,,,,,
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitionerâ€"Medical College, inter alia, seeking quashment of order dated 31.5.2018 (Annexure P/1)",,,,,
passed by the respondent No.1, whereby, in view of the recommendations forwarded by the Medical Council of India, has communicated its decision",,,,,
not to grant renewal of permission to the petitioner-Medical College for admission of fresh batch of MBBS students against increased intake of 150-,,,,,
100 MBBS students for the academic session 2018-19. The petitioner â€" medical college has also sought direction for revoking Regulation 8(3)(1)(c),,,,,
of the Establishment of Medical Education Regulation, 1999 as invoked against it and grant permission to admit fresh batch of MBBS student against",,,,,
increased intake of 150-100 MBBS students for the academic session 2018-19.,,,,,
2. The petitioner â€" medical college has challenged the impugned order dated 31.5.2018 on the ground that it passed without appreciating the fact and,,,,,
law that the MCI assessors conducted the inspection on 13.4.2018 (one day before the State Holiday), whereas, there is a statutory rules and",,,,,
Regulation framed by the MCI vide Notification dated 18th March, 2016, namely, “Establishment of Medical College Regulations, (Amendment),",,,,,
2016†wherein, it has been clearly stated that at point No.6 in clause 8(3)(1)(d) as;",,,,,
“However, the office of the council shall ensure that such inspections are not carried out at least 2 days before and 2 days after important religious",,,,,
and festival holidays declared by the Central/State Government.â€,,,,,
3. It is also stated, while passing the impugned order dated 31.5.2018, the respondent No.1 agrees and has clearly stated that the findings of the",,,,,
hearing committee and the executive committee on the report submitted by the assessors for the assessment/inspection conducted on 13.4.2018 is,,,,,
questionable. The relevant part of the order reads as under:-,,,,,
“The committee agrees with the contention of the college that the requirements in some parameters were wrongly referred by the assessors and,,,,,
thus the findings become questionable. However, the college did not respond to the randomly identified cases of non-genuine patients in the",,,,,
assessment report.â€,,,,,
4. According to the petitioner, the hearing committee has accepted that some parameters are wrongly referred by the assessors and thus the findings",,,,,
become questionable and accordingly the assessment dated 13.4.2018 and the assessors report thereupon itself has been become ex-facie perverse,,,,,
and vitiated, hence no decision can be take either by the Medical Council of India (M.C.I.) executives or by the Hearing committee on this report",,,,,
which is questionable and ex-facie perversed.,,,,,
5. The facts essential for adjudication of the controversy are that the petitioner â€" medical college is a private, unaided medical college, established in",,,,,
the year 2004. The college has been inspected every year by the respondent No.2 â€" MCI and upon its recommendations, permissions have been",,,,,
issued by the respondent No.1 on yearly basis from the year 2004 to 2009 and college was issued a letter of recognition. Thereafter, the college",,,,,
applied for increase in the admission capacity from 100 to 150 seats. It has been permitted by Government of India for increase in the admission,,,,,
capacity of MBBS seats from 100 to 150 seats in the year 2010 through order dated 8.6.2011 (Annexure P/2), after verifying the compliance of the",,,,,
necessary requirements for increase in the number of seats from 100 to 150.,,,,,
6. The M.C.I. respondent No.2 â€" assessors conducted an assessment on 14th March, 2016 i.e. at the time of final MBBS examination and on 27-",,,,,
28th April, 2016, a combined inspection for compliance verification for continuation of recognition of 100 seats and for recognition of the increased 50",,,,,
seats of MBBS was carried out.,,,,,
7. On 15.5.2016, the petitioner â€" medical college received the letter through which the deficiencies pointed out by the Medical Council of India's",,,,,
assessors were communicated. The petitioner-medical college being aggrieved whereof, preferred the writ petition No.9357 of 2016. The Division",,,,,
Bench vide order dated 2.6.2016 disposed of the writ petition by giving the following directions in paras 8 and 9 which reads as under:-,,,,,
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, thispetition stands disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall submit a detailed representation before",,,,,
the Oversight Committee constituted by Hon’ble the Supreme Court within a period of three working days from the date of receipt of certified,,,,,
copy of this order indicating its grievances against the report of the assessors as well as the decision of Medical Council of India communicated vide,,,,,
orders Annexures P/1 and P/2 which may be decided by the Oversight Committee, and till such decision is taken by the Oversight Committee, the",,,,,
recommendations made by the respondent no.2/Medical Council of India shall not be acted upon by respondent no.1.,,,,,
9. With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of in limine looking to the fact that issue of recognition is based on time bound schedule.",,,,,
8. In pursuant to the order dated 2.6.2016, thepetitioner submitted a detailed representation before the Oversight Committee, whereby, the Oversight",,,,,
Committee vide its letter dated 13.8.2016 approved the petitioner-medical college for recognition/approval for award of MBBS Degree against,,,,,
increased intake from 100 to 150 students with certain condition in which one of the conditions was that Oversight Committee may direct inspection to,,,,,
verify the compliance submitted by the college and considered by the Oversight Committee, any time after 30th of September, 2016.",,,,,
9. On 24.3.2017 a surprise inspection was carried out by the assessors appointed by the M.C.I. for compliance verification in pursuant to the condition,,,,,
stipulated by the Oversight Committee. On 29.3.2017, the assessment report was forwarded by the institute to the Oversight Committee. On",,,,,
14.4.2017, the institute had sent a letter for information and kind cooperation in respect of renovation of infrastructure, wards and Operation Theaters.",,,,,
On 25.4.2017 the respondent No.2 -M.C.I. again carried out a second time surprise assessment without any decision on previous assessment report,,,,,
