- (1.) BEING aggrieved of the refusal by the Board of Governors to increase seats in M.D. (Paediatrics) course, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. The petitioners had sought increase in the seats of MD (Paediatrics) from 2 to 7. But the respondents had decided not to issue letter of intent in view of inadequate infrastructure and equipment and issued impugned communication dated 26.3.2012 (Annexure-6) and also the impugned order dated 31.3.2012 (Annexure-7), after compliance. Therefore, the petitioners have prayed that the aforesaid impugned communication/order be quashed and set aside and the petitioners be held entitled to admit students in PG Course for the session 2012-13 onwards on 5 additional seats in the subject of Paediatrics. Further, it is prayed that the action of the respondent no.1 in refusing to allot the seats be declared illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and they be directed to recognize/enhance 5 additional seats for the session 2012-13 onwards.
(2.) THE petitioner no.1 Mahatma Gandhi Medical College submitted an application, in terms of Medical Council of India, the opening of a New or Higher Course of Study or Training (including Post-graduate course of Study or Training) and Increase of Admission Capacity in any Course of Study or Training (including a Post-graduate Course of Study or Training) Regulations, 2000, as per the prescribed format and deposited an amount of Rs.4 lacs with the request to the respondent Board of Governors to allow the increase of admission for PG Course in Paediatrics. THE existing seats in Paediatrics which were 2 in number were requested to be enhanced to 7, i.e. 5 additional seats were asked for in Paediatrics. THE earlier consent of affiliation given to the college by the University of Rajasthan(later Rajasthan University of Health Sciences), by which the seats were sanctioned for PG Course from 2009 onwards, was also attached with the application for increase of seats. The petitioner no.2 Mahatma Gandhi University of Medical Science and Technology came into existence by the Ordinance dated 24.5.2011 and an intimation in this regard was conveyed to the Secretary, Medical Council of India vide letter dated 29.6.2011. On coming of the session of the Legislative Assembly, the Act was passed by it and the same was notified in the gazette on 15.9.2011. Thereafter, on 15.10.2011, the petitioners submitted details of the seats so as to point out the number of seats which the petitioner no.1 college was to have in terms of the norms laid down by the Medical Council of India and in ratio of availability of staff etc. with the college. The said representation was sent through messanger and was received by the respondents. After the establishment of petitioner no.2- University, an independent inspection of the petitioner no.1- college was conducted by it and the letter of consent issued under the Regulation of 2000 was also submitted to the respondent no.2- Board of Governors. Further, separate NOC was taken from the State Government on 7.12.2011 and a copy of the same was sent to the respondent no.2- Board of Governors on 10.12.2011. Thereafter, a letter was sent to the petitioners by the Board of Governors on 17.1.2012 by which they returned the application of the petitioners on the ground that the original application dated 27.4.2011 did not contain the consent letter for increase of seats. The petitioners had then pointed out to the respondents that the document relating to the grant of sanction by the University in the requisite format for increase of seats had already been sent earlier and that the required hearing under Rule 10-A was not given to them before returning their application. Accordingly, a request was made for a personal hearing in the matter as the matter was of urgent nature since there was a time schedule laid down by the Medical Council of India for the purpose of completion of admission process for PG Courses. On 1.3.2012, the respondents conveyed to the petitioners for sending Inspector to conduct an inspection in the subject. After the said inspection, the Board of Governors informed the petitioners that in the PG meeting held on 19.3.2012, it had decided not to issue letter of intent on account of inadequate infrastructure and equipment. It further mentioned that only one ventilator was available in NICU; no ventilator in PICU; five beds in PICU and only two pulse oximeters. The petitioners had downloaded the said document from the internet on 26.3.2011. The petitioners had then submitted a compliance report on 26.3.2012 stating that the Department of Paediatrics is having 90 beds in 3 units. Further, it was stated that PICU and NICU were separately available in the department and, therefore, earlier two seats in MD (Paediatrics) had been permitted by the Government of India in the year 2009 after verification of available facilities and infrastructure by the Medical Council of India. It was also mentioned that there was one ventilator in NICU, one ventilator in PICU and five pulse oximeters. With regard to proof of availability, the bills of the same were also enclosed. According to the petitioners, the minimum standards of equipment for PG Courses only required one bed in PICU and NICU each. Therefore, it was stated by the petitioners that the in-adequacy pointed out is artificial and contrary to the record and a request was made that the letter of intent be issued for the seats as demanded in Paediatrics, in terms of the ratio laid down by the Medical Council of India. Thereafter, the respondents had communicated to the petitioners the official order dated 24.3.2012 along with a copy of the assessment report dated 14.3.2012 prepared by the respondent no.4. The respondents had then passed an order on 31.3.2012, after taking into consideration the compliance for increase of seats in MD (Paediatrics) course, informing that the Board of Governors had decided not to issue Letter of Intent in view of; (i) inadequate infrastructure