Summary
The Supreme Court set aside an order requiring a fresh inspection of Vedantaa Medical College for renewal permission. The proviso governing colleges up to second renewal included first renewal and barred same-academic-year reconsideration where specified serious deficiencies existed. It complemented the statutory opportunity provisions. Given the extensive deficiencies and no sufficient reason to displace the expert assessment, the college was not entitled to another inspection.
Issues
- Whether Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) applied to first renewal and could restrict a fresh inspection despite Section 10A.
- Whether the High Court could reject the inspection findings and order another assessment on this record.
Provisions considered
- Regulation 8(3)(1), proviso (a), as amended, Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999The “upto II renewal” stage included first renewal. Deficiency of faculty or residents exceeding 30 percent, or bed occupancy below the prescribed threshold, barred consideration of rectification for that academic year. (¶¶ 2, 4, 9, 11)
- Section 10A(3) and (4), Indian Medical Council Act, 1956The minimum standards for obtaining reconsideration complemented the scheme’s opportunity to rectify deficiencies and did not conflict with the statutory provisions. (¶ 9)
Held
- The High Court wrongly confined the proviso to second renewal. Its language covered the stage from initial permission through second renewal, including admission of the second batch on first renewal. (¶ 9)
- Although an opportunity to rectify ordinarily formed part of the scheme, minimum faculty, resident and occupancy standards governed eligibility for reinspection. The prescription was complementary to Section 10A rather than contrary to it. The direct challenge to the Regulation had not been pressed in the writ petition. (¶¶ 4, 9)
- Judicial interference with expert medical-inspection findings required cogent jurisdictional reasons such as mala fides, manifest perversity or jurisdictional error. The record did not justify the High Court’s adverse view of the inspection; the cyclone explanation did not establish an entitlement to reassessment. (¶ 10)
- With faculty deficiency of 84.05 percent, resident shortfall of 87.23 percent and only three patients against a required 300 at the specified assessment time, the deficiencies attracted the proviso. The college could not claim another inspection for the renewal sought. (¶¶ 2, 10, 11)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment directing a fresh inspection set aside.