dated 24.3.2017. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 on 30th April , 2017 took the decision against the petitioner â€" medical college and decided not to",,,,,
recognize/approve the petitioner-medical college for the award of MBBS degree granted by DAVV, Indore against the increase intake i.e. from 100",,,,,
to 150 seats under Section 11(2) of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The petitioner-medical college challenged the said order by filing W.P.",,,,,
No.3506/2017 which was dismissed on 22.6.2017. Against the aforesaid dismissal, the petitioner has filed the SLP registered with Diary No.21950 of",,,,,
2017 challenging the order dated 22.6.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.3506 of 2017.,,,,,
10. On 24.7.2017, the respondent No.1 passed the order and directed the petitioner-medical college not to admit students against increased intake of",,,,,
150 seats. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Hon'ble Supreme Court registered as W.P. (C),,,,,
No.643 of 2017, challenging the order dated 24.7.2017 passed by the respondent No.1. On 3.8.2017 an I.A. No.68721 of 2017 was also filed in the",,,,,
said matter for issuance of direction stating that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment dated 1.8.2017 passed by the Apex,,,,,
Court in W. P. (C) No.502 of 2017 (I. Q. City Foundation and another Versus Union of India & others). On 8.8.2017, W.P. No.643 of 2017 of the",,,,,
petitioner was disposed of by the Apex Court in terms of the judgment dated 1.8.2017 passed in W.P. No.502 of 2017. Order dated 8.8.2017 reads as,,,,,
under:-,,,,,
“Learned Counsel appearing for both parties agree that the petitioner in this case is covered by the judgment dated 01.08.2017 passed by this Court,,,,,
in Writ Petition (Civil) No.502 of 2017.,,,,,
In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. However, the 1st respondent shall take a declaration as",,,,,
directed in Writ Petition (C ) No.502 of 2017 within two weeks from today.â€,,,,,
11. In pursuance to the order dated 8.8.2017 passed by the Apex Court, the respondent No.1 after granting hearing to the petitioner on 25.8.2017",,,,,
rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 31.8.2017. Against the aforesaid rejection order dated 31.8.2017, the petitioner filed a writ",,,,,
petition on 1.9.2017 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court registered as W.P. (C) No.810 of 2017. On 18.9.2017, the said writ petition (C) No.810 of",,,,,
2017 was disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2-MCI to consider the application of the petitioner for enhancement of seats for the,,,,,
academic year 2018-19 and further direction was issued to conduct inspection. For enhancement of seats for the academic year 2017-2018 shall be,,,,,
considered for the academic year 2018-2019 and further directed to carry out the inspection within three months and if it notices any deficiency, it",,,,,
shall bring it to the notice of the petitioner-medical college and grant it sometime to rectify the same. The relevant portion of the order passed by,,,,,
Hon'ble Supreme Court is reads as under:-,,,,,
“Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that the application of the petitioners for enhancement of seats for the academic",,,,,
year 2017-2018 shall be considered for the academic year 2018-2019. The Bank Guarantee submitted by the petitioner shall not be encashed by the,,,,,
Medical Council of India. The petitioner shall keep the Bank Guarantee alive. If it has been encashed in the meantime, the amount shall be refunded to",,,,,
the petitioner-institution, who shall file a fresh Bank Guarantee with the Medical Council of India within two weeks from the date of receipt of the",,,,,
amount. The students who have already been admitted in the institution for the academic year 2016-2017 shall be permitted to complete their course.,,,,,
The Medical Council of India shall carry out the inspection within three months and if it notices any deficiency, it shall bring it to the notice of the",,,,,
petitioner-institution and grant it sometime to rectify the same. After the recommendation is sent by Medical Council of India, the Central Government",,,,,
shall take a decision after taking assistance of the Oversight Committee constituted by the order dated 18th July, 2017 passed by the Constitution",,,,,
Bench in Amma Chandravati Educational and Charitable Trust and Others vs. Union of India and Anotherin W.P.(C) No.408 of 2017. Needless to,,,,,
say the petitioner institution shall be afforded adequate opportunity of hearing so that it can put forth its case before any adverse decision is taken.,,,,,
Needless to emphasise, the orders passed by the Central government shall be a reasoned one as decided by this Court in IQ City Foundation and",,,,,
Another vs. Union of India and Others(2017) 8 SCALE 369.,,,,,
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. These shall be no order as to costs.",,,,,
12. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.2, without following the directions in the above order dated 18.9.2017, conducted the assessment on",,,,,
18.12.2017 and 19.12.2017, i.e. the last day of the time limit prescribed by the Apex Court, to assess the physical and the other Training facilities",,,,,
available for recognition/approval of the petitioner-medical college under Section 11(2) of IMC Act, 1956 for the award of MBBS Degree against the",,,,,
increased intake i.e. from 100 to 150 seats and submitted the assessment report.,,,,,
13. The decision of the Executive Committee was also communicated to the respondent No.1 vide letter dated 25.1.2018 (Annexure P/13). Wherein,",,,,,
the college was directed to submit detailed point wise compliance within one month. Upon which, the Dean of the petitioner-medical college submitted",,,,,
the detailed point wise compliance on 26.2.2018 (Annexure P/14). Thereafter respondent No.2 â€" MCI were required to conduct assessment,,,,,
verification for 150 seat whereas, contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court, the respondent No.2 conducted the inspection for 100 seats.",,,,,
14. The Dean of the petitioner-medical college also submitted its observation, Videography, Photographs and other relevant material/document and",,,,,
letter/representation dated 20.12.2017. On 4.1.2018, the said assessment report was considered by the Executive Committee in its meeting held on",,,,,
4.1.2018, wherein, again certain deficiencies was pointed out by the Committee, and it was decided as under:-",,,,,
