With MBBS Aspirants' Interest In Mind, SC Allows 2 Medical Colleges To Admit Wards; Extends Cut-Off Date [Read Judgments]

Considering larger public interest and interest of students who have cleared NEET examination but were not admitted in any medical college yet, the Supreme Court has given a go-ahead to two medical colleges barred by the Centre from admitting second batch of students for academic session 2017-18 citing various deficiencies.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra held, in two separate petitions, that the competent authority of Government of India, which barred the medical colleges -- Shri Shankaracharya Institute of Medical Sciences at Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, and the Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences & Research at Murukambattu village, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh -- from admitting over 150 students in the academic session 2017-18, took a view contrary to the opinion of the oversight committee, which had held that various deficiencies in the medical college and explanation was acceptable and plausible.

“We, accordingly, quash and set aside the impugned decision (of the Centre) to the extent that it bars the petitioners to admit up to 150 students in the academic session 2017-18. Instead, we direct the respondents to permit the petitioner college to take part in the current year counselling process which is still in progress. The cut-off date for completing the admissions in respect of the petitioner college, however, will stand extended till 5th September, 2017.

“The respondents shall make available students willing to take admission in the petitioner college through central counselling, in order of their merit. This direction is being issued in exercise of plenary powers of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, in the peculiar facts of the present case to do complete justice and in the larger public interest, so that aspiring students who have not been admitted to the 1 st year MBBS course for the academic session 2017-18, in order of their merit in NEET examination, will get an opportunity to be admitted in the petitioner college,” the bench ordered.

The bench, however, made it clear that the “MCI or the Competent Authority of the Central Government is free to inspect the petitioner college as and when deemed fit and, if any deficiency is found, after giving opportunity to the petitioner college, it may suitably proceed against the college in accordance with law”.

The apex court passed the order in two separate petitions.

In one of the petitions by Shri Gangajali Educaion Society, the petitioner had established a new medical college named Shri Shankaracharya Institute of Medical Sciences at Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, from the academic session 2016-17 onward.

It was issued a conditional letter of permission on August 20, 2016, after which it admitted students in that year. However, after an inspection, the MCI gave a negative opinion and on May 31, 2017, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare rejected its application while debarring it from admitting students for two years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19, and authorising MCI to encash the bank guarantee.

The petitioner moved the Chhattisgarh high court which directed Centre to re-evaluate the recommendations made by the MCI. After granting the petitioner a fresh hearing, the MHFW reiterated its earlier decision and rejected the application.

The Supreme Court held that the Competent Authority has not dealt with the matter as was expected in terms of the direction issued by the court to reconsider the matter after giving opportunity to the petitioners.

The apex court noted that the competent authority did not try to dislodge the finding of the OC that the deficiency of 7 faculty and 7 residents was permissible and the explanation of the college in this regard was acceptable.

Similarly, the bench noted that another reason which weighed with the competent authority was that the explanation of the college that patients go for laboratory investigations after clinical rounds was not acceptable and that no explanation was forthcoming from the petitioner college as to how a renal and neurology patient could be admitted in Intensive Cardiac Care Unit.

“Assuming that the observation is correct, the issue of granting permission cannot be answered on the basis of one stray incident. No finding has been recorded by the Competent Authority that a pattern of such practice is being followed by the college and it has been so noticed from the record and further, that such lapse is opposed to defined medical protocols entailing in revocation of permission accorded to a medical college,” the bench said.

In the petition moved by Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, the apex court noted that the college was a compliant one and all infrastructure and academic requirements were fully in place.