Summary
The Court held that the Oversight Committee’s favourable opinion did not bind the Central Government and that significant deficiencies prevented automatic confirmation of a conditional medical-college LOP. However, absence on an inspection day did not by itself establish that staff were not employed, warranting fresh verification. Existing students were protected; inspection for confirmation of the 2016–2017 LOP and separate processing of renewal for 2018–2019 were directed, with interim protection of the bank guarantee.
Issues
- Whether the Oversight Committee’s opinion bound the statutory decision-maker.
- Whether the deficiencies justified refusal of automatic LOP confirmation and what further verification was needed.
- What directions should govern existing students, confirmation and renewal.
Held
- The Oversight Committee’s opinion was relevant and required due attention, but did not bind the Hearing Committee or Central Government in their statutory functions; final permission authority was vested in the Central Government. (¶ 12)
- The unexplained faculty and resident shortages, and failure to support claims concerning minor operations and paramedical staff, were significant. The college had to remove all deficiencies under its undertaking before confirmation of the conditional LOP; favourable outcomes in other colleges’ cases were fact-dependent. (¶ 13–17)
- Although the authorities’ rejection of the explanations was not irrelevant or extraneous, staff absence on inspection days did not establish non-employment or a bogus staffing claim. Overall performance and employment required proper verification. (¶ 16–18)
- Existing 2016–2017 students could continue. MCI was to send an inspection team within three months for assessment, allow specified time for rectification, verify reported compliance and recommend to the Government. The Ministry was to decide within one month of receiving the recommendation. This inspection concerned confirmation of the 2016–2017 LOP. (¶ 19–20)
- The Rs 2 crore bank guarantee was to remain alive and unencashed until the final decision was taken and communicated. The 2017–2018 renewal application was to be processed promptly as one for 2018–2019; legal remedies remained available against an adverse final decision. (¶ 19–20)
Result
Writ petition disposed of with directions for fresh verification, continued studies, protected guarantee and 2018–2019 renewal processing; no costs.