M.S. Ramaiah Medical College and Teaching Hospital and M.R. Jayaram vs Union of India and Board of Governors in Supersession of Medical Council of India

Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—The petitioners have called into question, the second respondent''s order, dated 1.1.03.2013 (Annexure-A), turning down the petitioners'' request for the increase of seats in M.S. (Orthopaedics) Course from three to six. Ms. Farah Fathima appearing for Sri. K. Shashikiran Shetty for the petitioners submits that the second respondent''s inspectors have recorded their satisfaction that the infrastructure available at the petitioner College is adequate. She brings to my notice that in the earlier part of the impugned order, it is stated that the respondent No. 2 has decided to approve the further intake; in the later part of the impugned order it is stated that the petitioners'' representation for further increase cannot be acceded to. She submits that the Orthopaedics Department of the first petitioner College has been publishing about 14 to 15 articles in the reputed journals including the international journals. In this regard, she brings to my notice the petitioners'' letter, dated 26.03.2013 (Annexure-K).

Sri. Zulfikar Kumar Shaffi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that not typing the word ''not'' is just an inadvertent omission. The said typographical omission cannot be stretched to mean that the respondent No. 2 has decided to approve of the further increase in the petitioners'' intake capacity. He submits that as per the circular, dated 30.11.2009 (Annexure-R-2/5), the applicant institution has to perform 3 major surgeries and 6 minor surgeries in every unit of the department. As it is not in dispute that the petitioners'' units are 3, 9 major surgeries and 18 minor surgeries are to be performed daily. On the other hand, as per the petitioners'' admission found in their letter, dated 01.02.2011 (Annexure-G), the department averages 5 major and 9 minor surgeries per day. He submits that the Regulation 13.9 Postgraduate Regulation requires each of the postgraduate student to publish a research paper during the period of postgraduate studies to be eligible to appear for the examination. The said Regulation reads as follows:

13.9. A postgraduate student of a postgraduate degree course in broad specialties/super specialties would be required to present one poster presentation, to read one paper at a national/state conference and to present one research paper which should be published/accepted for publication/sent for publication during the period of his postgraduate studies so as to make him eligible to appear at the postgraduate degree examination.

The submissions of the learned counsel have received my anxious consideration.

My perusal of the impugned order reveals that the respondent No. 2 has barely referred to the assessment report and the documents. It does not state as to what is the prescribed eligibility criteria for sanctioning the increase and what is the shortfall in the infrastructural facilities of the first petitioner College. The assessment report (Annexure-E) shows that its inspectors/assessors were satisfied of the infrastructure available at the first petitioner College. While it cannot be said that the inspectors'' report is binding on the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 2 may reject it or may not act on that but by recording the reasons. In the normal course, the assessment report of the inspectors constitutes the raw-material for considering the application or scheme for the increase in the intake capacity.

The impugned order does not even mention what statements were made by the petitioners in the course of hearing and how they are considered by the respondent No. 2. It merely states that the documents are reviewed by its Board of Governors. It is not forthcoming as to which and how the documents were considered by the respondent No. 2. It cannot be content stating that the existing operative workload is insufficient. The recording of reasons is for ensuring that the decision-maker has applied his mind to a given case. It is only the recording of reasons which would minimise the arbitrariness.

When this Court, by its order, dated 26.11.2012 (Annexure-H) passed in W.P. Nos. 38232-38235/2012 and other connected petitions, directed the reconsideration of the petitioners'' case, the subsequent development of and/or addition to the infrastructure cannot be eschewed or excluded. If the respondents had entertained any doubt about the petitioners meeting the eligibility criteria, they ought to have held one more inspection before passing the order of its reconsideration at the cost of the petitioners.

I am also not persuaded to accept the submission urged on behalf of the respondents that as the students of the M.S. (Orthopaedics) at the first petitioner College have not presented the requisite number of papers, the sought permission for increase in the intake capacity cannot be given. Regulation 13.9 is for a different purpose altogether. That is the criteria fixed for appearing for the examination. If a student does not publish the requisite number of papers, he may not be permitted to appear for the examination following the said regulation. But the said regulation cannot be used to deny the sought permission for increase in the intake capacity.

For all the aforesaid reasons, I quash the impugned order. The respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioners'' case for the increase in the intake capacity from three to six seats in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible and in any case within one month from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of today''s order. The fresh decision shall be taken by the respondents after affording the reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. These petitions are accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.