# VARUNARJUN TRUST & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS - **Citation:** [2017] 12 S.C.R. 753 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2017-09-12 - **Bench:** Dipak Misra, Amitava Roy, A. M. Khanwilkar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/varunarjun-trust-anr-v-union-of-india-ors-31752 - **Pages:** 21 ## Headnote Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - ss.10-A, 19-A - Application by petitioner for establishment of a new medical college, to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, fi·om academic session 2016-17 onwardY - Conditional approval-cum-Letter of Permission (LOP) granted by Central govt. - However, in view of certain deficiencies noticed during assessment conducted by Medical Council of India (MCI), Ministry vide letter dtd. 31.05.17, debarred A B c the petitioner-college from admitting students for two years i.e. 2017D 18 & 2018-19, and also authorised MCI to encash the bank guarantee - Writ petition by petitioner before High Court challenging this order - Pursuant to decision of High Court disposing of the writ petition, Hearing Committee considered the fresh representation given by petitioner and submitted its report to the Ministry - Relying on the said recommendation of Hearing E Committee, Ministry vi de order dtd. 19. 08.17 reiterated its earlier decision dtd. 31. 05.17 - Petitioner seeking quashing of the said order - Held: In the instant case, the deficiency of faculty and residents taken note of by the Hearing Committee and Central Government in the impugned decision, was significant and cannot F be treated as trivial or unrelated to maintenance of high standards of imparting medical education - In view of the fact that petitioner failed to fulfil the conditions specified in the conditional LOP, the question of confirming the LOP for the academic session 2016-17 without removal of deficiencies in all respects does not arise - However, absence of faculty members and r{?s,idents .on the day of G inspection could not be the basis for determining the efficiency and performance of the college for the rest of the academic session, as it is not the opinion of the Hearing Committee or of the Competent Authority that requisite number of facul~v members and residents were not employed in the petitioner-college or that the claim of the H 753 754 ·SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R. ' . A petitioner-college in that behalf was .bogus - This aspect requires proper verification and consideration - MCI to send its Inspection Team within a period of three months to submit an assessment report regarding the overall pe1formance and efficiency of the petitionercollege ·- Minisfly to take a final decision within one month of the receipt of recommendation from MCI - Students already admitted in 8 petitioner-college on the bc1sis o,/conditional LOP for the academic c D E F G H ·session 2016~17. to continue their studJes - Respondents to treat the renewal. application submitted by petitioner-college for the academic session 2017-18 as one for the academic session 201819. Disposing of the writ petitio~, the Court HELD: l.1 In this case, the deficiency of faculty and residents was significant, besides the other two deficiencies taken note of by the Hearing Committee and the Central Government in the impugned decision. For that, the college did not produce supportive documents or evidence in respect of its claim of 6 (six) minor operations and list of paramedical non-teaching staff. These deficiencies cannot be treated as trivial or unrelated to maintenance of high standards of imparting medical education. [Para 13] [765-B-C] 1.2 The proposal under consideration was for establishment of a new medical college from academic session 2016-17 and that has to be examined keeping in mind the norms specified in the statutory scheme formulated regarding permission to establish a new medical college. That sclieme postulates the minimum standard of education, which has been formulated by the MCI in terms of Section 19-A of the Act. The scheme provides for minimum infrastructure facilities and staff requirements for 100 admissfons. It also provides guidance as to how deficiency in respect of those matters should be calculated. The Medical Council of India has published those norms and the schemes for . requirements to be fulfilled by the applicant College ## Text _Characters 0–39,941 of 48,049. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39941 for what follows._ [2017] 12 S.C.R. 753 VARUNARJUN TRUST & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 787of2017) SEPTEMBER 12, 2017 [DIPAK MISRA, CJI, AMITAVA ROY AND A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.] Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - ss.10-A, 19-A - Application by petitioner for establishment of a new medical college, to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, fi·om academic session 2016-17 onwardY - Conditional approval-cum-Letter of Permission (LOP) granted by Central govt. - However, in view of certain deficiencies noticed during assessment conducted by Medical Council of India (MCI), Ministry vide letter dtd. 31.05.17, debarred A B c the petitioner-college from admitting students for two years i.e. 2017D 18 & 2018-19, and also authorised MCI to encash the bank guarantee - Writ petition by petitioner before High Court challenging this order - Pursuant to decision of High Court disposing of the writ petition, Hearing Committee considered the fresh representation given by petitioner and submitted its report to the Ministry - Relying on the said recommendation of Hearing E Committee, Ministry vi de order dtd. 19. 