“The Committee further decided to continue the application of clause 8(3)(1)(c) Establishment of Medical College Regulation (Amendment) 2010,,,,,
(Part II) dated 16th April, 2010 and amended on 18.3.2016.â€",,,,,
15. The above decision of the Executive Committee dated 4.1.2018 was also communicated to the respondent No.1 vide letter dated 25.1.2018 and a,,,,,
copy was marked to the petitioner-medical college. Wherein, the college was directed to submit detailed point wise compliance within one month. On",,,,,
26.2.2018 the Dean of the petitioner-medical college submitted the detailed point wise compliance. On 13.4.2018, the assessors came in the institute at",,,,,
9.38 A.M. and sent a mail to the institute at 9.40 A.M. for the “Compliance Verification Assessment of for the award of M.B.B.S. Degree against,,,,,
the increased intake i.e. from 100 to 150 seats†and the MCI assessors started assessment. Mean while, two another e-mails were received by the",,,,,
institute, forwarded by the assessor Dr. B.C. Dutta at 10.52 and 10.53 A.M. respectively, which were received by him from MCI at 10.46 A.M. in",,,,,
which the subject of assessment was “Compliance Verification Assessment of the Physical and the other teaching facilities available for 100,,,,,
MBBS seats (Show Cause) at Sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Sciences, Indore, Madhya Pradesh under Devi Ahilya Vishwavidhyalaya, Indore.â€",,,,,
The petitioner-medical college raised objections with respect to the way the assessors carried out the assessment and the erroneous and false,,,,,
calculations done by the assessors, which was not accepted by the petitioner-medical college. Dr. Mrs. S. Bose, who is working as Director Medical",,,,,
Education of Government of Madhya Pradesh, also raised the objection and complaint vide her complaint/objection dated 13.4.2018, regarding very",,,,,
rude and harsh behavior of one of the assessors Dr. Vimala Thomas (Co- ordinator), and also raised the objection and complaint regarding the",,,,,
unethical conduct and behavior of the assessors while conducting the assessment who has visited the institute. On 24.4.2018, the petitionercollege also",,,,,
submitted the factual position and clarification to the deficiencies pointed out by the assessors along with the letter dated 20.4.2018.,,,,,
16. On 4.5.2018, the respondent No.2â€"MCI without considering the objection and letters submitted by the Dean of the petitioner-college, passed an",,,,,
order. The Central Government vide letter dated 21.5.2018 requested the MCI to sent recommendation for the year 2018-19 in respect of the,,,,,
petitioner-college for 100 to 150 seats. In response to the letter dated 21.5.2018 issued by respondent No.1, MCI vide its letter dated 28.5.2018",,,,,
intimated that since the petitioner-college is not fulfilling the requirements of 100 seats, it would not be advisable to allow the college for 100 to 150",,,,,
seats. Immediately after receiving the letter dated 28.5.2018 from the MCI, respondent No.1 through Telephone as well as through e-mail dated",,,,,
28.5.2018 at 6.22 P.M. informed the petitioner that the petitioner is required to remain present for the hearing before Government of India on,,,,,
29.5.2018 at 10.00 A.M. On 29.5.2018, the petitioner appeared before the respondent No.1 and also submitted a detailed reply but all remained in vain",,,,,
and on 31.5.2018, the respondent No.1 passed the impugned order. As per impugned order, the following deficiencies were found:-",,,,,
1. Shortage of Residents is 29.88% as detailed in the report.,,,,,
2. A lot of Pgs/Residents have not been paid stipend.,,,,,
3. Most of the faculty did not receive salary for last 2 months.,,,,,
4. On enquiry, it was found that salary paid does not match with appointment order.",,,,,
5. There is proportional discrepancy of stipend to Residents â€" i.e. 3rd year Residents are paid less stipend then I/II year Residents. On enquiry, it",,,,,
was told that III year Residents had taken cash advances; however on repeated asking no evidence of the same like cash book were provided to,,,,,
assessors.,,,,,
6. Orders of Tutors showed salary payable @ Rs.25,000 p.m.; however bank statement showed Rs.15,000 or less. No explanation is given for this",,,,,
dichotomy.,,,,,
7. OPD attendance upto 2 p.m. on day of assessment was 1,100 against requirement of 1,200.",,,,,
8. Bed occupancy at 10 a.m.on day of assessment was 60.13% as detailed in the report. 9. 102 patients in various wards were not counted due to,,,,,
following reasons:,,,,,
(a) Patients with CA Cervix, CA Breast, CA Esophagus, CA Buccal Muccal Mucosa, CA Colon, CA Mandible, Meningioma without seizures, CA",,,,,
Rectum were admitted in Medicine Wards. The institute has Post graduate courses in DM Oncology, M.Ch. Oncosurgery, M.Ch. Neurosurgery but",,,,,
no wards in the said departments. Hence, the patients are kept in Medicine and Surgery Wards. In Medicine ward patients with Liver abscess had no",,,,,
USG. In TB Chest Ward on Examining patients by assesor 7 patients had no Chest X Rays, and no findings on clinical Evaluation. PFT of patient had",,,,,
no correlation with Symptoms and Examination Findings. In Surgical ward Patients with CA endometrium, CA Ovary were kept for Chemotherapy. In",,,,,
Paediatricward Day care patients were shown as indoor. In ENT ward one patients case had mention of Tonsillectomy done by Surgeon. However,",,,,,
according to the patient no surgery was done on him.,,,,,
(b) Some examples of mismatch are as under:,,,,,
(I) Patient Chandan MRD No.534239 admitted in respiratory ward with Diagnosis of Bronchial Asthma. On examination she had no findings and on,,,,,
asking history she complained of Knee pain.,,,,,
(ii) Patient Lalitaben with MRD No.533536 with Diagnosis of RL LL Pneumonia was in ward. Her X-ray did not show any consolidation also on,,,,,
examination also she had no clinical findings.,,,,,
(iii) In surgical ward patients with CA endometrium, CA Ovary were kept for Chemotherapy. In Paediatric ward Day care patients were shown as",,,,,
indoor. In ENT ward one patients case had mention of Tonsillectomy done by Surgeon. However, according to the patient no surgery was done on",,,,,
him.,,,,,
(iv) On visiting ward no.304, General Surgery,patient Sachin Malaviya case paper showed that he was operated for sebaceous cyst on 12th December",,,,,
by Dr. Rohan Caphekar (SR Surgery). Dr. Caphekar denied operating on this patient and the patient neither had cyst nor Scar of surgery. OT records,,,,,
