Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order permitting the medical college to admit students for 2018–19. The High Court could not rely on governmental permission compelled by its own interim order after that interim order had been set aside. Paper compliance and website assertions did not displace verified inspection deficiencies. Repeated hearings had been afforded and the admission deadlines had passed. The college could apply for 2019–20 with the requisite fees.
Issues
- Whether conditional permission issued under a subsequently set-aside interim order justified the final admissions relief.
- Whether the High Court could substitute paper compliance and website assertions for expert inspection findings.
- Whether hearing requirements and the admissions schedule permitted relief for 2018–19.
Provisions considered
- Article 226(1), Constitution of IndiaJudicial review did not authorise the High Court to sit in appeal over the expert inspection findings and decide the seriously disputed factual deficiencies on the college’s assertions. (¶¶ 17–20, 22)
- Appendix E, admission schedule and Notes 2–3, Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997, as amended in 2015The quoted schedule excluded colleges permitted after 31 May from the current admission year and prohibited extending admission beyond 31 August. The elapsed deadlines further prevented 2018–19 relief. (¶ 22)
Held
- The Government’s conditional permission was issued to comply with the High Court’s mandatory interim order. Once that order was set aside by the Supreme Court, the consequential permission could not be treated as an independent governmental acceptance of the college’s claim. (¶ 15–16)
- A claim of paper compliance must be physically verified. The High Court could not presume rectification from correspondence, disregard further deficiencies found on inspection, or prefer unverified website information to the expert assessment. (¶ 17–18)
- The objections concerning late-arriving faculty, leave, resident availability, bed occupancy and other deficiencies did not invalidate the assessment. The court could not conduct an appellate reassessment of these disputed inspection facts. (¶ 19–20)
- Reasonable opportunity and a reasoned decision were required, but repeated inspections and hearings had supplied a fair opportunity in this case. The established deficiencies precluded permission for 2018–19; elapsed mandatory deadlines independently barred directions for that session. (¶ 21–22)
- The MCI’s appeal was allowed without costs and the High Court’s order set aside. The college remained free to apply for the next academic year, 2019–20, on payment of the requisite fees. (¶ 23)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; High Court judgment set aside. College may apply for 2019–20 by depositing requisite fees; no permission for 2018–19 granted.