HC relief to Rajasthan Medical College; orders MCI to allot 96 MD, MS seats to institute

The medical college had moved the HC seeking relief from the rejection made by the MCI on the allotment of the number of seats asked by the institute for this PG medical academic session.

The bench had noted during the hearing, MCI had failed to maintain its stance for its decision in disallowing the seats and hence it granted relief to the medical college.

The case pertains to the demand submitted by the Pacific Medical College to the apex medical regulator for 116 PG Medical seats in 12 departments last year-- MS General Surgery, MD Radio Diagnosis, MD in Pediatrics, MD in General Medicine, MS Orthopedics, MS in Obstetrics & Gynecology, MD in Anesthesiology, MS in Otorhinolaryngology, MD in Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy, MS Ophthalmology, MD in Psychiatry and MD. in Respiratory Medicine.

However, after inspection, the MCI allowed only 47 seats to the institute. Being aggrieved with the action of the medical council for sanctioning the less number of seats for the various postgraduate courses, the medical college submitted a representation before the MCI this February and prayed for an increase in the intake capacity.

Seeking timely relief, the college moved the Supreme Court to intervene in the matter. After hearing the case, the apex bench directed the MCI to consider the representation made by the medical college. But the MCI once again rejected the prayer of the medical college of increasing in the intake capacity of various postgraduate courses and reiterated its decision of allowing the institute to admit specific number of students as ordered earlier.

The petition was then withdrawn from the SC and the medical college decided to take the matter to the Rajasthan High Court.

During the recent hearing on the case before the HC, the medical college submitted that the MCI's decision in rejecting the prayer for increase in the intake capacity of various 12 postgraduate courses is absolutely illegal. It was submitted that the MCI rejected the representations of the petitioners on one of the grounds that some of the faculties engaged by it are of 67 to 70 years of age and, therefore, those faculties cannot be counted amongst the total teachers available in the department because they will become overage by the time the students have completed their post graduate courses. It was argued that the said ground taken by the medical council is not tenable in the eye of the law because as per Minimum Qualification for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998 the maximum age limit up to which a person can be appointed or granted reemployment in service against the posts of Teachers or Dean or Principal or Director, as the case may be, is 70 years.

In the case of the petitioners, none of the faculties was above 70 years at the time of submitting applications. The counsel appearing on behalf of the medical college then averred that if some of the faculty members have completed 70 years of age by this time then new faculties will be engaged by the time the courses are started. It was further argued that when the maximum age for appointing a faculty is prescribed under the law is 70 years, the MCI was not correct in claiming that a faculty between 67 and 70 years of age cannot be counted against the strength of teachers engaged by any college for imparting education in post graduate courses.

The counsel then stated that the other grounds, on the basis of which the representations of the petitioner-college praying for increasing the seats allotted to it in various postgraduate courses have been rejected, are that some of the faculties are not working from a quite long time with the college or because of their prior appointment elsewhere. In some of the cases, the faculties have been non-suited because they have worked for various institutions in last few years. It was argued that the above-referred grounds are not available to the MCI for rejection of the representations of the petitioners because the rules do not provide a specific period for which the faculty is required to be engaged in a college and it is also not provided that if a faculty is engaged in different institutions prior to its engagement with the applicant college then the said faculty is disqualified to teach in the post-graduation courses.

It was further submitted that after the medical college applied for starting postgraduate courses pursuant to the Annexure-1 the accessors/inspectors of MCI had conducted various inspections of the institute and submitted their reports and in the said reports no deficiency/lacunae has been reported regarding the availability of infrastructure or other requirements. They argued that the MCI has failed to point out any lacunae/deficiency regarding the availability of infrastructure with the Medical College.

The HC's attention was moved towards the fact that the MCI, on one hand, is not approving the faculties of aged between 67 and 70 years in same postgraduate courses, whereas on the other hand has approved the faculties aged more than 67 years in other postgraduate courses. Similarly, it was submitted that in some postgraduate courses the council approved the faculties, who have changed their jobs frequently or have gap in their last engagement and engagement with the medical college. Stating this, the medical college argued that the MCI had clearly acted on their whims and such action of the MCI cannot be approved.

With the aforementioned submissions, the medical college had prayed for interim relief and said if the interim relief prayed for in the interim application is not allowed, the institute will suffer irreparable loss as they have already built huge infrastructure and have also engaged faculties for teaching in the applied post-graduation courses.

In response to the arguments, the MCI submitted that it had not committed any illegality in rejecting the representations filed by the medical college with a prayer for an increase in the intake capacity in the various postgraduate courses. It was submitted that the MCI has granted the sanctioned intake capacity to the medical college in different post graduate courses after considering the facilities available with the institute. It stated that after taking into consideration the infrastructure, teaching faculties and other physical facilities, the council had rightly rejected the representation of the medical college.