08.17 reiterated its earlier decision dtd. 31. 05.17 - Petitioner seeking quashing of the said order - Held: In the instant case, the deficiency of faculty and residents taken note of by the Hearing Committee and Central Government in the impugned decision, was significant and cannot F be treated as trivial or unrelated to maintenance of high standards of imparting medical education - In view of the fact that petitioner failed to fulfil the conditions specified in the conditional LOP, the question of confirming the LOP for the academic session 2016-17 without removal of deficiencies in all respects does not arise - However, absence of faculty members and r{?s,idents .on the day of G inspection could not be the basis for determining the efficiency and performance of the college for the rest of the academic session, as it is not the opinion of the Hearing Committee or of the Competent Authority that requisite number of facul~v members and residents were not employed in the petitioner-college or that the claim of the H 753 754 ·SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R. ' . A petitioner-college in that behalf was .bogus - This aspect requires proper verification and consideration - MCI to send its Inspection Team within a period of three months to submit an assessment report regarding the overall pe1formance and efficiency of the petitionercollege ·- Minisfly to take a final decision within one month of the receipt of recommendation from MCI - Students already admitted in 8 petitioner-college on the bc1sis o,/conditional LOP for the academic c D E F G H ·session 2016~17. to continue their studJes - Respondents to treat the renewal. application submitted by petitioner-college for the academic session 2017-18 as one for the academic session 201819. Disposing of the writ petitio~, the Court HELD: l.1 In this case, the deficiency of faculty and residents was significant, besides the other two deficiencies taken note of by the Hearing Committee and the Central Government in the impugned decision. For that, the college did not produce supportive documents or evidence in respect of its claim of 6 (six) minor operations and list of paramedical non-teaching staff. These deficiencies cannot be treated as trivial or unrelated to maintenance of high standards of imparting medical education. [Para 13] [765-B-C] 1.2 The proposal under consideration was for establishment of a new medical college from academic session 2016-17 and that has to be examined keeping in mind the norms specified in the statutory scheme formulated regarding permission to establish a new medical college. That sclieme postulates the minimum standard of education, which has been formulated by the MCI in terms of Section 19-A of the Act. The scheme provides for minimum infrastructure facilities and staff requirements for 100 admissfons. It also provides guidance as to how deficiency in respect of those matters should be calculated. The Medical Council of India has published those norms and the schemes for . requirements to be fulfilled by the applicant College(s) for obtaining Letter of Intent and Letter of Permission for establishment of a new medical college and for yearly renewal under Section 10-A of the Act. Considering the requirements of the scheme and as the petitioner college failed to fulfil the conditions specified by the Oversight Committee (OC) VARUNARJUN TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 755 constituted by Supreme Court, as incorporated 'in the fonnai A conditional Letter of Permission dated 12'h September, 2016, the question of confirming the Letter of Permission fur the UC!ldemic session 2016-17 without removal ·of deficiencies in all respects does not arise. The petitioner college must firs.t remove all those deficiencies .to b.ecome eligibl!! for cqnfirmation of LOP, as per the undertaking' given by the coll~g~ ii:{that regard. [Paras 14, B 15][[765-D-F; 771-B-CJ •, . ' . '. 1.3 In the prcs~t c~~e, the ,Hcar~ng. Committee has duly considered the explanation offered by tbe college. It has, however, rejected the same for the reasons recorded in the impugned decision. The fact that specific reference to the. opinion of. the OC is absent in .the conclusion recorded by the Hearing Committee, it does not .foll.ow that the _iss1,1e h.as not been considered by the Hearing Committee or by the Central ~ . . . . Government. The Co1npbtcnt Authority in the final decision after adverting to the observations of the OC and also of the Hearing Committee has noted that the absence. of such large. number of· faculties and residents during duty hours was unacceptable and, moreso, failure of the college to ensure presence of 5 (five) residents on night off and yet, could not come, even late, for th·e· head count nor was it reflected in the SAF. This aspect has not been dealt with by tlte OC in its opinion d·a-ted 14'h May,:2017. Therefore, non-acceptance of the explanation offered by the college by the Hearing Committee and the Competent Authority of the Central Government, cannot be said to be irrelevant, unjust or for extraneous consideration. [Para 16][771-F-G; 772-A-B] c D E ... 