Varunarjun Trust & Anr vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr

Held

The Court held that the refusal by the respondent No.2 (BOG-MCI) to grant renewal of permission for the academic year 2019-20 was justified. The reasoning was based on the petitioner college's failure to rectify significant deficiencies in faculty and resident numbers, as well as low bed occupancy, which exceeded the thresholds stipulated in Regulation 8(3)(1)(b) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations. Furthermore, the court noted the petitioner's failure to make the biometric devices functional, a critical tool for verifying faculty and resident attendance, and their refusal to permit an inspection on 30.05.2019. The court found that these factors, coupled with an anonymous complaint received by the respondent, made it inappropriate to grant the renewal for the fourth batch. The court did not consider other contentions raised by either side, focusing primarily on the non-compliance with the regulatory requirements.

Facts

The petitioners, Varunarjun Trust and Varunarjun Medical College & Rohilkhand Hospital, sought to quash an order dated 31.05.2019 by the Board of Governors (BOG) in supersession of the Medical Council of India (MCI), which refused renewal of permission to admit 150 MBBS students for the academic session 2019-20. The college, established in 2016-17, had previously faced issues with renewal for 2017-18 and 2018-19. An inspection on 3-4.01.2019 revealed deficiencies in faculty (40.17%), residents (56.06%), and bed occupancy (64.87%), among other issues. The BOG issued a show-cause notice citing Regulation 8(3)(1)(b) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 2010, which mandates that deficiencies exceeding 20% in faculty/residents or less than 65% bed occupancy preclude renewal for the fourth batch.

Key Issues

1. Whether the refusal by the respondent No.2 (BOG-MCI) to grant renewal of permission for admitting 150 MBBS students for the academic year 2019-20 to the petitioner college is arbitrary and illegal, contrary to Section 10(A) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956? - Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the deficiencies noted were either rectified or were not substantial enough to warrant refusal, and that previous issues were due to errors by the Oversight Committee. They also argued that the MCI's assessment criteria and the application of Regulation 8(3)(1)(b) were flawed. - Respondent's argument: The respondent (BOG-MCI) argued that the deficiencies in faculty, residents, and bed occupancy exceeded the permissible limits as per Regulation 8(3)(1)(b), and that the college failed to make biometric devices functional, which is crucial for verifying faculty and resident presence. They also highlighted the petitioner's refusal to allow an inspection on 30.05.2019, despite an anonymous complaint.