Santosh Medical College in UP given more seats, High court slams NMC for refusal

Such relief was provided by the HC bench comprising of Justice Rekha Palli as it referred to the fact that several medical aspirants flee to foreign countries like Ukraine to pursue medical education on account of lack of adequate number of medical institutes providing quality medical education.

"I cannot also lose sight of the fact that on account of the lack of adequate number of medical institutions providing quality affordable education to cater to the needs of the aspiring students, they are often compelled to make the choice of leaving behind their home country an pursuing their studies abroad. This reality has especially become a cause of concern at a time when due to the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, several thousand Indian medical students, who had gone to pursue their medical education in the now war-hit Ukraine have been rescued and brought home, have also lost their seats in medical colleges," noted the bench.

"No doubt the respondents cannot be asked to lower the standards prescribed under the regulations however, simultaneously, in a situation like the present, when it is found that an institute like the petitioner which has been running for the last more than 20 years is not lacking in any infrastructure and has also rectified the deficiencies which were found at the time of initial inspections, that too when the said deficiencies were only on account of the Covid pandemic, it would also be against public interest to deny permission to the petitioner to increase the seats. At a time when the ratio of medical profession as vis-a-vis the population of the country is abysmally low, an increase in the number of PG and UG seats would certainly contribute to the bigger goal of strengthening the medical infrastructure of the country," it added.

Also Read: Accommodate Ukraine Returnee Medicos in Indian Medical Colleges: Mamata to PM

The case concerned a medical college in UP, run by Santosh Trust. UGC had earlier granted this institute the status of "Deemed to be University" and later MCI had permitted it for 50 MBBS and 3 MD Pediatrics seats. These seats were further increased and the institute was granted MCI nod for conducting PG courses in 18 disciplines.

However, when the college applied for further increase of seats amid the COVID pandemic, after inspecting the college, NMC disapproved the application and further issued an order on 22.12.2021 directing an interim inspection for continuation of its existing recognition of 100 MBBS seats- even though the college was granted recognition for 5 years back in 2020.

During the pandemic, the college was acting as a COVID hospital and meanwhile, not being permitted to admit non-COVID patients, the petitioner University entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the District Government Hospital and Mahila Chikitsalya, Ghaziabad. Under this MoU, the petitioner college was allowed to avail of the teaching and training facilities for its UG and PG medical students.

On 01.02.2021, the petitioner college was still retained as a COVID-dedicated L-3 hospital by the Government and permission for admitting non-COVID patients was not given. During this period, a physical inspection was conducted by NMC to consider the application for increase of UG and PG medical seats.

Aggrieved, the institute approached the Delhi High Court and it was submitted by the college that both the orders of disapproval were based on almost identical grounds- reduction of workload and less clinical work with a very low bed occupancy. However, the order dated 25.01.2022 mentioned some pending court cases against the Trust, failure of repaying loan etc.

The counsel for the institute, Mr. Vikas Singh submitted that the Commission could not be permitted to raise any new grounds, other than those mentioned in the orders. He further contended that those new grounds were merely afterthought and based on wholly motivated complaints against the petitioners. Regarding the pending court case, the counsel argued that the case was pending since 2016 itself and despite knowing about it, MCI had granted permission for increasing PG seats.

Referring to the low bed occupancy and less clinical work, the counsel for the medical college submitted that the petitioner institute was declared as the only L-3 Covid hospital in Ghaziabad and it was not allowed to admit non-Covid patients, nor provide any outpatient department treatments.

He further pointed out that after 01.09.2021, the petitioner institute was granted permission for admitting non-Covid patients and the bed occupancy in the institute rose to 82% and this fact was duly recorded by the assessors in their report on 27.11.2021 for increase in MBBS seats.

Arguing that the earlier deficiencies were rectified, the counsel for the institute submitted that those could not be a ground for rejecting the application for enhancement of seats. Further submitting that the order for re-inspection for the already approved seats was only to harass the medical college, the counsel claimed that the institute had requisite infrastructure for maintaining high educational standards and it was still ready for a fresh inspection.

On the other hand, NMC opposed the petition and pointed out that the institute should have had availed their statutory remedy of first appeal to the NMC and second appeal to the Central Government as prescribed in sections 28 (5) and 28 (6) of the NMC Act.

The NMC counsel further referred to the suppression of facts that there were pending cases against the college before the Supreme Court and the DRT. He further submitted that the petitioners have also concealed the fact that during the course of the DRT proceedings, successive auction notices have been issued for the sale of the assets of the petitioner trust including but not limited to the petitioner institute, and the same have not materialised on account of the non-cooperative conduct of the petitioners as also the lack of bidders in the e-auctions.

After taking note of the submissions, the HC bench referred to the contention that the institute could have appealed before NMC or Central Government. At this outset, the bench noted, "I am of the view that, at this stage, when the initial rounds of counselling are already over, any further delay is likely to cause grave and irreparable loss, not only to the petitioner institute, who even as per the respondents was not found to be lacking in infrastructure, but also to the prospective students. I am therefore, not inclined to relegate the petitioner to the remedy of appeal at this belated stage, and proceed to deal with the petition on merits."

The bench referred to Supreme Court observations in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra), and in the case of Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board (supra), and in 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. (supra).

