DIPAK MISRA,J. - (1.) In this writ petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-University and its functionary have prayed for issue of a direction for quashment of the order dated 31st May, 2017, contained in letter No.U-12012/ 27/2016-ME-I [3084749] debarring the petitioners from admitting the students in MBBS course for academic sessions 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 and authorizing the respondent No.2, the Medical Council of India (MCI) not to encash the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners to the MCI and further to issue writ of mandamus or any other direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant renewal of permission for academic year 2017-2018 and further to admit the students in the said academic session.
(2.) The assertions made in the writ petition and the documents annexed thereto exposit the history of litigation which, we are inclined to think, has a different colour. Suffice it to note that for the academic session 2016-2017, the MCI had inspected the Institution and found certain deficiencies. The summary of assessment, which was submitted by a team of four doctors on 12th November, 2016, has been brought on record. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the said summary of assessment read as follows:- "9. Any other remarks: Most of the faculty as well as resident doctors has joined this institute in last one and half month prior to the inspection. It is not known or could not be verified whether those faculties where considered by MCI in the same academic year where they were previously working or whether these faculty is appointed on permanent basis or temporarily. Most of them did not have permanent address proof. Patients in the ward were admitted with very vague complains which did not require admission, like pain abdomen, itching, cough mild fever, joint pains, irritation in the eyes, low back pains. In some wards both Male and female patients were admitted in the same ward (Like Psychiatry). In pediatrics patients above age of 14 were admitted with vague/no complain. 10. No patients were in labor. No Lscs, No Normal Delivery on the date of inspection. 11. Only one major surgery on the day of inspection (Open cholecystectomy) and One minor (D and C). 12. College website does not show names of all the faculty members (Like only one name appears on website out of five present in Pharmacology.)"
(3.) We are not referring to other aspects of the summary of assessment, as the deficiencies pointed out are within the permissible limit. Be it noted, the deficiencies which are noted earlier were by the inspecting team, and the Oversight Committee constituted by this Court accepted the explanation offered by the University and imposed certain conditions and recommended for grant of Letter of Permission and eventually the same was granted by the Central Government for the year 2016-17.;