Delhi HC refuses any relief to Chintpurni Medical College against National Medical Commission permission refusal

The medical college approached the court and submitted that the MCI had denied permission to take in 150 MBBS students after they found deficiencies during inspections.

Earlier, the matter had reached the supreme court where the apex court had dismissed an SLP and held that the petitioner college could apply for recognition after two years for the batch 2019-20 and 2020-21. Hence the petitioner had moved the Delhi HC stating that it should be granted permission for MBBS seats.

In its plea, the medical college had submitted that it owns a hospital to which it is attached to the medical college. The clinical facilities of the hospital are available to the College for the purpose of teaching. The State of Punjab issued an Essentiality Certificate on 07.12.2010 in favour of the petitioner College keeping into account the available infrastructure facilities, equipment, faculty strength, etc. The petitioner is said to have applied to MCI for grant of recognition/approval of the petitioner College for awarding of MBBS Degrees (150 seats) to be granted by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot.

Medical Dialogues had extensively reported about the controversial shutdown of Chintpurni Medical College after the Board of Governors in supersession of the Medical Council of India (MCI BoG) was found that the institute was admitting students without the MCI approval ever since its inception in 2011. In addition, the college did not have the necessary infrastructure and did not provide adequate facilities for the purpose of medical studies.

In 2019, the Executive Committee of MCI recommended debarring the petitioner College from admitting students for two academic years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19 and to encash the bank guarantee of Rs 2 crores that was furnished by the petitioner at the time of grant of recognition dated 26.09.2016. The Central Government accepted the recommendation of the MCI and debarred the medical college from admitting 150 students in the MBBS course for two academic years-- 2017-18 and 2018-19 as well as permitted the apex medical council to en-cash the Bank Guarantee furnished by the medical college.

The 2011-12 and 2014-15 batch of students were shifted to other medical colleges in the state on the directions of the Supreme Court after the students sought to transfer to other medical colleges in the state.

Thereafter, the Supreme Court had dismissed the writ petition challenging the orders of the Central Government stating that the petitioner college would be entitled to pursue the permission for the academic years 2019- 20 and 2020-21 after the period of the ban. The petitioner alleged that it has all the infrastructural and clinical facilities and has the required faculties and medical equipment as required for admitting students yet the respondent rejected the request of the petitioner stating that the petitioner College must submit an application under Section 10A of The IMC Act for acquiring permission to admit students for the academic year 2020-21.

Read Also: Chintpurni Medical College Denied Permission For 150 MBBS Seats: MCI Gives Point By Point Disapproval

During the recent hearing before the Delhi HC, the counsel for the govt contended that the College had concealed material facts that no students are being taught/trained in the Medical College as all the batches of students admitted during the academic years 2011-12, 2014-15 and 2016-17 have already been shifted to other medical colleges by the State Government and that the petitioner Medical College is not functional. "There are no students presently studying in the petitioner Medical College. The petitioner Medical College is defunct and non-functional. It has failed to fulfill the conditions imposed towards grant of the conditional recognition dated 26.09.2016. The petitioners have to also submit fresh bank guarantees towards processing of grant of permission to admit students for the academic year 2020- 21.", the govt response stated. It had been reiterated that the timelines provided by the Supreme Court for granting permission to the petitioners to commence admission is already over. The plea of the petitioners is infructuous, they said.

the aforesaid controversy need not detain me any further. In terms of the recognition granted to the petitioners dated 26.09.2016, the recognition granted was in the peculiar facts and circumstances subject to a maximum period of five years upon which it had to be renewed. The procedure of renewal of recognition was to be the same as applicable for award of recognition i.e. under Section 10A of the IMC Act. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required was to result in stoppage of admissions for the concerned undergraduate course. It is clear that as the plea for taking admission for the academic year 2020-21 of the petitioner is infructuous, the petitioner would have to take steps in terms of the notification dated 20.09.2016 to renew its recognition.