writ petition - Dismissed by D courts below directing the appropriate authority to consider the application after taking into consideration fresh revised Essentiality Certificate - On appeal, held: The Essentia/ity Certificate, submitted initially with the application, for establishment of Medical College was a conditional one - The sa111e cannot be regarded as requisite E . certificate - In such a situation High Court could not have directed for consideration of the application for the purpose of inspection - High Court also could not have gone beyond the time schedule prescribed by MCI - Medical Council Act, 1956 - s. 10-A - Establishment of the Medical College Regulations, 1999. F G H Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 On a perusal of the Essentiality Certificate dated 31.08.2015, it is obvious that it is a conditional certificate. The said fact has been reiterated by the appellant-MCI vide its communication dated 19.10.2015. A conditional certificate cannot be regarded as the reqnisite Certificate inasmuch as the conditions which are essential to the certificate are reqnired to be fnlfilled. On the basis of such a certificate, the MCI was not expected to approve the application submitted by an educational institution. It had clearly communicated that the prescribed format stipulates that adequate clinical material as per the MCI norms "is available". Thus, the availability has to 364 l\fEDICAL CbUNCIL OF INDIA v. V. N. PUBLICHEALTH & 365 EDUCATIONAL TRUST be in praesenti but not to be a condition to be satisfied at a later stage. That is not the postulate in the Establishment of Medical College Regulations. [Para 10] (370-H; 371-A-B] 1.2 The application for grant of approval was filed with the Essentiality Certificate which was a conditional one and, therefore, a defective one. It was not an Essentiality Certificate in law. In such a situation, the High Court could not have directed for consideration of the application for the purpose of the inspection. Such a direction, runs counter to the law laid down in * Educltre Cliaritllble Trust and ** Roylll MediClll Trust cases. [Para 15] [375-A-B] 2. On the date of the application, the Essentiality Certificate was not in order. The Schedule prescribed by the MCI, whicl,i had been approved by this Court, is binding on all concerned. MCI cannot transgress it. The High Court could not have. gone beyond the same and issued any direction for conducting an inspection for the academic year 2016-17. Therefore, the directions issued by the single Judge and the affirmation thereof by th_e Division Bench are wholly unsustainable. [Para 151 [375-CJ. 3. It will be open to the Trust to submit a fresh application for the next academic year in consonance with the provisions of the Ri!gulations of the MCI and as per the time Schedule; and in that event; it wiU be considered appropriately. [Para 16] (375-D- E] Royal Medical Trust (Registered) and Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. 2015 (10) SCC 19; D.Y. Patil Medical College v. Medical Council of India & Anr. 2015 (10) SCC 51: 2015 (9) SCR 686; Educare Charitable Trust v. Union of India & Anr. 2013 (16) SCC 474: 2013 (10) SCR 167 - relied on. Case Law Reference 2015 (10) SCC 19 relied on. Para 2 2015 (9) SCR 686 relied on. Para 14 2013 (10) SCR 167 . relied on. Para 14 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3964 of2016 · A B c D E F G H 366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 2 S.C.R. A FromtheJudgmentandOrderdated 19.0l.2016ofthe High Court ofKerala at Ernakulum, in Writ Appeal No. 96 of2016 Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia, Dhaval Mohan Advs., with him for the Appellant. Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv., D. S. Mahra, B Ajay Sharma, R. K. Rathor, S. S. Rawat, Prabal Bagchi, Aka
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.