Summary
A medical college challenged refusal of permission and recognition, alleging that a further surprise inspection after earlier assessments was impermissible and mala fide. Upholding the legality of compliance verification and finding no supporting material for mala fides, the Court declined to disturb the government decision. It protected existing students and directed consideration for recognition for 2018–2019 while preserving the bank guarantee.
Issues
- Whether MCI could conduct a further surprise inspection after the college reported compliance.
- Whether allegations of mala fides justified rejecting the expert assessment and government decision.
- What protection and prospective consideration should be afforded to existing students and the institution.
Provisions considered
- Sections 10A and 11(2), Indian Medical Council Act, 1956Permission, successive renewals and recognition require continuing compliance; recognition attracts particularly rigorous scrutiny of facilities and standards. (¶¶ 18–21, 31–33, 39)
- Regulation 8, Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999Yearly permission and renewal depend on verification of targets and satisfaction of requirements. The regulatory scheme permits compliance verification through surprise inspection. (¶ 23–31)
Held
- A medical institution must remain compliant throughout. Reporting rectification does not prevent MCI from verifying the assertion by surprise inspection; compliance verification is not a limited remand requiring assessors to overlook other deficiencies. (¶¶ 21–22, 31–33)
- Mere allegations that experts inspected again within a fortnight did not establish mala fides. No material supported attribution of malice to the assessors, and the expert assessment was not to be reweighed as in an appeal. The Central Government’s decision with Hearing Committee assistance could not be faulted on these grounds. (¶¶ 33, 37, 39)
- Standards are scrutinised more strictly as a college progresses through renewal to recognition. A deficiency that might be regarded as minor initially need not remain so at the recognition stage. (¶ 39)
- Already admitted students were permitted to continue, and MCI was directed to ensure that students passing out received degrees. The 2017–2018 application was to be treated as one for 2018–2019; MCI was to inspect for recognition according to schedule, communicate deficiencies and follow natural justice. The bank guarantee was to remain alive and not be encashed. (¶ 40)
Result
Writ petition disposed of with directions protecting admitted students, requiring consideration for recognition for 2018–2019 and preserving the bank guarantee. No order as to costs.