AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Subramani, J.—Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction in the
nature of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the respondent dated 24.11.1997 in PU/Acs-
8/1/95/2549 and quash the said proceedings refusing to grant affiliation with effect from the Academic Year 1996-97 for the First Year M.B.B.S.
Course with an annual intake of 100 students in the petitioner''s Medical College at Karaikal started pursuant to the Central Government''s
permission relating to the Academic Year 1996-97 and consequently issue a mandamus directing the respondent-University to forthwith consider
the application of the petitioner and grant affiliation with effect from the Academic Year 1996-97 for the First Year M.B.B.S. Course with an
annual intake of 100 students and duly register the said 100 students as regular candidates for the First Year MBBS Course in the respondent-
University, permit the said students to undergo the Course and take up examinations to be conducted by the University in March-April 1998 and
for the subsequent years by- accepting necessary prescribed examination fee, examination application form, registration fee, etc., issue hall tickets
and declare their results, and pass such, further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. The
impugned Order reads thus:-
PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY
Dr. J. Sampath, M.A.B.L, PhD.
23.11.1997
Registrar i/c.
PU/Acs-8/1/95/2549/Reg. Post/
To
The Chairman,
Vinayaka Missions Medical College,
Keezhakasakudimedu,
Sir,
Sub: PU Request for grant of affiliation to Vinayaka Mission''s Medical College, Karaikal for I MBBS Course for the Academic Year 1996-97 -
Reg.
Ref: (1) Our Order No. PU/Acs/8/1,95/2036 dt. 3.10.1997. (2) Your Letter No. Nit dt. 17.10.1997.
I am directed to refer to your letter 2nd cited on the above subject and to state that as per the decision taken by the Academic and Executive
Councils of Pondicherry University, the question of granting affiliation for I MBBS Course for the academic year 1996-1997 does not arise at all.
Yours faithfully
J. Sampath
Registrar i/c.
On a reading of the impugned Order, nothing could be made out, and it is vague. No reason is also stated. Naturally, I have to narrate the history
how the Order came to be passed, and consider whether the same is sustainable.
Petitioner Trust wanted to start a Medical College at Karaikal. Therefore, it purchased a vast area and moved for planning permission for
construction of Medical College alongwith a teaching hospital and other infrastructural facilities. Petitioner was granted planning permission in
November 1990. Simultaneously petitioner Trust moved the Medical Council of India for establishment of a Medical College. Even in the year
1989, petitioner approached this Court for obtaining prescribed format for applying for affiliation of Pondicherry University in respect of the
Medical College.
Petitioner again came to this Court in W.P. 16859 of 1992 to quash a communication sent by the University, dated 25.9.1992 wherein the
petitioner wanted that Orders will have to Ire passed without taking into consideration the changes made in the Indian Medical Council Act. While
the Writ Petition was pending, petitioner itself submitted a detailed scheme tor consideration by the Central Government through the Medical
Council of India as required by the Amended Provisions. In terms of the requirements laid down by the Central Government, certain parameters
had to be satisfied for processing the proposal by the Central Government including obtaining of Essentiality Certificate from the concerned State
Government and the Union Territory where the Medical College has to be established. During the relevant time petitioner also proceeded with the
construction on the basis of the planning permission which it had obtained, and it also recruited teaching and non- teaching staff and was also
providing other infrastructural facilities which were mandatory and which should exist at the time of inspection by the Medical Council of India.