also showed that the Surgery done by Dr. Vipul and Dr. Sunil and Anaesthesia was given by Dr. Agarwal and Dr. Urvashi. The OT list signed by Dr.,,,,,
Sadhana (HOD Anaesthesia) showed the same patient. There was no histopathology sample of the same patient. This shows collusion by different,,,,,
departments to falsify surgeries and patients.,,,,,
(v) In ENT one patient had on round said that he had throat pain, but case papers showed rt tonsillectomy by Dr. Munjal. On enquiry the patient",,,,,
denied any surgery. On asking Dr. Munjal about the same he could not defed and abstained for the remaining period of assessment.,,,,,
10. In Siddhant Hostel, 10 rooms were occupied by students of Engineering college.",,,,,
11. None of Senior Residents in Radiodiagnosis stay in the campus.,,,,,
12. In Harshringar building where several Senior Residents were allotted rooms, none of the rooms except that of Dr.Pushpawardhan Mandlecha had",,,,,
any items of daily use implying that allotted Senior Residents were not staying there. Room #410 was allotted to Shri Shailesh Patel, Radio Technician",,,,,
& Room #510 was allotted to P.T. Johnson, Nursing staff.",,,,,
13. One Dr. Ritesh Sharma was found in roomallotted to Dr. Pooja & Dr. Garima; on further enquiry he accepted that he did not belong to this,,,,,
Institute.,,,,,
14. RHTC: Cold Chain Equipment are inadequate.,,,,,
15. Common rooms for Boys & Girls do not have attached toilets.,,,,,
17. Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No.2 were required to conduct assessment",,,,,
verification for 150 seats whereas, contrary to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 18.9.2017, the respondent No.2 conducted the",,,,,
inspection on 100 seats. The inspection for 100 seats was done in an arbitrary manner and in violation of the statutory Regulation framed by the MCI,,,,,
vide Gazette Notification dated 18th March, 2016, namely, “Establishment of Medical College Regulations, (Amendment), 2016†(Annexure P/26)",,,,,
wherein, it has been clearly stated at point No.6 in Clause 8(3)(1)(d) that the office of the council shall ensure that such inspections are not carried out",,,,,
at least 2 days before and 2 days after important religious and festival holidays declared by the Central/State Government. As per the Gazette of India,,,,,
(Annexure P/17) dated 2.4.2018 on 14th April, 2014 the Central Government and the State Government has also declared Gazetted Holiday (Dr.",,,,,
Ambedkar Jayanti) and Baisakhi festival which is also a religious festival and State Holiday, which clearly shows the mala-fides and perversity and",,,,,
predetermination view of respondent No.2.,,,,,
18. His next contention is that as per Apex Court order dated 18.9.2017, the direction was to do the inspection for enhancement of seats for the",,,,,
academic year 2018-19. No show cause notice was issued for continuation of recognition of 100 MBBS seats. The assessors have done erroneous,,,,,
calculations of the Teaching beds and Residents while carrying out assessment at the petitioner-medical college, which are as under:-",,,,,
“ The assessors have not done the assessment as per the statute notified in gazette by Govt. of India and MCI/OC committee guidelines.,,,,,
The bed strength which was computed by assessor is = 540,,,,,
The requirement of resident doctors for 100 seats calculated by assessors =54,,,,,
Department,EXISTING WARD & TEACHING BEDS AVAILABLE IN BROAD SPECIALITY,,,,
Gen. Medicine,Ward No.,Beds Male,Beds Female,Total Beds,
,202,-,19,19,
,203,-,12,12,
,204,22,-,22,
,205,-,12,19,
,208,27,-,27,
,209,27,-,27,
,210,,24,24,
Respiratory
Medicine",201,15,-,15,
,206,-,15,15,
Pediatrics,102,12,-,12,
Department,EXISTING WARD & TEACHING BEDS AVAILABLE IN BROAD SPECIALITY,,,,
,Ward No.,Beds Male,Beds Female,Total Beds,
,103,20,-,20,
,106,15,-,15,
,107,-,22,22,
,108,-,8,8,
,109,-,13,13,
Psychiatry,403,15,-,15,
,405,-,15,15,
Dermatology,505-A,18,-,18,
,505-B,-,12,12,
Gen. Surgery,301,22,-,22,
,302,18,-,18,
,303,-,20,20,
,304,-,16,16,
,305,22,,22,
,501,-,21,21,
,,,,,
,502,18,-,18,
,504,-,13,13,
Orthopedics,306,8,-,8,
,307,27,-,27,
,308,27,-,27,
,309,-,28,28,
Ophthalmology,111,-,17,17,
,409,13,-,13,
ENT,408,-,12,12,
,406,18,-,18,
OB & GYN,G11,-,24,24,
,G12,-,26,26,
,112,-,10,10,
,113,-,30,30,
Total,,,,720,
Dermatology,505-A,18,23,,
,505-B,12,14,,
Gen. Surgery,301,22,16,,
,302,18,13,,
,303,20,16,,
,304,16,11,,
,305,22,19,,
,502,18,18,,
,504,13,12,,
Orthopedics,306,8,3,,
,308,27,14,,
,309,28,27,,
Ophthalmology,111,17,12,,
ENT,408,12,9,,
,406,18,12,,
OB & GYN,G11,24,21,,
,G12,26,12,,
,112,10,9,,
TOTAL,,582,454,,
Deficiencies
reported
from
GOI/MCI","Compliance by
college sent to
GOI/MCI",,"Remarks of the
Assessors after
assessment","Clarification/R
ectification by
the institute",
Shortage of
Resident is
29.88% as
detailed in
the report","It is humbly &
respectfully
submitted that, there
is no deficiency of
JR and Sr. Actually
29 were not counted
by assessors because
they observed that
they are not living in
the campus while
they residing in the
campus. There are
three types of
facilities of
accommodation of
senior residents in
the campus:
• those
married or
staying with
family,
working as
JR/Sr from
more than 5-
10 years are
allotted flats.
•
Husband and
Wife/Brother
& sister
working as
resident
(JR/SR) opt
for sharing
double
occupancy
rooms.
• Those
residents
not married,
either opt for
single
occupancy
or sharing
occupancy
as per the
requirement.
The Assessors
visited many places
but not residence of
all Srs hence put
their remark saying
that not staying in
campus.
If all the residents
staying int he campus
are calculated the
deficiency of
residents SR/JR is
less than 5%.",,"Resident deficiency
was observed to be 1
85% (1 out of 54) On
random verification of
hostel 9 senior
residents (who were
accepted during
physical verification)
were not staying in
hostel.(Evidence
enclosed).
Hence total
deficiency of
Residents is now
18.15%","The assessor
has calculated
deficiency
wrongly.
The assessors
have not
calculated the
Residents as
per MSR &
the
latest
notification
dated
23.041.2018
for 100 MBBS
seats.
Total SR
required for
100 MBBS
seats including
the institute
running PG
course=69
(62+7).
Total SR not
accepted by
the
Assessors=9
Total
Deficiency as
per Assessors
=18.51%
(10/54)
The detailed
chart, as per
MSR/SAF
Annexure Part
A-III is
attached at
Annexure-1.
One SR who
was not
registered for
the additional
qualification &
assessors
have given 7
days for the
same, which is
now registered
and sent to the
MCI.