1.4 The college had failed to produce supportive documents F or evidence about 6 (six) minor operations on the day of assessment. No doubt, the OC accepted the explanation of the college by holding that there was no Minimum Standard Requirement ('MSR ') 'in that· behalf. The finding in the. assessment report was that there was only one minor operation · G on the day of assessment whereas the ·college clairiled to have· conducted 6 (six) operations. Nothing prevented the coilege fro·m producing documents or evidenc~ in support of th.at claim before the Hearing Committee. The Hearing Committee has noted that even the relevant list/documents in relation to paramedical non- .... H 756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R. A teaching staff was not produced before it. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of this factual position noted by the Hearing Committee. In any case, since the deficiencies in respect of faculty (16.79%) and residents (21.73%) remains unexplained and being significant, the same cannot be overlooked. This appears to be B the view taken by the Hearing Committee and the Competent Authority of the Central Government. [Para 17) [772-C-F] c 1.5 However, the opinion of the Hearing Committee, which is the basis for passing the impugned decision, is founded on the _ performance of the college on the day of inspection dated 1S'h19'h November, 2016. The question is: Whether absence of faculty members and residents on the given day, assuming it to be substantial in number, per se, could be the basis for determining the efficiency and performance of the college for the rest of the academic session while considering the proposal for grant of permission? There is nothing in the opinion of the Hearing D Committee or the decision of the Competent Authority that requisite number of faculty members and residents was not employed in the petitioner college or that the claim of the petitioner college in that behalf was bogus. The noting is about the absence of such large number of faculty and residents on the E F day of inspection and during the duty hours. Assuming that the college could not secure the presence of those persons at the time of inspection, it docs not follow that those faculty members and residents were not on the pay roll and in the employment of the petitioner college. This aspect certainly requires proper verification and consideration by the concerned authority. [Para 18) [772-F-H; 773-A-B] Dr. Jagat Narain Subharti Charitable Trust & Am: v. Union of India and Ors. 2017 (10) SCALE 308; Gangajali Education Society & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 2017 (10) SCALE 442; Saraswati Educational G Charitable Trust & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 2017 (11) SCALE 68; Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences & Research & Ors. v. Union of India & Am: 2017 (10) SCALE 451 - distinguished. H VARUNARJUN TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 757· World College of Medical Sciences & Research v.Union A of India 2017 (ll)'SCALE 136 - relied on~ ".·' Glocal Medical .Colleg? 4 Supf!r Speciality ,Hospital and Research Centre v. Union of India and Am: 2017 (8) SCALE 356 - referred to. Case Law Reference 2017 (8) SCALE 356 2017 (10) SCALE 308 2017 (10) SCALE 442 2017 (11) SCALE 68 2017 (10) SCALE 451 2017 (11) SCALE 136 referred to Para 6 distinguished Para 16 distinguished Para 16 distinguished Para 16 distinguished Para 16 relied on Para 19 B c CIVILORl\JINALJURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.787 D of2017. Under Article 32 of the Constitutibn offodia. · '" '·' '· · · : ,. ,.1: 1 • 1 · , ' 4 • I , •, , , •• ': t. I ' : · '': t ! Raj iv Dhavan, Sr. Adv., Abdhesh Chaudhary, Om Prakash Shukla, Amit Jaiswal, Raj iv Ranjan Dwivedi, Ad vs. for the fetitioners Maninder Singh, ASG, Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv.,· Gaurav Sharma, E Pratcck Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, Ms. Dccpika Kaha, Ms. Srishti Banerjee, Ms. Amandcep Kaur, Advs. for the Respondents The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. l. The petitioners made an F application for establishment of a new medical college at Banthra, Shahj ahanpur, U .P., in the name and style ofVarunarj un Medical College from academic session 2016-17 onwards, to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. The Ministry forwarded that application to the Medical Council of India (for short "MCI") for evaluation and making recommendations ·under Section l OA of the Indian Medical · G Council Act, 1956 (for short "the· 1956 Act"). The MCI conducted an assessment of the petitioner college on· 12•h' and 13'h January, 2016. On the basis of the assessment report, the Executive Committee ofMCI, in its meeting held on 3Qlh January, 2016, decided to make negative rccommendatig_ns,)n view of a large number of deficiencies noticed in ; . ·: _,. ~ :s .. ' ... J 758 A B c D E F· SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R. the assessment report. A formal communication in that behalf was sent. to the Central Government by MCI vide letter dated 31st January, 2016. The Ministry then afforded an opportunity of hearing to the college before a Hearing Committee on 25th Februaxy, 2016. The Hearing Committee concurred with the recommendation of MCI and submitted its observations to the Ministry to disapprove the proposal. Later on, compliance verification assessment was done by MCI on 30th March, 2016, which report was duly considered by the Executive Committee of MCI in its meeting held on 13'h May, 2016. Once again, MCI in its meeting held on 13'h May, 2016 decided to give negative recommendations in view of the deficiencies noticed in the compliance verification assessment. That opinion was formally communicated by the MCI to the Ministry vide letter dated 14th May, 2016.The Ministry accepted the recommendation of MCI and disapproved the application for establishment of a new medical college for academic session 2016-17 vide letter dated s•h June, 2016. 