Petitioner-Trust was granted Essentiality Certificate by the Union Territory of Pondicherry Government on 21.6.1995 for starting the Vinayaka
Mission''s Medical College at Karaikal with effect from the Academic Year 1996-97. While granting the Certificate, the Government had taken
note of the fact that in the said Union Territory of Pondicherry, except for JIPMER Medical College, there was no other Medical College. In view
of the fact that the petitioner was establishing a Medical College in a backward area, the Government took note of the vast area of land acquired
and the building available with the petitioner and considered the scope for further expansion for new building together with hostel and hospital
facilities which were to be provided by the Government as well and accordingly granted the Essentiality Certificate. Based on the Essentiality
Certificate, petitioner moved the Respondent- University for granting consent for affiliation for the Academic Year 1996-97. The respondent also
conveyed to the petitioner by letter dated 3.7.1996 its consent for affiliation of the Medical College. Thereafter, petitioner again moved the
Medical Council of India requesting it to come for inspection. The Medical Council of India sent a Team of Experts who inspected the College,
and based on the same, the Government of India also considered the application made by the petitioner-Trust including the Scheme prepared by
the petitioner for the purpose of running the College from the Academic Year 1996-97 and granted a Letter of Intent to the petitioner by its
communication dated 24.1.1997. The Government of India came to the conclusion, as per the said Order, that the Letter of Intent for the
establishment of a College at Karaikal at Pondicherry with effect from the Academic Year 1996-97, may be issued on certain conditions. The
petitioner also complied with the directions and furnished bank guarantee for Rs. 700 lakhs. The Medical Council of India also permitted thee
running of a Medical College with an annual intake of 100 students at Karaikal from the Academic Year 1996-97, as per letter dated 7.2.1997. In
the approval letter by the Government of India dated 7.2.1997, it is said that the approval of the Scheme is initially for a period of one year and it
will be renewed after verification of achievements of physical and infrastructural facilities as stipulated in the Letter of Intent. In this connection it
may be noted that in the Letter of Intent issued by the Government.. India on 24.1.1997, clause 5 further said thus:-
Action to issue the grant of permission for admission to MBBS Course will be taken in receipt of a letter accepting the conditions enumerated in
para 4 above and after the Bank Guarantees are received in this Ministry.
So, by the time the letter dated 7.2.1997 was sent to the petitioner, the conditions mentioned in Clause 5 of the Letter of Intent were also complied
with, which made the petitioner-Trust eligible to admit students for the Academic Year 1996-97.
Pursuant to the Letter of Intent, and after having complied with all the conditions, petitioner again moved the respondent-University for grant of
affiliation. Such a letter was sent in the month of February 1997. In fact petitioner also undertook that it will follow the procedure of admission as
per the Scheme framed by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Unnikrishnan''s case. Even though a request was made in February 1997 for
the consequential affiliation, no inspection was done and there was a long delay on the part of the respondent to make an inspection. The
Inspection was conducted on 17.7.1997. The Inspection Team also did not find any fault on the part, of the petitioner and the infrastructural
facilities were also sufficient, as stated in the Intent. But, in spite of the same, no reply came from the University. In the meanwhile, the Medical
Council of India also wrote a letter to the petitioner that a further Inspection Commission will be visiting the College to consider the renewal of
permission for the year 1997-98. Even at that time the respondent did not think of granting affiliation and petitioner also incurred heavy expenditure
in maintaining the Institute. It is seen that the Letter of Intent had enabled the petitioner-Trust to admit students and students were also admitted,
which fact was informed to the University. Later, on the Inspection made by the Medical Council of India, permission already granted for the year
1996-97 was also renewed for the year 1997-98. The said fact was also informed to the University. Even then the respondent did not think of
posing any order on the inspection or on the affiliation. Petitioner was, therefore, compelled to approach this Court in W.P. 12677 of 1997, for a
mandamus to direct the respondent to forthwith consider and grant affiliation to the petitioner''s Medical College at Karaikal. The Writ Petition was
entertained and notice was ordered. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, respondent, by communication dated 3.10.1997, granted affiliation
for starting the Medical College from the Academic Year 1997-98. Even at that time, respondent was informed that the affiliation in question is for
1996-97 and students have already been admitted for that Academic Year. There was no response and, therefore, petitioner again wrote a letter
on 17.10.1997 to the respondent, requesting for the grant of affiliation for the Academic year 1996-97. After a long wait, petitioner received a
reply, which is impugned in this Writ Petition, viz. that the question of affiliation for Academic Year 1996-97 does not arise at all.
When notice of motion was ordered, respondent entered appearance and filed a detailed counter. It justified its action on the ground that
affiliation cannot be granted retrospectively, and that was the reason why it stated that the question does not arise for consideration at all. Learned
counsel for respondent also submitted that under the relevant Statutes, affiliation can be granted only prospectively, and since the Academic Year
1996-97 is already over, it need not grant affiliation for that year.
I heard learned counsel on both sides, and I feel that the Order of the respondent is liable to be interfered with.
For starting a Medical College, the Medical Council of India, Central Government, State Government and also the University have to be
consulted. An Essentiality Certificate has to be issued first. Later, on the recommendations of the Medical Council of India, approval has to be
granted by the Central Government. Later, the University concerned should also grant the affiliation. If these three organs take their own time for
passing orders, and thereby cause undue delay, an Institution can never be started. In this case, I find that the petitioner has been deprived of
affiliation only because of the delay caused by the Authorities.