The assessors
have not
accepted 9 Sr
i.e. 37-9= 28
and the JR
required for
100 seats=41
28+41=69
Hence, the
deficiency of
SR/JR is NIL.",
Deficiencies
reported from
GOI/MCI",,"Compliance by
college sent to
GOI/MCI","Remarks of the
Assessors after
assessment","Clarification/R
ectification by
the institute",
There is
proportional
discrepancy
of stipend to
Residents -i.e.
3rd year
Residents are
paid less
stipend than
I/II year
Residents. On
enquiry, it was
told that III
year
Residents had
taken cash
advance;
however on
repeated
asking no
evidence of
the same like
cash book
were provided
to the
assessors.","It is humbly &
respectfully
submitted that,
Admission & Fee
Regulatory
Committee
(ARFC) of Govt.
of M.P. Fixes the
fee of all the
private Medical
institution of the
State of M.P. The
ARFC fixes the fee
as per the Financial
Audited Sheets of
the individual
institution. The
stipend fixed by the
State Govt. of M.P.
For the residents is
applicable for the
next three years as
per the then
existing fee/stipend
structure. Hence,
there is no
discrepancy of
stipend. Hence,
there is no
deficiency.","On Random
verification, in the
department of
Medicine it was
observed that
cheques ranging from
Rs.3,10,834 to Rs.
4,07,395 was given to
the Junior residents
on the day of
assessment
i.e.13/4/2018 at 4.30
pm to clear the
backlog (Evidence
enclosed)","Admission &
Fee
Regulatory
Committee
(AFRC) of
Govt. of M.P.
Fixes the fee
of
all the private
Medical
institution of
the State of
M.P. The
ARFC fixes
the fee as per
the Financial
Audited
Sheets
of the
individual
institution.
The stipend
fixed by the
State Govt. of
M.P. For the
residents is
applicable for
the next three
years as per
the then
existing fee/
stipend
structure.
Hence, there
is no
discrepancy of
stipend.
Hence, there
is no
deficiency.",,
OPD
attendance
upto 2 pm on
day of
assessment
was 1,100
against
requirement
of 1,200.","It is humbly
respectfully
submitted that, the
OPD timings due to
cold weather was
changed from 10
am to 4 pm, which
included Lunch
time of 1 hour I.e.
From 1 to 2 pm.
The total No. Of
patient registered
till 2pm from the
Registration
counter is 1280,
including casualty
& at 4 pm the
OPD was 1491.
Hence, there is no
deficiency.","OPD Attendance as
given by Institute was
1316 at 2 pm. (this
also includes OPD of
Superficiality
departments)
On random
verification with he
OPD report
generated by the IT
department and the
registers in the OPD
(eg Psychiatry and
TBCD), there was
mismatch. (Evidence
enclosed).
In Pediatric OPD
register, the
numbering showed a
jump inflating the
number of cases(
from 109 to 200) and
again from 219 to
300-Evidence
enclosed. In
Pediatric OPD,
students from
neighboring schools
(Ring Nodia school)
were bought with no
complaints to inflate
the OPD figures.","The OPD
attendance of
the hospital is
genuine, which
can be verified
from the last
clinical
material,
updated on the
college
website
& the
information of
the same is
always given
to
MCI/OC/GOI
on monthly
basis as per
the directives
of Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
Mandated
Oversight
Committee.
Even if the
OPD
attendance of
superspeciality
is reduced, the
OPD
attendance of
broad
speciality at
2pm was
1060, which is
about the
normal range.",,
,,,,,"As the
institute is
authorized by
the Jila
Panchayat for
the Regular
Health
checkup of the
students from
nearby schools,
was going of
the school is
screened for
the health
checkup.
Deficiencies
reported from
GOI/MCI","Compliance by college
sent to GOI/MCI",,,"Remarks of the
Assessors after
assessment","Clarification/
Rectification
by the institute
Bed
Occupancy at
10 am on day
of assessment
was 60.13%
as detailed in
the report.","It is humbly &
respectfully submitted
that, the total bed
occupied on the day of
assessment at 10Am was
647, this includes Labour
Room 7 patients and the
patients shifted to OT and
investigations. 102
patients were not counted
by the assessors, as they
were superficiality
patients and these
patients were not counted
(Total No.647102=545)",,,"Bed Occupancy
grossly observed
to be 78% as
signed by
nursing staff
(computed for
540 beds, since
for 100 students
with PG in all
specialties). But
on verification,
25% of the
patients do not
merit admission
and seem non-
genuine.
Evidence of
some of the
patients case
sheets and
photographs ae
attached.
Hence Actual
bed occupancy
is 53%.
Few examples
on random
verification:
1. Vishnu, 45
years, with
IPD no. 548993,
in Gynec Ward
was shown to
be operated for
TAH
(Transabdominal
Hysterectomy)
on 11.04.2018.
Operation notes
are also written
in case sheet.
On examination
by the assessor,
no evidence of
surgery was
performed and
the patient too
admitted that no
surgery
was performed,
Photographic,
Videographic
and case sheet
(Xeorx)
evidence
attached. This
was confirmed
by the Junior
resident-
Sumithra (signed
evidence
attached)
2. Pawan
Nagar, aged 20
years IPD
No.54866
admitted for
DNS (Deviated
nasal septum)","The Hospital
has total 720
beds with 39
wards,
whereas the
assessors have
only visited 32
Ward and
erroneously
computed on
540 beds only.
The
requirement of
beds for
100 MBBS
seats as per
MSR & the
notification
dated
23.01.2018 is
470 and if the
PG beds are
counted it
comes to
470+100 =
570. We do
not know, how
the assessors
reached to
figure of 540
beds.
Now if, 78%
582 beds=454
Patients
present in 7
wards on 138
beds=120
(which the
assessor not
visited and no
counted).
If the assessor
not
,"Total No. Of
patients",647,,,
,"Total no of
patients not
accepted by
the assessors
(Superspecia
lity & others
Total no of
patients not
accepted by
the assessors
(Superspecia
lity & others",102,,,
,"Patients
shifted for
OT as
verified by
the assessor",56,,,
,"Patients
shifted for",49,,,
,,,"on 07.04.2018
and even after a
week stay, no
Xray/CT to
confirm the",,
,"(647-102=545 patients)
433 as mentioned in
the report
56+49+7=545
Bed Occupancy at
10AM=720/545=75.69
% (Copy enclosed)",,,,
,,,"diagncsis.
