Summary
A medical college challenged renewed debarment after conditional permission and successive inspections revealed staffing and clinical deficiencies. The Court declined appellate-style reassessment of expert findings and refused permission for 2017–18. It nevertheless protected the bank guarantee from encashment, ordered fresh assessment for 2018–19 with remedial opportunity, and allowed the 2016–17 students to complete their course.
Issues
- Whether expert findings and the government’s reconsidered decision warranted judicial interference for inadequate reasons.
- What relief should govern the next academic year, bank guarantee and already admitted students.
Provisions considered
- Section 10A(7), Indian Medical Council Act, 1956Required assessment of minimum educational standards, resources, staffing, training and hospital facilities in considering establishment permission. (¶ 18–22)
Held
- Successive inspections disclosed substantial faculty, resident and clinical deficiencies, some acknowledged by the college and reflected even in Oversight Committee findings. In that setting the reconsidered decision could not be rejected as unreasoned merely because the college disputed the assessment. (¶ 20–24)
- Judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 is distinct from appeal and does not permit fresh appreciation of expert material. An administrative decision must show application of mind and reasons, but need not read like a judicial judgment. The expert authorities were best placed to evaluate compliance with medical-education requirements. (¶ 23–27)
- Permission for 2017–18 was refused, but the application was to be treated as one for 2018–19. MCI must inspect within three months, communicate deficiencies and allow rectification, followed by recommendations and a lawful government decision after hearing. The guarantee had to remain alive and was not to be encashed. (¶ 28)
- Students admitted under the 2016–17 permission were expressly allowed to remain and complete their studies at the college. The judgment did not itself grant permission for the 2018–19 intake. (¶ 28–29)
Result
Writ petition and application disposed of: no 2017–18 permission; fresh 2018–19 assessment ordered within three months, guarantee protected subject to renewal, and 2016–17 students allowed to complete the course.