Summary
A medical college challenged its admission bar and proposed bank-guarantee encashment, disputing faculty, resident and clinical deficiencies. The Court declined to reassess those factual matters in place of MCI and granted no relief for 2017–2018 after the admission cut-off. It directed fresh consideration for 2018–2019 with inspection, rectification and hearing, while preserving the guarantee.
Issues
- Whether the Court should reappraise the college’s explanation of expert inspection findings.
- Whether prospective reconsideration and guarantee protection were appropriate.
Provisions considered
- Regulation 8(3)(1)(c), Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999The reported deficiencies in faculty, residents and bed occupancy formed the regulatory context for refusal; expert verification remained necessary. (¶¶ 5, 10)
Held
- Availability and presence of faculty and infrastructure raised factual questions for MCI as the expert statutory body. The orders had to be read as a whole against repeated serious deficiencies, rather than judged as if they were court judgments. Without cogent proof of rectification, independent judicial reappraisal was inappropriate. (¶ 10)
- Fairness required an opportunity to demonstrate rectification before MCI, but only for 2018–2019 because the 2017–2018 admission cut-off had elapsed and teaching had commenced. (¶¶ 10, 12)
- MCI was to inspect within two months, inform the institution of deficiencies and allow rectification. Its case was to be considered under the prevailing regulations for 2018–2019, followed by the Central Government’s lawful final decision after hearing and with the specified Hearing Committee assistance. The bank guarantee had to remain alive and was not to be encashed in the meantime. (¶ 11)
Result
Petition disposed of with fresh inspection and consideration for 2018–2019 and preservation of the bank guarantee. Relief for academic year 2017–2018 declined.