(Evidence
enclosed).
3.Machindar, 62
years IP
No.549121,
admitted on
09.04.2018 with
shoulder paid
and old
deformity of
hand. No
investigations to
confirm the
diagnosis were
done and the
patient is being
seen only by
physiotherapist.
(evidence
enclosed).
It was noticed
that more than
30% of the
cases in
Orthopedic
ward were
admitted for
physiotherapy
only.",,
Deficiencies
reported from
GOI/MCI","Compliance by
college sent to
GOI/MCI","Remarks of the Assessors
after assessment",,,"Clarificati
on/Rectifi
cation by
the institute
Sr.
No.",Name,Designation,Department,"Remarks/Reasons
for not
considering",
1,"Dr. Kapil
Telang","Senior
Resident",Medicine,Accepted,
2,"Dr. Mukesh
Bansal","Senior
Resident",Medicine,Accepted,
3,"Dr. Deepak
Parmar","Senior
Resident",Medicine,Accepted,
4,"Dr. Yusuf
Ali
Rangwala","Senior
Resident",Medicine,"Not Accepted
(Not residing in
Campus)",
5,"Dr. Monica
Razdhan","Senior
Resident",Medicine,Accepted,
6,"Dr. Prakhar
Kabra","Senior
Resident",Medicine,"Not Accepted
(Not residing in
Campus)",
7,"Dr. Prakash
Joshi","Senior
Resident","Respiratory
Medicine",Accepted,
8,"Dr. Ishita
Kapoor","Senior
Resident",Skin & VD,"Not accept
(Addl.
Qualification
Registration
certificate not
provided given 1
week time but
now it has been
submitted to MCI.",
9,"Dr. Nishant
Ohri","Senior
Resident",Psychiatry,Accepted,
10,"Dr. Preeti
Gupta (Garg)","Senior
Resident",Paediatrics,"Not Accepted
(Not residing in
Campus)",
11,"Dr. Harsha
Kumawat","Senior
Resident",Paediatrics,Accepted,
12,"Dr. Dilip
Kumar","Senior
Resident",Paediatrics,Accepted,
,Gupta,,,,
13,"Dr. Nandini
Dubey Dixit","Senior
Resident",Paediatrics,"Not Accepted
(Maternity
Leave)",
14,"Dr. Wellie
Vinay Biswas","Senior
Resident",Surgery,Accepted,
15,"Dr. Harish
Soni","Senior
Resident",Surgery,Accepted,
16,"Dr. Tahira
Siddhiqi","Senior
Resident",Surgery,"Not Accepted
(Not residing in
Campus)",
17,"Dr. Rohan
Chapekar","Senior
Resident",Surgery,Accepted,
18,"Dr. Rajat
Lohia","Senior
Resident",Surgery,Accepted,
19,"Dr. Mohan
Kumar
Gododia","Senior
Resident",Surgery,Accepted,
20,"Dr. Manish
Maheshwari","Senior
Resident",Orthopedics,Accepted,
21,"Dr. Neeraj
Jain","Senior
Resident",Orthopedics,Accepted,
22,"Dr.
Pushpvardhan
Mandlecha","Senior
Resident",Orthopedics,Accepted,
23,"Dr. Abhijeet
Jayaswal","Senior
Resident",Orthopedics,Accepted,
24,"Dr. Praveen
Surana","Senior
Resident",E. N.T.,"Not Accepted
(Not residing in
Campus)",
25,"Dr. Sonam
Verma","Senior
Resident",Ophthalmology,Accepted,
26,"Dr. Neha
Garg
Agrawal","Senior
Resident",Obst & Gyane,"Not Accepted
(Maternity
Leave)",
27,"Dr. Manjulata
Tomar","Senior
Resident",Obst & Gyane,Accepted,
28,"Dr. Shweta
Kochhar","Senior
Resident",Obst & Gyane,Accepted,
29,"Dr. Amit
Tiwari","Senior
Resident","Radio
Diagnosis",Accepted,
30,"Dr. Avijit S.
Khanuja","Senior
Resident","Radio
Diagnosis",Accepted,
31,"Dr. Shashi
Suman","Senior
Resident","Radio
Diagnosis","Not Accepted
(Not residing in
Campus)",
32,"Dr. Neeti
Mittal
(Kashyap)","Senior
Resident","Radio
Diagnosis","Not Accepted
(Not residing in
Campus)",
33,"Dr. Naman
Kumar Gaur","Senior
Resident","Radio
Diagnosis",Accepted,
34,"Dr. Parchi
Laad","Senior
Resident",Anaesthesia,Accepted,
35,"Dr. Inder
Godaria","Senior
Resident",Anaesthesia,Accepted,
36,"Dr. Rama
Chouhan","Senior
Resident",Anaesthesia,Accepted,
37,"Dr. G. S.
