LexSARASWATI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017]9 S.C.R.392 A SARASWATI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST B c AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. (Writ Petition (C) No. 515of2017) SEPTEMBER 0 I, 2017 [DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.J Education/Educational Institutions: Writ Petition u/Art. 32 of Constitution - Challenging order dated 31. 05. 2017 passed by Central Govemment, whereby petitioner-medical college was debarred ji·om admitting students in MBBS course for academic sessions 2017-18 and 2018-lY - Supreme Court directed the Central Government to reconsider the D issue of letter of permission, by re-evaluating the views of the Medical Council of India (MCI), Hearing Committee, DGHS and Oversight Commillee - Hearing Commillee recommended not to permit admission - Competent Authority accepted the recommendations by order dated 10.08.2017 - Petitioners challenged this order by E filing interlocutory application - Held: The deficiencies in respect of/acuity reported in the assessment report were not critical and were within permissible limits - MCI had already done inspection for issuance of Letter for Permission for academic Session 2017-18 - Petitioners had objected to the second surprise inspection as the F same was to be conducted after the cut-off date - While the report of that inspection was pending for consideratio11, need for the second inspection has not been explained - Thus the petitioner- college fulfills the infrastructure and academic requirements and has already become functional from academic session 2016-17 - In the larger public interest, in exercise of power u/Art. 142 of the G Constitution, the petition and the application are allowed - Constitution of India - Arts. 32 and 142. H Allowing the petition, the Court HELD: 1. The Oversight Committee in its communication dated 14.05.2017 has clearly noted that there was no major 392 SARASWATI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST v. 393 UNION OF INDIA deficiency. The deficiencies reported in the assessment r-eport A in respect of faculty were only 1.5 % and residents 6.52 %. These were within the acceptable limits. The petitioner-college has been functioning from academic session 2016-17. Even the G9mpetent Authority in the impugned decision has not opined that the deficiencies noticed earlier were significant or critical. Such B deficiencies by no standard can be said to be critical. The same, as rightly observed by the Oversight Committee (OC), were within permissible limits. [Para 9][400-E-G) 2. The inspection for issuance of Letter of Permission for academic session 2017-18 was duly carried out on 18. and 19th c November, 2016. The respondents are not correct in saying that no inspection in relation to academic session 2017-18 has been carried out as of now. Indeed, the petitioners objected to the second surprise inspection intended on 21'' and 22•d December, 2016 as the same was after the cut off date 15'h December, 2016. The purpose for which the second surprise inspection became D necessary, when the earlier report was pending consideration and that too after the cut off date•l5'h December, 2016, has not been explained or noted either by the Executive Committee in its meeting held on 13'h January, 2017 or for that matter by the Hearing Committee and more so by the Competent Authority of the Central Government. Significantly, it is not a case where the E college officials prevented the inspecting team from entering the college. The petitioner college only placed their objection on record as per the advice given to them that such inspection by the MCI after the cut-off date was not permissible. The inspecting team chose to leave the college without doing any inspection. The Competent Authority, however, mechanically acted upon the recommendation of the MCI to debar the petitioner-college for two years and authorised the MCI to encash the Bank Guarantee of Rs.2 crores vide order dated 31" May, 2017. [Para 12][400-G- H; 401-A-C) 3. The Hearing Committee as well as the Central Government have failed to consider all the relevant aspects of the matter and the conclusion reached by the said authorities is, on the face of it, without application of mind, if not perverse. There is nothing in the Regulations which expressly or for that matter F G H 394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R. A by Implication prohibits the MCI from undertaking multiple Inspections. However, when that action Is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.