Referring to these, the bench noted, "validity of an order must be tested by the reasons mentioned therein and the authority cannot be allowed to supplement new reasons to defend the same. However, when public interest is involved, facts emerging from subsequent events can be looked into. Thus, a pre-requisite for examining subsequent material is the likely impact of the impugned orders on public interest."

Taking note of the fact that the petitioner college was seeking permission for increase of seats, the bench mentioned,

"It is a well-known fact that in our country, a large number of aspirants, desirous of seeking medical education, apply every year for each additional seat and undoubtedly, admission to these medical colleges is much sought after. These medical colleges are also therefore, shouldered with the responsibility to provide quality medical education to its students and also ensure that the standards of professional ethics as required in the medical profession are adhered to."

Agreeing with the NMC's submission regarding the pending court cases, the bench observed,

"In my considered opinion, there can be no doubt about the fact that there is an element of public interest in the decision taken by the respondents. It has been urged by the respondents that if the allegations made in the complaints against the petitioner institute are found to be correct, the career of students who seek admission in the college would be at stake and therefore, they were justified in rejecting the petitioners' application on the basis of subsequent material, which though already mentioned in one of the impugned orders i.e., 25.01.2022 has now been explained in detail. I am, therefore, of the view that merely because no reference has been made to these complaints and Court cases pending against the petitioners, in two of the impugned orders. i.e., orders dated 20.01.2022, it cannot be said that the respondents cannot rely on these grounds specially when there is a clear reference to these grounds in the third impugned order, i.e., order dated 25.01.2022. I, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the respondents are justified in trying to support all the three impugned orders by relying on the pending complaints and Court cases against the petitioners. It is clearly in public interest that, permission for enhancement of seats is given only after the due satisfaction of the respondent no.1, that the petitioner is meeting the eligibility criteria as per procedure laid down in law."

However, the court referred to those pending court cases with limited purpose and noted,

"In my view, merely because execution proceedings at the behest of M/s HUDCO are pending before the DRT, wherein the petitioners have filed an application seeking refund, it cannot be presumed that they do not have adequate financial resources to run the institute or discharge their liabilities. The other Court cases referred to by the respondents are mostly decided cases and, in any event, do not show that there is irregularity in the functioning of the petitioner institute. The mere pendency of some Court cases against a medical institution at the behest of banks/financial institutions, in the absence of any restraint orders passed by a Competent Court, cannot per se be a ground to hold the institution as not meeting the eligibility criteria under Section 29 of the Act."

"The fact remains that the petitioner institute is an institution running for the last 28 years having produced a considerable number of doctors for the country, which is still unable to meet the aspirations of the younger generation to pursue medical studies. It is the respondents' own case that the petitioner institute has a valid permission for admitting students not only against 100 seats in MBBS but also in different PG courses. I, therefore, find merit in the petitioners' plea that these complaints, which are yet to be verified by the respondents, cannot be a ground to either presume that any illegalities are being committed by the college or the Trust or to refuse permission for enhancement of seats despite the availability of the necessary infrastructure," further noted the court order.

"The decision of the respondents to reject the petitioner's request on the ground of pending complaints and court cases having been passed without consideration of all relevant aspects and without following the principles of natural justice, is perverse," it added.

Referring to the inadequate clinical material and bed occupancy, the court noted,

"The petitioner has urged that it was declared as a dedicated Covid L-3 hospital by the State Government and was not allowed to admit any other patients except for those suffering from Covid-19. This fact, apart from not being denied by the respondents, has also been noted by the assessors in their inspection report. In fact, the exemplary work done by the petitioner institute during this trying time of Covid has been highly appreciated by one and all, including the State and Union Government, as is evident by the fact that the petitioner has received the Ayushman Award from the Central Government in 2021 as well as an award from the State Government in 2022 for its persistent and dedicated service in combating the Covid pandemic. The respondents, in my opinion, ought to have sufficiently considered these aspects, instead they have chosen to penalize the petitioners for coming forward to serve the nation in its hour of need."

"Ultimately, since the petitioner, while functioning as a dedicated covid hospital, has only discharged its duty to the society by catering to the needs of patients suffering from Covid-19, for which it has also been appreciated by the State and the Central Government, it would be a travesty of justice if this ground were to be used to deny the petitioner its rightful entitlement," observed the court.

Thus, quashing the orders of NMC, the bench directed,

"Keeping in view that there is no deficiency in the infrastructure of the petitioner institute, coupled with the fact that the deficiency in clinical material, found during the initial inspections, also stood rectified in the inspection held on 26-27.11.2021, this Court, instead of remanding the matter back to the respondents for a fresh inspection, is inclined to direct the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner institute on the basis of the said inspection report, and to increase the seats from 4 to 7 in MS (Obstetrics & Gynaecology), from 3 to 7 in MS (Orthopaedics), and from 100-150 in the MBBS course at the petitioner institute. These directions are being issued only in the light of these peculiar facts, and by taking into account the fact that the petitioner institute has already missed the first two rounds of counselling, and any further delay at this stage would prevent it from participating even in the upcoming Mop-Up and Online Stray Vacancy rounds of counselling. The petitioner is therefore, granted permission to participate in the remaining rounds of counselling with the increased seats as noted hereinabove, without any further inspections."

To read the court order, click on the link below.