So far as the decision of the council of not approving the faculties between 67 and 70 years is concerned, the counsel for the MCI had submitted that a resident, who joins a college for a postgraduate course, has to complete his/her training/studies under one guide/teacher and such guide/teacher cannot be permitted to be changed during the continuation of the course except under exceptional circumstances. For that reason, the teachers who are more than 67 years of age cannot be considered as faculty because every batch in the post graduate course is of a duration of three years. Learned counsel for the MCI further submitted that MCI after taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the various complaints received and after providing personal hearing to the institute had sanctioned specific number of seats and the said decision of MCI is not liable to be interfered with.

After hearing both sides, the HC went on to make observations in the case.

It noted that as per the provisions of Minimum Qualification of a Teacher in Medical Institution Regulation, the maximum age limit up to which a person can be appointed or granted reemployment in service against the posts of Teachers or Dean or Principal or Director, as the case may be, is 70 years. On this, the bench observed:

the decision of the MCI of not approving the faculties between 67 and 70 years is not in consonance with the rules. The justification given by the learned counsel for the MCI of not approving a faculty aged between 67 and 70 years on the premise that generally the duration of a post graduate course is three years and a resident, who joins a post graduate course, supposes to complete his/her course under one guide may have some force but in the absence of any such provision in the relevant rules, this justification cannot be applied.

Moreover, it noticed that the MCI had failed to contradict the argument of the medical college that in some of postgraduate courses, the MCI had approved the faculties aged between 67 and 70 years.

So far as the decision of the MCI of not approving the faculties on the ground of a frequent change in job and gap in service was concerned, no specific reply was offered by the MCI. The MCI's advocate also failed to point out any provision of law which prohibits engagement of faculties for above reasons. They also failed to contradict the argument of the petitioners that in some of the postgraduate courses the respondents have approved faculties though they have frequently changed their jobs or have gaps in their previous engagement and engagement with the Medical college, the bench observed the MCI's position in the case.

"Though the learned counsel for the MCI has submitted that the MCI has approved specific numbers of seats for starting post graduate courses with the petitioner-college, after taking into consideration the infrastructure available in the petitioner-college but specific details regarding deficiencies in the infrastructures for giving admission to the more number of students in post graduate courses have not been detailed out in the counter reply. The petitioners in their writ petition has made a specific averment that the inspection carried out by the assessor/inspectors of the MCI did not find any lacunae/deficiency during inspection which may warrant reduction in the sanction of seats for post graduate courses applied by the petitioner-college, however, the said averment has not been contradicted by the MCI in its reply."

The Bench further noted:

though in the representation dated 17.02.2020 the institute demanded increase of seats in the various post graduate courses up to total 106 seats (specifying particular numbers of seats for each post graduate course) but in the prayer No.3 of the writ petition, it is prayed that the MCI be directed to allot 96 seats in all 12 departments for starting various post graduate courses. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that initially the petitioners have applied for allotment of 116 seats for all the 12 departments, however, in the representation dated 17.02.2020 they demanded to allot 106 seats in all 12 departments but on reassessment they find that the petitioner-college is eligible for allotment of 96 seats in all 12 departments.

Hence, allowing the interim stay application, the HC directed the MCI to allot the seats for students to the medical college in 12 departments as under:-

"1. M.S. in General Surgery (with 19 seats);
2. M.D. in Radio Diagnosis (with 09 seats);
3. M.D. in Pediatrics (with 08 seats);
4. M.D. in General Medicine (with 16 seats);
5. M.S. in Orthopedics (with 07 seats);
6. M.S. in Obstetrics & Gynecology (with 10 seats);
7. M.D. in Anesthesiology (with 07 seats);
8. M.S. in Otorhinolaryngology (with 04 seats);
9. M.D. in Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy (with 04 seats);
10. M.S. in Ophthalmology (with 05 seats);
11. M.D. in Psychiatry (with 03 seats) and
12. M.D. in Respiratory Medicine (with 04 seats)

Total seats (96 seats)."

Lastly, the bench said, "The students already allotted to the medical college, pursuant to the decision dated 11.02.2020, will include the overall allotment of students to the petitioner-college which means that the petitioner-college is entitled to grant admission on only those seats in the various postgraduate courses, which have been increased by way of this stay order. The above allotment of seats to the petitioner-college and admissions given on the increased seats shall subject to the decision of this writ petition. The college shall intimate the students in advance that their admission in the various postgraduate course on increased seats will remain subject to the decision of this writ petition."

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/57371033/