Khanuja","Senior
Resident",Anaesthesia,Accepted,
4.5.2018 whereafter the same was communicated to the Central Government of India. The respondent No.1 vide letter dated 21.5.2018 (Annexure R-,,,,,
2/25) had requested the MCI to forward its recommendations for grant of permission to admit fresh batch of MBBS student against increased intake,,,,,
of 150-100 MBBS students for the academic session 2018-19. Relevant part of the letter reads as under:-,,,,,
“To,,,,,
The Secretary,,,,,
Medical Council of India,",,,,,
Pocket â€" 14, Sector-8, Phase-1, Dwarka, New Delhi-77.",,,,,
Subject: Recognition/approval of Sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Sciences, Indore for the award of MBBS degree (100-150 seats) u/s 11(2) of",,,,,
IMC Act, 1956- Order dated 18.9.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in WPC No.810/2017.",,,,,
I am directed to refer to MCI's letter No.MCI- 37(1)(Recg-17)/2015-Med./106031 dated 04.05.2018 and to say that as per the direction of the,,,,,
Supreme Court dated 18.9.2017 passed in WPC No.810/2017, MCI has to send their recommendation to the Ministry for the year 201819 with respect",,,,,
of to admission of MBBS students (100-150) at Sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Sciences, Indore for taking a decision after taking assistance of",,,,,
Oversight Committee and after granting hearing to the institute. However, there is no such recommendation for the year 2018-19 in the MCI's letter",,,,,
dated 04.05.2018.,,,,,
2. MCI is, therefore, requested to send recommendation for the year 2018-19 in respect of Sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Sciences, Indore (100-",,,,,
150 seats) keeping in the view order dated 18.9.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in WPC No.810/2017.,,,,,
Yours faithfully,",,,,,
(D V K Rao),,,,,
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India,,,,,
Tel: 01123062959. â€,,,,,
32. The respondent No.1, after receipt of response from the respondent No.2 on 28.5.2018 directed the petitioner through Telephone as well as",,,,,
through e-mail on 28.5.2018 to remain present for the hearing before Government of India on 29.5.2018 at 10.00 A.M. The petitioner appeared before,,,,,
the respondent No.1 and also submitted detailed submissions on 29.5.2018 pointing out the details of the compliance made by him and there was no,,,,,
violation of any of the provisions of Regulations of Establishment of Medical College Regulation, 1999. As per amendment made in the year 2016, but",,,,,
without any further verification either from the MCI or by giving direction to the MCI to verify the same on the very next day passed the order.,,,,,
33. The stand of respondent No.2 that Dr. Ambedkar Jayanti and Baishakhi festival are neither an important religious or festive holidays as declared,,,,,
either by the Central Government or by the State Government. Thus, the petitioner-college cannot claim any shelter under proviso to Regulation 8(3)",,,,,
(1) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999.",,,,,
34. Clause 8(3)(1) a, b, c and d of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 (Amended) upto, 2010 to 2016 reads as under:-",,,,,
“The following shall be added:,,,,,
“(3)(1). The permission to establish a medical college and admit students may be granted initially for a period of one year and may be renewed on,,,,,
yearly basis subject to verification of the achievements of annual targets. It shall be the responsibility of the person to apply to the Medical Council of,,,,,
India for purpose of renewal six months prior to the expiry of the initial permission. This process of renewal of permission will continue till such time,,,,,
the establishment of the medical college and expansion of the hospital facilities are completed and a formal recognition of the medical college is,,,,,
granted. Further admissions shall not be made at any stage unless the requirements of the Council are fulfilled. The Central Government may at any,,,,,
stage convey the deficiencies to the applicant and provide him an opportunity and time to rectify the deficiencies.,,,,,
Note: In above clause, “six months†shall be substituted by “as per latest time scheduleâ€",,,,,
PROVIDED that in respect of,,,,,
(a) Colleges in the stage upto II renewal (i.e. Admission ofthird batch):,,,,,
If it is observed during any regular inspection of the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 30% and/or bed,,,,,
occupancy is < 60 %, such an institute will not be considered for renewal of permission in that Academic Year.",,,,,
(b) Colleges in the stage from III renewal (i.e.Admission of fourth batch) till recognition of the institute for award of M.B;B.S. degree:,,,,,
If it is observed during any regular inspection of the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 20% and/or bed,,,,,
occupancy is < 70 %, such an institute will not be considered for renewal of permission in that Academic Year.",,,,,
(c) Colleges which are already recognized for award ofM.B.B.S. Degree and/or running Postgraduate Courses:,,,,,
If it is observed during any regular inspection of the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 10% and/or bed,,,,,
occupancy is < 80 %, such an institute will not be considered for processing applications for postgraduate courses in that Academic Year and will be",,,,,
issued show cause notices as to why the recommendation for withdrawal of recognition of the courses run by that institute should not be made for,,,,,
Undergraduate and Postgraduate courses which are recognized u/s 11(2) of the IMC Act, 1956 along with direction of stoppage of admissions in",,,,,
permitted Postgraduate courses.,,,,,
(d) Colleges which are found to have employed teacherswith faked / forged documents:,,,,,
If it is observed that any institute is found to have employed a teacher with faked / forged documents and have submitted the Declaration Form of,,,,,
such a teacher, such an institute will not be considered for renewal of permission / recognition for award of M.B.B.S. Degree / processing the",,,,,
applications for postgraduate courses for two Academic Years â€" i.e. that Academic Year and the next Academic Year also.,,,,,
However, the office of the Council shall ensure that such inspections are not carried out at least 3 days before upto 3 days after important religious",,,,,
and festival holidays declared by the Central/State Govt.,,,,,
(2) The recognition so granted to an UndergraduateCourse for award of MBBS degree shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon which it shall",,,,,
have to be renewed.,,,,,
(3) The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall besame as applicable for the award of recognition.,,,,,
(4) Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition asrequired in subclause (a) supra shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions to the concerned,,,,,
Undergraduate Course of MBBS at the said institute.â€,,,,,
*As per the terms of Notification published on 16.04.2010 in the Gazette of India.,,,,,
In terms of Gazette Notification dated 18.03.2016 the following additions/modifications/ deletions/substitutions, shall be, as indicated therein:",,,,,
3.(1) In Clause 8(3)(1)(a) under the heading of “Colleges in the stage upto II renewal (i.e. Admission of third batch)†shall be substituted as:(a),,,,,
Colleges in the stage of Letter of Permission upto II renewal,,,,,
(i.e. Admission of third batch),,,,,
If it is observed during any inspection/assessment of the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 30% and/or bed,,,,,
occupancy is <50% (45% in North East, Hilly terrain, etc.), compliance of rectification of deficiencies from such an institute will not be considered for",,,,,
issue of Letter of Permission(LOP)/renewal of permission in that Academic Year. In Clause 8(3)(1)(b) under the heading of “Colleges in the stage,,,,,
from III renewal (i.e. Admission of fourth batch) till recognition of the institute for award of M.B.B.S. degree†shall be substituted as:-,,,,,
(b) Colleges in the stage of III & IV renewal (i.e. Admission of fourth & fifth batch),,,,,
If it is observed during any inspection of the Institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and / or Residents is more than 20% and / or bed,,,,,
