Index Medical College vs Union of India and Another

Shantanu Kemkar, J.—By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.03.2013 (Annexure P/1) passed by the second respondent cancelling the petitioner''s approval for permission for starting MS (Ophthalmology) Course with annual intake capacity of one seat and is aggrieved by non-passing of any order regarding allotment of more number of seats. The petitioner has also sought for issuance of directions to the respondents to grant permission of four seats for MS (Ophthalmology). According to the petitioner, it is an institution running Medical College for imparting education to the students for PG Course. It has been stated that in order to start a new PG Courses MD & MS in 12 subjects, including MS (Ophthalmology), for the year 2013-14, the petitioner submitted a scheme for the said purpose along with bank guarantee vide application dated 08.05.2012 (Annexure P/2). After inspection, the second respondent - Board issued a letter of intent to start MS (Ophthalmology) Course with an annual intake of one seat per year on the conditions mentioned in the letter dated 11.03.2013 (Annexure P/3) including the condition of renewal of Blood Component License issued by the Competent Authority to the Council, apart from fulfillment of the conditions No. 1 to 10 mentioned in the said letter. It was also mentioned in the letter that if the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision, the petitioner may appear before the Board of Governors on 15.03.2013 with supporting documents.

It is the case of the petitioner on receipt of the said communication dated 11.03.2013 (Annexure P/3), the petitioner submitted an application dated 13.03.2013 (Annexure P/4) before the Board of Governors requesting for consideration of increase of number of seats from one as allowed in the letter of intent for starting PG Course in the Department of Ophthalmology for the academic year 2013-14. The petitioner claims that on 15.03.2013, it submitted various documents along with affidavits, including the affidavit of one Dr. Arvind Labhsetwar. However, again on 15.03.2013 itself in the evening, the petitioner informed the second respondent - Board of Governors that services of Dr. Arvind Labhsetwar have been terminated. Taking the said fact to be adverse against the petitioner, the impugned order dated 28.03.2013 (Annexure P/1) was issued by the Board of Governors deciding to cancel the approval of permission with annual intake capacity of one seat.

The case of the petitioner is that the said order dated 28.03.2013 is illegal and arbitrary, as no opportunity of hearing has been afforded before passing the aforesaid order of cancellation. It is also the case of the petitioner that in regard to its prayer for increase in number of seats, keeping in view the fact that even after termination of services of Dr. Arvind Labhsetwar, three Professors and Assistant Professors, as detailed in the communication, were in the services of the petitioner and on that basis, the petitioner was entitled for grant of permission for the seats, as claimed, but no order was passed to that effect and instead the approval of one seat was cancelled.

The case of the respondents is that on 15.03.2013, the petitioner submitted an affidavit sworn by Dr. Arvind Labhsetwar showing him to be in service, whereas in the evening letter of termination of his services dated 15.03.2013 was produced. In the circumstances, the action of the petitioner was found to be suspicious and as a result, the approval granted to the petitioner was cancelled. In the reply filed before this Court to the petition, further ground has been raised that the petitioner was not having a valid license for running blood component facility, and as such, the Board of Governors had reviewed its decision by cancelling its letter of intent.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, considered the pleadings and perused the documents filed by them.

On 11.03.2013, a letter of intent was issued in favour of the petitioner on the conditions enumerated therein. Thereafter, on 13.03.2013, the petitioner submitted an application for increase of number of seats along with summary of Ophthalmology Assessment Report. According to the petitioner, on 15.03.2013 (Annexure P/8) all the necessary documents, including copy of renewed Blood Bank License, were submitted to the Board of Governors with covering letter dated 14.03.2013. However, without looking to the documents and properly appreciating the affidavits and the letter of termination of services of Dr. Arvind Labhsetwar, which was submitted by the petitioner itself, the impugned order has been passed.

Admittedly, the petitioner itself had submitted the letter of termination of services of one of the professors'' viz. Dr. Arvind Labhsetwar out of the list of professors serving with it. In the circumstances, although in the morning the petitioner had submitted already sworn affidavit of Professor Dr. Arvind Labhsetwar, but on termination of his service, it was immediately informed to the Board of Governors. Thus, no undue benefit was taken on account of showing of name of that professor in the list of Professors and Assistant Professors. Having received the said information, the Board of Governors could have reduced the petitioner''s prayer for grant of seats proportionately, on account of termination of service of one of the professor. However, instead of doing the same, the letter of intent issued even for one seat was cancelled on that ground.

In the reply to the petition, for the first time, a case has been tried to be set up by the second respondent that renewal of blood component license has not been produced, and therefore, the approval was cancelled. We find that in the impugned order dated 28.03.2013 (Annexure P/1), there is no mention of non-furnishing renewal of the blood component license to be a reason for cancellation of the approval for permission.

In the circumstances, we allow this petition by quashing the impugned order dated 28.03.2013 (Annexure P/1) with a further direction to the second respondent - Board of Governors to reconsider the petitioner''s claim for grant of permission to start MS (Ophthalmology) Course with annual intake capacity one seat which was already approved and also for further more seats, as per the eligibility, if the petitioner is fulfilling all the conditions. Let the petitioner to appear before the Board of Governors on 11.07.2013. The Board of Governors on that date, or within a week from that date, shall take appropriate decision in regard to the petitioner''s aforesaid claims. With these directions, the petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.

C.c. today.