When consultation is required from more organs, then, naturally, they will have to take a decision simultaneously. Otherwise, the person affected
is the one who has invested huge amount for starting the Institution..
Even for getting the Essentiality Certificate, petitioner-Trust had to approach this Court twice. Ultimately when the Medical Council of India Act
was amended, petitioner-Trust moved the Central Government through the Medical Council of India. The Scheme prepared by the petitioner was
found acceptable, and the Central Government granted permission. By that time, petitioner had already put up construction and invested huge
amounts to make the infrastructure sufficient. The Medical Council of India inspected the property and building and found that the infrastructure
was sufficient and it permitted the admission of students from the date of Intent, subject to satisfaction of two conditions, namely, furnishing of
guarantee for Rs. 700 lakhs and also acceptance of the conditions of the Letter of Intent, Immediately the same was complied with, and the
Government of India immediately wrote back to the petitioner on 7.2.1997 that permission has been granted for the year 1996-97. On the basis of
that letter, admission was also made and simultaneously the respondent was also moved for affiliation. Respondent did not think of making any
inspection and it slept over for more than five months. Even after inspection, it did not think of passing any orders. It took time till October. 1997
to pass orders stating that the affiliation is only from 1997-98. The delay was on the part of the respondent for more than eight months after the
Government of India issued the Order. When the petitioner reminded the respondent that the affiliation sought for is for the Academic Year 1996-
97, it passed the impugned Order also.
It is not a case where the infrastructure was not sufficient and, therefore, petitioner was not entitled to start the College for 1996-97. In fact no
reason has been given why affiliation cannot be granted for the Academic Year 1996-97, excepting the argument that it cannot be granted
retrospectively. I do not think that the argument of the University that affiliation cannot be granted retrospectively in such cases, is well-founded. If
the infrastructural facilities are sufficient and no defect had been found out, an order has to be passed on the application already filed by the
petitioner. If the application by the petitioner-Trust is for the year 1996-97 and infrastructural facilities were also sufficient as on that date, merely
because the respondent took its own time for passing orders, it cannot be said that the grant of affiliation cannot have retrospective effect. Certainly
the Order must relate back to the date of the application. It is not retrospective in the sense that the affiliation is validated retrospectively. If only
the infrastructural facilities were not sufficient and grave defects were found out, there will be some justification in the respondent saying that it
could not grant affiliation as prayed for. When the Central Government sent an expert team, and it found that infrastructural facilities are sufficient,
and permitted the petitioner-Trust to admit 100 students from that Academic Year and this fact was also brought to the notice of the respondent, it
did not raise even the little finger to say that students shall not be admitted for that year. While passing orders, a duty is also cast on the respondent
to consider as to what will be the fate of the students who were admitted for that year. After taking a long time to pass orders, and without
considering the fate of the students who were already admitted, if orders are passed in a haphazard manner, then such orders are liable to be
interfered with. Even in the counter-affidavit, respondent has no case that when the application was made for affiliation, immediately after consent
was obtained, infrastructural facilities were not sufficient. Affiliation is granted taking into consideration the infrastructural facilities available and the
funds to be invested for starting the College, and whether the applicant can maintain the standard. If all these are available for the Academic Year
1996-97, then there is no reason why the respondent should postpone the grant of affiliation for one year. Such an action on the part of the
respondent cannot be justified and that will affect the future of the students who were already admitted.
In this connection, I take guidance from the judgment in Writ Appeal Nos. 181, 464 of 1998 and W.P. Nos. 5522 & 4392 of 1998 -
judgment dated 12.8.1998 (Dr. M.G.R. Medical University v. Valliammal Society), wherein Their Lordships of the First Bench of this Court have,
in a similar case and under similar circumstances, directed the University to grant affiliation retrospectively. In the result, I quash the impugned
Order and direct the respondent to pass fresh orders granting affiliation from the year 1996-97, within a period of two weeks from today. Students
already admitted for the year 1996-97 must also be allowed to write examination and respondent is directed to hold a supplementary examination
within two months from the date of passing orders regarding affiliation. Respondent is also directed to receive examination fee, issue hall-ticket and
permit all the eligible students admitted during Academic Year 1996-97 to write the examination and publish the results. The Writ Petition is
allowed as indicated above., No costs. WMP 1812 of 1998 is closed.