2. The Oversight Committee (for short "OC") constituted by this Court, however, issued a directive to the Ministry to obtain fresh compliance from tbe college and forward it to MCI. Pursuant to the said directive, MCI submitted its compliance to the Minist1y citing various reasons. However, the OC approved the scheme of establishment of a new medical college with annual intake of {SO students for the academic year 20 I 6-17, on certain conditions. The Central Government, therefore, issued a formal approval-cum-Letter of Permission (for short "LOP") on 12th September, 2016 incorporating the conditions imposed by the oc. .. 3. As per the conditions noted in the said LOP, an assessment with regard to verification compliance submitted by the college was conducted by the MCI on l 81h & I 9'h November, 2016. During the said verification, certain deficiencies were noticed which were mentioned in the assessment report. The assessment report was duly considered by the Executive Committee of MCI in its meeting held on 22"<1 December, Q 2016. In view of the deficiencies, MCI decided to send a negative recommendation to the Ministry. The deficiencies noticed were as follows: H .. i. Deficiency of faculty is 16. 79% as detailed in the report. ii. Shortage of Residents was 21. 73% as detailed in the report. VARUNARJUN TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 759 [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] iii. There was only 1 Minor Operation on day of assessment. A iv. There was 1 normal Delivery & NIL Caesarean Section on day of assessment. v. JCUs: There was only I patient each in MJCU & SJCU and 2 patients each in !CCU & PICUINICU on day of assessment. vi. Details of Paramedical & Non-teaching staff available in the Institute are not provided. vii. MRD: JCD X classification of diseases is not followed.for indexing. viii. Central Library: It is not air-conditioned." 4. The decision of the MCI was formally communicated to the Ministry vidc letter dated 26'h December, 2016. After receipt of the recommendation from the MCI, the Ministry decided to afford a personal hearing to the college on l 71h January, 2017 before the Director General B c of Health Services (DGHS). The Hearing Committee considered the D oral and written submissions of the college, but was not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioners for want of proper evidence. The Hearing Committee submitted its report to the Ministry, which in tum forwarded the same to the OC for guidance. The OC vide letter dated l 41h May, 2017 conveyed its views to the Ministry as follows: (i) Facul(v: In the Standard Assessment Forms (SAF), Principal has ment~oned that 4 faculty members had gone for exchange/ withdrawal of money from the bank with permission of the Principal and 3 were on sanctioned leave. Considering this explan~tion, the deficiency would be 6. I 5%, which is within the acceptable limits. E F (ii) Residents:- Jn the SAF, Principal has mentioned that 5 . Residents had gone for exchange/withdrawal of money from the bank with·permission of the Principal and 3 were on sanctioned leave. Considering these residents, the c(eficiency. would be 4.34%, which is within the acceptable limits. G (iii) Minor operation:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR. (iv) Deliveries:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR. (v) !CCU & PJCUINJCU:- This deficiency is subjective. No • MSR. . . . H 760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 12 S.C.R. A (vi) Non-teaching staff:-· There is no such mention in SAF 2.24. B (vii) Central Librc1ry:- There is no such mention in the previous assessment report. However, the explanation of the College is acceptable. LOP Confirmed." 5. The Ministry after considering the recommendation of the MCI, the report of the DGHS and the views received from the OC, finally chose to accept the recommendation of the MCI. The decision of the C Ministry was communicated to the petitioner college vide letter dated 31" May, 2017, debarring the college from admitti'ng students for two· years i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19, and also authorising the MCito encash the bank guarantee. 6. F ccling aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioners filed a D writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, being WP (C) No.15302 of 201 7 which was disposed of on 81h August; 2017 following the decision· of this Court in the case of Glocal Medical College & Super Speciality Hospital and Research Ce11tre Vs. Union of India a11d A11r. 1, decided on l" August, 2017: E F 7. Pursuant to the aforementioned decision of the High Court, the ' Ministry granted a hearing to the petitioner college on 161h August, 2017.' lt'app~ars tliat the Hearing Committee considered the record, oral and written submissions of the college also the fresh representation given by the college. The Hearing Committee.then submitted its report to the Ministry. Relying on the said recommendation -of the Hearing Committee, the Ministry vide order dated l 9'h August, 2017 reiterated its earlier ·" · decision dated 31 '' May, 2017, debarring the college from admitting students for a period of two years i.e. 2017-.18 &. 2018~1"9 and aiso, authorising MCI to encash the. bank guarantee of Rs.2 Crore. This , dcc\sion of the Ministry was corrimunicated to the petitioners. The crucial G part of this decision is in paragraphs 17 and 18 which read as fol.lows: "17. Now, therefore, in compliance with the above .direction of Court, the Ministry granted hearing to tl;e qollege on ... 