occupancy is <65%, compliance of rectification of deficiencies from such an institute will not be considered for renewal of permission in that",,,,,
Academic Year.,,,,,
In Clause 8(3)(1)(c) under the heading of “Colleges which are already recognized for award of M.B.B.S. degree and / or running Postgraduate,,,,,
courses†shall be substituted as:-,,,,,
(c) Colleges which are already recognized for award of M.B.B.S. degree and / or running Postgraduate courses.,,,,,
If it is observed during any inspection / assessment of the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and / or Residents is more than 10% and / or,,,,,
bed occupancy is <70%, compliance of rectification of deficiency from such an institute will not be considered for issue of renewal of permission in",,,,,
that Academic Year and further such an institute will not be considered for processing applications for Postgraduate courses in that Academic Year,,,,,
and will be issued show cause notices as to why the recommendations for withdrawal of recognition of the courses run by that institute should not be,,,,,
made for undergraduate and postgraduate courses which are recognized u/s 11(2) of the IMC Act, 1956 along with direction of stoppage of",,,,,
admissions in permitted postgraduate courses.,,,,,
In Clause 8(3)(1)(d) under the heading “Colleges which are found to have employed teachers with fake/forged documents: the second paragraph,,,,,
shall be substituted as:-,,,,,
“However, the office of the Council shall ensure that such inspections are not carried out at least 2 days before and 2 days after important religious",,,,,
and festival holidays declared by the Central/State Govt.â€,,,,,
(4) The Council may obtain any other information from the proposed medical college as it deems fit and necessary.,,,,,
RECONSIDERATION,,,,,
Wherever the Council in its report has not recommended the issue of Letter of Intent to the person, it may upon being so required by the Central",,,,,
Government reconsider the application and take into account new or additional information as may be forwarded by the Central Government. The,,,,,
Council shall, thereafter, submit its report in the same manner as prescribed for the initial report.â€",,,,,
35. Learned Senior Counsel has also drawn our attention to the interim order dated 18.6.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P. (s) (Civil),,,,,
Nos.634/2018, The State of Bihar Versus Medical Council of India and another and submitted that similar order be passed in favour of the",,,,,
petitionermedical college.,,,,,
36. We have gone through the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The aforesaid order has been passed in the peculiar facts and,,,,,
circumstances of the case in respect of three Government medical colleges situated at Bihar and, therefore, the same would not be applicable in the",,,,,
case of the petitioner.,,,,,
37. In the case I. Q. City Foundation and another Versus Union of India & others decided on 1.8.2017 inW. P. (Civil) No.502 of 2017, the Apex",,,,,
Court has held thus:-,,,,,
“29. On a reading of Section 10-Aof the Act, Rules and the Regulations, as has been referred to in Manohar Lal Sharma (supra), and the view",,,,,
expressed in Royal Medical Trust (supra), it would be inapposite to restrict the power of the MCI by laying down as an absolute principle that once",,,,,
the Central Government sends back the matter to MCI for compliance verification and the Assessors visit the College they shall only verify the,,,,,
mentioned items and turn a Nelson’s eye even if they perceive certain other deficiencies. It would be playing possum. The direction of the Central,,,,,
Government for compliance verification report should not be construed as a limited remand as is understood within the framework of Code of Civil,,,,,
Procedure or any other law. The distinction between the principles of open remand and limited remand, we are disposed to think, is not attracted. Be it",,,,,
clearly stated, the said principle also does not flow from the authority in Royal Medical Trust (supra). In this context, the objectivity of the Hearing",,,,,
Committee and the role of the Central Government assume great significance. The real compliant institutions should not always be kept under the,,,,,
sword of Damocles. Stability can be brought by affirmative role played by the Central Government. And the stability and objectivity would be,,,,,
perceptible if reasons are ascribed while expressing a view and absence of reasons makes the decision sensitively susceptible.,,,,,
30. Having said this, we are not inclined to close the matter. Thepetitioners have been running the College since 2013-14. We have been apprised that",,,,,
students who have been continuing their education shall continue for 2017-18. As we find the order of the Central Government is not a reasoned one.,,,,,
It is obligatory on its part to ascribe reasons. For the said purpose, we would like the Central Government to afford a further opportunity of hearing to",,,,,
the petitioners and also take the assistance of the newly constituted Oversight Committee as per the order dated July 18, 2017 passed by the",,,,,
Constitution Bench in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 408 of 2017 titled Amma Chandravati Educational and Charitable Trust and others v. Union of India,,,,,
and anotherand thereafter take a decision within two weeks. Needless to say, the decision shall contain reasons. We repeat at the cost of repetition",,,,,
that the decision must be an informed one.,,,,,
31. Before parting with the case for the present, it is warrantableto state that “healthâ€, a six letter word, when appositely spelt and pronounced,",,,,,
makes the body and mind holistic and an individual feels victorious. Apart from habit and nature, some external aid is necessary. And that is why, it is",,,,,
essential to have institutions which are worthy to impart medical education so that the society has not only qualified doctors but doctors with,,,,,
impeccable and sensitive qualities. A lapse has the potentiality to invite a calamity. Not for nothing, Hippocrates had said, “A wise man ought to",,,,,
realize that health is his most valuable possession.†Therefore, the emphasis is on the compliant institutions that can really educate doctors by",,,,,
imparting quality education so that they will have the inherent as well as cultivated attributes of excellence.â€,,,,,
38. Prima facie, the findings which are arrived at by the respondent No.2 seems to be contrary to the Regulations of 1999. The respondent No.1 on",,,,,
the basis of the findings/reports/recommendations of the MCI decided the matter and passed the order dated 31.5.2018.,,,,,
39. On due consideration of the aforesaid so also the fact that the Hearing Committee has accepted that some parameters are wrongly referred by the,,,,,
assessors and respondent No.2 - Medical Council of India did not carry out any compliance verification inspection as required to take a decision about,,,,,
Clause 8(3)(1)(c) in respect of increase of 100 to 150 seats and the inspection of 13.4.2018 was carried out only for 100 seats. Whereas, the MCI",,,,,
was required to first carry out compliance verification for increase 100 to 150 seats of MBBS and no appropriate reasoning and names and evidence,,,,,
were assigned by the assessors of respondent No.2 to the effect that why they were not considering some of the Senior Residents, which has been",,,,,
accepted by the Hearing Committee, which is against the guidelines of Regulations and spirit of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on",,,,,
18.9.2017, we set aside the order dated 31.5.2018 passed by the respondents and remit the matter to the respondent No.1 to go through the detailed",,,,,
explanation/reply t0 the assessor's report submitted by the petitioner-medical college and decide the same afresh strictly in terms of Regulation of 1999,,,,,
and if they found that fresh inspection is required, then the same shall be made expeditiously and decide afresh in accordance with law within a period",,,,,
of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.,,,,,
40. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed in part, as indicated hereinabove, without any order as to costs.",,,,,
