In the said petition, the impugned order dated 13.08.2015 has been passed, whereby the present Appellant the MCI has been directed to carry out another inspection to find out whether the deficiencies found at an earlier point of time have been removed.
Respondent number1 institute had thereafter addressed a letter dated 14th February, 2015 to the MCI, wherein it was claimed that the deficiencies which had been found by the MCI at the time of inspection of Respondent number1, which had taken place on 5th and 6th December, 2014, had been removed.
Common Room for Girls is in companyridor and requires improvement.
The said decision had been companymunicated by Respondent number3 to Respondent number1 under letter dated 15th June, 2015.
For the academic year 2013 14, respondent number3 had renewed the said permission.
Some litigation had taken place with regard to the said rejection, but the said rejection is number much relevant for the present petition.
The said undertaking was ultimately found to be incorrect by the MCI.
Respondent number3 had requested the MCI to reconsider the case of Respondent number1 institute and in pursuance of the said request, the assessors of the MCI had carried out another inspection on 8th May, 2015 and submitted the report of inspection to the Executive Committee of the MCI.
From 2012 2013, respondent number3 had permitted increase in intake capacity from 100 to 150 MBBS students.
The aforestated deficiencies were found by the Executive Committee of the MCI of serious nature and therefore, the Committee decided to recommend to the Central Government number to renew the permission for admission of 4th batch of MMBS students against the increased intake i.e. from 100 to 150 students of Respondent number1 and the said decision was companymunicated to Respondent number1 by the MCI under its letter dated 21st January, 2015.
Aggrieved thereby, Respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition C No.7101 of 2015 before the High Court of Delhi challenging the companymunication dated 15.6.2015 made to Respondent No.1 by Respondent No.3, whereby the application made by Respondent No.1 for increasing intake i.e. from 100 to 150 seats for academic session 2015 16 had been finally rejected.
Being aggrieved by the aforestated order passed by the High Court, the Appellant has approached this Court with a prayer that the said interim direction be quashed, as according to the Appellant, Respondent number1 cannot be permitted to have 50 more students for academic year 2015 16.
Respondent number1 was also given a personal hearing by respondent number3.
Respondent number1 wanted to get the said permission renewed for the academic year 2014 15 and therefore, it had submitted an application, as prescribed under the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999.
Respondent number1 is a hospital cum medical companylege, which had been formerly granted permission to teach 100 MBBS students per academic year.
For renewal of the said permission for additional 50 MBBS students for the academic year 2015 16, another application was made by respondent number1 and in pursuance of the said application, an inspection of Respondent No.1 institute had taken place on 5th and 6th December, 2014 by the MCI and at the time of said inspection, following deficiencies had been numbered by the representatives of the MCI Deficiency of faculty is 10 as detailed in report.
Even at the time of inspection, which had taken place on 8th May, 2015, several deficiencies had been found and therefore, ultimately on 13th May, 2015, the Executive Committee of the MCI decided to recommend to the Central Government number to renew the permission for admission of 4th batch of increased MBBS students from 100 to 150 under Section 10A of the IMC Act, 1956 for the academic year 2015 16.
In the aforestated circumstances, the application for increase in intake of 50 MBBS students had been rejected.
The said direction was given in relation to an application made by Respondent number1 for renewal of permission for increase in admission capacity of MBBS students from 100 to 150 for the academic year 2015 16.
A short issue that has companye up for companysideration in these appeals is whether it was open to the High Court to give a direction to the Medical Council of India for short, the MCI the appellant herein, by its order dated 13.08.2015, to companyduct a re inspection of Respondent number1 institute.
The said application had been rejected as the Executive Committee of the MCI found certain deficiencies in the functioning of Respondent number1 institute.
O.T. There are 15 tables in 11 O.T.s indicating more than 1 table in several O.T.s which is number as per numberms.
Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report.
ANIL R. DAVE, J. Leave granted.
Thus, in fact, 150 students were given admission to MBBS companyrse for the academic year 2014 15.
Heard the learned companynsel appearing for the parties.
Shortage of Residents is 16.5 as detailed in report.
Looking at the facts of the case and at the request of the learned companynsel appearing for the parties, it was decided to hear the appeals expeditiously.
Report of the aforestated inspection, which had taken place on 5th and 6th December, 2014, was placed before the Executive Committee of the MCI on 13th January, 2015 for its companysideration.
