Summary
The Supreme Court refused to direct issuance of an Essentiality Certificate and consent of affiliation for a proposed medical college for 2020–2021. Grant or renewal requires substantive scrutiny of facilities and is not a ministerial act. Earlier certificates did not confer perpetual entitlement where serious deficiencies persisted. Withdrawal is permissible for fraud, disappearance of the foundational basis or like circumstances. The expired academic timetable independently barred the requested relief; the trust could apply for a later year after removing deficiencies.
Issues
- Whether grant or renewal of an Essentiality Certificate and consent of affiliation is merely ministerial.
- Whether an earlier certificate precludes refusal or withdrawal despite continuing deficiencies.
- Whether relief could be granted for an academic year whose regulatory timetable had expired.
Provisions considered
- Scheme qualifying criteria 2(3) and 2(4), and Form 2, Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999The State certificate and university consent are qualifying requirements involving verification of clinical material and facilities; the State also undertakes responsibility for admitted students in the specified contingency. (¶¶ 15, 17-19)
Held
- The State and affiliating university must examine compliance with applicable standards and facilities. Their certificate and consent functions are substantive, not automatic consequences of an earlier grant or the quashing of a policy-based refusal. (¶¶ 10, 15-19)
- An Essentiality Certificate may be withdrawn where obtained by fraud, where its foundational basis disappears or in analogous circumstances. A foundation absent from the outset attracts the same concern; repeated opportunities and old certificates did not overcome the continuing deficiencies here. (¶ 20-25)
- The inspections disclosed serious deficiencies in infrastructure, equipment, clinical material and faculty. The Court would not use judicial directions to bypass the required standards. (¶ 26-28)
- Strict adherence to the applicable academic timetable was essential. Neither actual nor notional certificates for 2020–2021 could be directed after the deadlines; a fresh application for a later year remained open after rectification. (¶ 29-33)
Result
Appeals dismissed without costs; liberty to apply for the next academic year in accordance with the timetable after removing deficiencies, for decision under the applicable procedure.