IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NOS.9074-9075/2016 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN:
1. MANIPAL UNIVERSITY, (FORMERLY MANIPAL ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION), “A DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY”, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT UNIVERSITY BUILDING, MADHAV NAGAR, MANIPAL-576104, REPD. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. KASTURBA MEDICAL COLLEGE, MANGALURU-575001, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEAN.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MANMOHAN P.N, ADVOCATE) AND 1. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, POCKET NO.14, SECTOR-8, DWAKARA PHASE-1, NEW DELHI-110077, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. UNION OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110011, REPD. BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.KHETTY, ADV. FOR R-1, SRI. N.JAGADISH BALIGA, CGC FOR R-2) THESE WPs ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION DT.3.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNX-E IN SO FAR AS IT DIRECTS THE PETITIONERS TO STOP ADMISSION TO DIPLOMA IN ORTHEPAEDICS COURSE FROM 2011-12 ETC.
THESE WPs COMING ON FOR ”PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP” THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners lead by Sri.Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel, Sri.N.Khetty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and the learned Central Government Standing Counsel representing the Union of India.
2. The petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved by the proceedings vide Annexure-E dated 3.12.2010 whereby the first respondent- Medical Council of India, New Delhi, has been pleased to direct the petitioners-Institution to henceforth stop admissions to D- Ortho course from the academic session 2011-12. But the recommendation of the first respondent has not been approved by the Central Government as mandated under Section 19 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. But the non-approval will not enure to the benefit of the petitioners for the subsequent years in the light of the fact that the petitioners have failed to apply for renewal of the recognition as mandated by Regulation 6(4) of the MCI Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000.
3. The Respondent placing reliance upon the Letter dated 15-03-2012 (Ann-G to the WP) which was in relation to the application by the Petitioner for an increase in the number of M.S. Ortho seats which was rejected by the Board of Governors of the MCI on the premise that the current operative workload does not show proportionate increase compared to last year and that the available operative workload is adequate for the existing 11 post graduate seats only. It is submitted that the petitioner, without getting the impugned endorsement/recommendation recalled or quashed in a court of law, on its own made admissions for the academic year 2012-13 and 2013-14.
4. Thereafter, however, the Petitioner realizing its mistake stopped admissions to the D.Ortho course from 2014-15 till date.
5. It is also to be noted that the Petitioner had not applied for renewal of recognition u/R 6(4) of the MCI P.G. Medical Education Regulation, 2000, which mandated a renewal of recognition every 5 years, failing which u/R 6(6), the admissions were liable to be stopped. Hence, the stoppage of admissions vide the Order dated 03-12-2010 (Ann-E) could not be re-started without the petitioner first applying u/R 6(4) of the MCI P.G. Medical Education Regulation, 2000 and obtaining renewal of recognition. Unless and until, the Petitioner applies for renewal of recognition or applies for fresh permission and obtains the requisite renewal or fresh permission, no further admissions can be facilitated by the Petitioner for D.Ortho seats.
6. In view of the above, what is now required to be dealt with is the future of the students admitted for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14, despite the Order dated 03- 12-2010 (Ann-E). It is seen that after the Petitioner has made the admissions for both the years it has sent letters dated 18-09-2012 (Ann-H to the WP) and 19-09-2013 (Ann-J to the WP), informing about the admissions made, and therefore the Respondent No.1 was aware of the said admissions and since it took no steps to stop the said admissions, the fact that no objections were raised for the year 2012-13, even belatedly, nor were the admissions for the year 2013-14 objected to, the Respondent No.1 cannot now object to the said admissions, as innocent students shall become the victims of the admissions made by the Petitioner and the inaction of the respondent No.1.
7. Hence, it is imperative for this court to intervene, in favour of the students, who although not parties to this Petition, have been suffering for all these years despite having completed the course. In view of the above, it is held the Order dated 03-12-2010 (Ann-E to the WP) of the Respondent no.1 stopping admissions from 2011-12 onwards, shall not be applicable to the students who were admitted in the year 2012-13 and 2013-14 and the Diploma Orthopedics course (D’Ortho) of the said students shall stand recognized in terms of Section 11 of the I.M.C. Act.
8. In view of the above, the first respondent shall accordingly modify and delete the endorsement on the website.
The writ petitions are disposed off in the above terms.
Sd/- JUDGE rs