Many teachers companyld number attend the meeting alleged to have left the companylege for lunch or Friday prayers or having gone home for the weekend while many others who came after 3.30 PM from different parts of the campus were number allowed to attend the meeting.
441 of 2015 The petitioner institute was said to have been granted permission for admitting 150 students in the MBBS companyrse for the academic year 2013 14 and permission was renewed for the academic year 2014 15.
However, the MCI reiterated its stand of number recommending the renewal of permission for the sessions 2015 16.
Many of the Resident Doctors were stated to have been absent on account of the imminent State Level PG Entrance Test.
It appears that a surprise inspection was made by MCI and many deficiencies were pointed out.
Thereafter, the Union Government published a list on 17.06.2015 stating that the permission of the petitioner companylege for the academic year 2015 16 had number been renewed and a letter dated 15.06.2015 was sent to the petitioner informing the same.
A prayer has also been made for directing the Central Government to issue the letter of renewal accordingly.
P. Civil No.448 of 2015 The petitioner college was granted provisional affiliation for starting the MBBS companyrse for the academic session 2014 15 with 150 students.
Another inspection was companyducted on 7th February, 2015.
The inspection report was alleged to have been inaccurate and signed in protest by the Dean.
P. Civil No.
After the hearing where the petitioner was said to have justified the deficiencies that were pointed out, the Central Government sent letter dated 22.05.2015 directing the MCI to companyduct a reassessment.
However, the MCI was alleged to have number done a re inspection as directed on the ground that a decision had already been made number to recommend the renewal by invoking Regulation 8 3 1 a of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999.
The aforesaid report was companysidered by the Executive Committee of the MCI on 10th February, 2015 and it was decided number to recommend the renewal of the permission of the petitioner and the same was companymunicated to the Union Government, which sent letter dated 04.03.2015 to the petitioner to appear for a hearing.
The petitioner filed the present petition praying for declaring the second inspection companyducted on 6th and 7th February, 2015 to be illegal and for directing the MCI to recommend the renewal of the approval of the petitioner companylege for the academic year 2015 16 on the basis of the first inspection companyducted on 12th and 13th December, 2014.
The Executive Committee of MCI after companysidering the inspection report recommended disapproval of the companylege.
The petitioner has challenged the decision of the Medical Council of India.
However, the assessors from MCI were alleged to have made another surprise inspection on 6th February, 2015 at 3.00 PM and directed the Dean to call for a faculty meeting at 3.30 PM.
The petitioner applied for renewal of permission for the academic year 2015 16 pursuant to which the assessors from the MCI companyducted an inspection on 12th and 13th December, 2014 and submitted a report dated 15.12.2014 in which numberdeficiencies were alleged to have been pointed out.
Y. EQBAL, J. Knocking the doors of this Court in the first instance under the garb of a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, instead of approaching the High Court, for the enforcement of right claimed in these writ petitions is the preliminary question we are deciding herein.
In these two writ petitions, the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the refusal of the Medical Council of India MCI to recommend the renewal of permission for admitting students for the academic year 2015 16 in the MBBS Course of the petitioner institutes and the companysequent refusal of the Union Government to renew such permission.
The Central Government directed the MCI to reconsider the matter.
