- (1.) I. Prayer in the writ petition by students in the medical college 1. All the petitioners are students of the 4th year of the MBBS course in the 5th respondent medical college called the Chintpurni Medical College. They seek for a prayer for mandamus against the State authorities and the Medical Council of India to shift the petitioners to any other medical college duly affiliated and approved by the State of Punjab. The prayer is in the context of some problems in the matter of renewal of permission to admit students which the college has faced subsequent to their admission for the succeeding sessions. The withdrawal of permission to admit students for the subsequent years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 are locked up in litigations and the fact is that the college is not able to admit students after the admission of the petitioners in the year 2011-12. Some of the facts that would become necessary to consider the petitioners' rights as canvassed could be culled out from the judgment of the Supreme Court itself in Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. MCI and others in CWP No.590 of 2013, for the observation in the judgment is the fulcrum on which the case of the petitioners remain riveted. II. Prayer for transfer enbloc of students, the basis of claim
(2.) The college was established during the year 2011-2012 and admitted 150 students for that year. Renewal of permission for the second year was sought for the academic year 2012-2013 and the Board of Governors of MCI, finding that there were several deficiencies, after notice and receiving objection, had decided not to renew the permission to admit 2nd batch of students. The college sent a compliance report after the deficiencies were purported to have been removed but the Board of Directors was still not convinced and a final decision was taken not to grant permission for admitting the fresh batch of students for the year 2012-2013. This was challenged in CWP No.12368 of 2012 before this Court. An order passed by this Court directing fresh inspection was challenged by MCI in LPA No.1228 of 2012. The Bench also gave direction for inspection and MCI preferred a SLP before the Supreme Court. In the meanwhile, as per the directions of the High Court, an inspection had been carried out. At that time, the deficiencies seem to have been made good and there was a recommendation made for granting permission for the year 2013-2014 batch. The MCI, therefore, granted permission for renewal of admission of the 3rd batch of MBBS course for the academic year 2013-2014. The Supreme Court concluded the case in the SLP referred to above that appropriate order for admission would be passed within one month. However, after granting permission to the college for renewal of permission for admission of the third batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2013-14 on 25.10.2012, the MCI conducted a routine inspection on 1/2 April, 2013 and also carried out a surprise inspection carried out on 06.07.2013. The report of the surprise inspection which was taken notice of by the Supreme Court in CWP (Civil) No.590 of 2013 is the basis for the present writ petition and therefore, the deficiencies pointed out are extracted again:- "1. At first we visited the emergency services of the hospital. On our observation only one junior resident was there with one or two nursing staff. There was one bed occupied and one or two OPD patients seen in emergency of the hospital. 2. Then we met the Dean and Principal of the college and asked them to arrange for the videography which they said was difficult to arrange. Then we took some videos and photographs in our personal camera if MCI wants we can provide the same. 3. We took complete round of all the departments' wards OPD and verified the working and presence of faculty at 10.30 am. List is enclosed for reference. This was around total 15 teachers in all specialities and 5 (JR+SRs). There were one or two patients in each OPDs. There were no OPD patients in any ward and any paramedical and medical staff available in any of the ward. 4. Then we verified the compliance of last inspection. Regarding student accommodation there was only one girl's hostel of 4 floors with two floors ready (15 rooms on ground floor and 22 rooms in first floor with capacity of 3 students in one room). Rest two floors were under renovation. No boy's hostel was there. The boys were housed in two villas (No.3 and No.4) which were meant for faculty. There was no nurse's hostel. They were housed in 1st villa. The No.2 villa was occupied by director and total of 5 villas were there, which were meant for senior faculty. There were two other buildings under construction, one of 3 bed room flats (8 flats) and another of 2 bed room flats (8 flats) were under construction and out of which in one building of 3 bed room flats, two ground floor flats were ready and occupied by male students. No other resident accommodation is available for teaching and non teaching staff. 5. Only one batch of 150 students is admitted as last year in 2012- 13 and no batch was admitted after that in 2012-13. 6. On being asked we were not provided with AERB approval documentary proof and list of histopathology and cytopathological investigations done on the day of inspection. MRD record regarding histopathology and cytopathoogy was not given for verification. 7. AT 2 PM we did the head count by previous declaration forms submitted in last inspection to MCI. The list is enclosed for reference. There were 44 faculty members (108 required) and 6 residents (60 SR required, 75 JR required) including tutors (20 required) verified. Although their physical presence could be verified but there was no address proof shown. On being asked, we were told that rest of the staff is on summer vacation and college provided the list of faculty on leave which is enclosed for reference. But only 6 residents were verified and residents are not provided any summer holidays. We did not agree to this version of holidays from college authorities. 8. At 4 PM we again took round of the hospital and verified the computerized record provided by college. We could not verify the census of last day (5-07-13) from wards. The census showed 243 IPD patients but in morning round there was no patient in the wards. On the day of inspection, the record showed 518 patients but we hardly show any patients. We fell not above 100 patients would have come to hospital on the day of inspection till 3 PM. Therefore, the hospital record was not authenticated physically. 9. The pharmacological and forensic medicine department was not having concrete roof top. 10. The nursing college is shown part of medical college building and is not separate. 11. The library has external space for reading for students. The required 2400 sq.m. Space is there. 12. On an average 3-4/day both major and minor surgeries are done in all subjects. The OT's were equipped but looked unused. In July till the day of the inspection 6 major surgeries were done in all subjects. 13. A demand draft for Rs.3 lacs was asked for college as instructed from MCI. The Director Principal gave a letter that it will be forwarded in one week time as today (on inspection day) is Saturday and bank is closed here. The copy of letter is enclosed." The problem of renewal of permission has not been settled yet and even for 2014-14, it is reported that the case is still pending before the Supreme Court. III. Petitioners' stand: Failure of norms of essentiality certificate as justification for the relief
(3.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would argue that in terms of the notification issued by the Medical Council of India for "establishment of medical college regulations of 1991", the scheme for obtaining permission of the Central Government to establish a medical college has perforce to clear an essentiality certificate, a plea not found in the original pleadings but brought through replication to the pleadings of the college. The essentiality certificate in Form 2 shall secure no objection of the State Government/Union Territory Administration for the establishment of the proposed medical college at the proposed site and availability of adequate clinical material as per the Council regulations. The clinical materials would mean the requisite number of patients and facilities like beds etc. and if the inspection team had found that the college was wanting on such basic ingredients and the college which had been established did not have such facilities, there was a duty for the State to take over. The Senior Counsel would refer to the recitals in the essentiality certificate that cast an obligation on the State to the following effect:- "It is further clarified that in case the applicant fails to create infrastructure for the medical college as per MCI norms and fresh admissions are stopped by the Central Government, the State Government shall take over the responsibility of the students already admitted in the College with the permission of the Central Government.";