and equipment; (ii) there are only one ventilator available in NICU, no ventilator in PICU, five beds in PICU and only two pulse oximeters. Hence, aggrieved of the refusal of the increase of seats in MD (Paediatrics), the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners and it has come before this court which has been finally heard as requested by the counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed and the action of the respondents in refusing to enhance five additional seats in MD (Paediatrics) course is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. Further, he has submitted that in view of the provisions contained under section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 as well as the Regulations of 2000, the petitioners are entitled for five additional seats in the subject of Paediatrics for the session 2012-13. It has also been submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that though the application for grant of permission to enhance the seats in PG (Paediatrics) course was submitted on 27.4.2011 but nothing was heard for more than eight months. In the meanwhile, the petitioners had been submitting the relevant documents from time to time, such as inspection conducted by petitioner no.2- University, representation and NOC granted by the State Government on 7.12.2011 etc. etc. The respondents had sent the letter dated 17.1.2012 stating that the original application did not contain the letter of increase of seats. Immediately, the petitioners pointed out that the documents with regard to the grant of sanction of seats to the University had already been submitted. Ultimately, the respondents had informed with regard to sending of Inspector to conduct the inspection on 1.3.2012. The Board of Governors had then informed that they have decided on 19.3.2012 not to issue letter of intent on account of inadequacy of infrastructure and equipment. The petitioners had thereafter pointed out that in the Department of Paediatrics the required infrastructures were very much available and submitted a compliance report along with number of documents.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the petitioners have reason to believe that thereafter the matter was placed before the PG committee again which had recommended for enhancement to four seats and the same was duly approved by the Board of Governors. But as it came to the knowledge of the respondents that the petitioners had filed some writ petition before the court relating to other subjects, they had arbitrarily and illegally refused for enhancing seats to the petitioners and closed the matter on 31.3.2012. Accordingly, a letter was issued on 31.3.2012 (Annexure-9) to the petitioners conveying that after considering the compliance and the Council Assessor's report, the Board of Governors had decided not to issue letter of intent. LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has in this regard pointed out to the court the documents on record, particularly Annexure-10 wherein it has been mentioned that the Board of Governors had decided to increase the seats in MD (Paediatrics) from two to four in view of the compliance report submitted. Besides, it was submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner college does fulfill the norms as laid down under the Act as well as the Regulations of 2000 for enhancement of seats in PG (Paediatrics) Course. He has submitted that the ground for refusal to issue letter of intent for increasing the seats in MD (Paediatrics) for inadequate infrastructure and equipment is false and incorrect. Similarly, the objection with regard to the non-availability of requisite ventilator in NICU and PICU, less number of beds in NICU and PICU and pulse oximeter is also not correct. In this regard, he has referred to the document on record filed along with the compliance report, particularly the receipts for purchase of ventilators (2 in number); and oximeter (10 in number). After referring to the assessor's report, particularly the final remarks given in the last of the report as mentioned in para 21 of the writ petition, it has been submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the respondents to state that there was inadequate infrastructure and equipment. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that passing of the impugned orders of refusal by the respondents, for enhancement of seats in PG (Paediatrics) course is illegal and arbitrary and the relief sought by the petitioners deserves to be allowed. On behalf of the respondents, the case of the petitioners has been strongly opposed by their counsels who have submitted that the order passed by the Board of Governors refusing to increase the seats in MD (Paediatrics) course to the petitioner college is just and proper and very much in accordance to the norms of the Medical Council of India as laid down under the Act as well as the Regulations of 2000. Further, it has been submitted that the respondent Medical Council of India, a body constituted under the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, has been given the responsibility of discharging the duty of maintenance of the highest standards of medical education throughout the country. He has further submitted that with a view to check the unregulated, uncontrolled, mushrooming growth of the medical colleges/institutions, in order to safeguard the interests of the students and to maintain minimum standards of education, the legislature has made amendment in the Act and incorporated new Ordinances from time to time, making it absolutely mandatory and obligatory for any person desirous of establishing a medical college and/or to start a new or higher course of study in the existing medical college, to obtain prior permission from the Central Government. Under section 10A of the said Act, every person is now obliged to seek a prior permission from Board of Governors for establishing for starting higher medical course or for increasing the seats. ;