16.8.2017. The Hearing Committee after considering the H I 2017 (8) SCALE 356 • l . ; . '. ' ; . . . VARUNARJUN TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 761 records and oral & written submission of ihe college submitted A its report to the Ministry. The findings of the Hearing Committee are as under: 'the coll~gi has trle September, 2017 offered by the petitioners in favour of MCI in the sum of Rs.2 Crore. G H. 762 A B c D. E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 12 S.C.R. 9. According to the petitioners, they had placed all the relevant material before the Competent Authority of the Central Government, clearly indicatingthatthe deficiencies noticed in the concerned assessment report were insignificant and within permissible limit. Our attention was invited to the communication sent by the MCI dated 26'h December, 2016, highlighting the deficiencies noticed by the Council Assessors <.m J81h & 19'h November, 2016. The petitioners have also relied on the explanation offered by the petitioners before the Hearing Committee as well as OC. It is contended that the explanation found favour with the OC. The Competent Authority of the Central Government has, however, completely disregarded the opinion of the OC. It was then contended that the recent report of the Hearing Committee does not take the matter any further. The relevant portion of the said report has been extracted in paragraph 17 of the impugned decision of the Ministry. On the one hand, the Hearing Committee observed that the explanation offered by the petitioner college regarding absence of faculty and residents was plausible, but it still chose to disregard that explanation on the specious ground that it was not proved. Further, no analysis as to why the opinion of the OC should be deviated is found in the observations of the Hearing Committee. It is contended that the absence offaeulty and residents on the day of inspection ought to be excluded, in which case the deficiency of faculty would stand reduced to only 6.15% and of residents to only 4.34%. Further, the adverse.observations noted by.theHearing Committee . with regard to minor operations and paramedical non-teachii1g staff is not consistent with the recora produced by the petitioner college during the hearing. It is submitted that in view of the recent pronouncements of this Court in respect of other institutions, similar relief be given to the petitioner institution. A comparative chart of the deficiencies in respect of the said institutions was produced before us to contend that in so far as the petitioner college is concerned, the deficiencies were marginal and relatively less. The main grievance of the petitioners is that despite clear directions given by the .Court to consider the proposal of the petitioner college after taking into account the material produced and explanation offered by t~c petitioners, including the fresh representation, neither the Hearing Committee nor the Competent Authority of the Central Government has adverted to the explanation and material relied upon by the petitioners. Moreso, neither the Hearing Committee nor the CompetentAuthority of the Central Government has analysed the opinion of the OC which had accepted the explanation or recorded any reason . . . ·' ·, '" . . ,;., VARUNARJUN TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 763 to deviate from the ~ame. The fres}, decision of the Competent Authority A of the Central Government is, again, a mechanical order, if not perverse. It is against the spirit of the direct. ons issued by the Court to reconsider the proposal afresh and record reasons. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned decision deserves to be quashed and set aside and further directions should be issued to the respondents to issue confirmation of B Letter of Permission in favour of the petitioner college for the academic session 2016-17 and also allow the petitioner college to admit 150 students in the second batch of the MBBS course for the academic session 201718. l 0. Per contra, the respondents submit that the final decision of C the Competent Authority of the Central Government is just and proper, in the fact situation of the pres.ent case. Inasmuch as the Hearing Committee did not accept the e~planation offered by the petitioner regarding the deficiencies relatirlg to faculty member~ and residents. The Hearing Committee was also not convinced with the explanation given by the petitioners about their claim of 6 (six) minor operations as the college had failed to produce supporting qocuments and evidence in that regard. Similarly, the college failed to produce material to substantiate that the college had paramedical non-teaching staff which was one of the essential requirements. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the recent decisions rendered by this Court on which reliance has been placed, were on the facts of the concerned case. Our attention was also invited to the relevant provisions of the Act, Regulations and Statutory Scheme formulated for consideration of application for permission to establish a medical college. It is submitted that the assessment done by the MCI in the present case was with regard to the verification of the compliance submitted by the college for considering the proposal for confirmation of conditional LOP granted to the petitioner college for the academic session 2016-2017. For that reason, the minimum standards regarding infrastructure and academic requirements as postulated in the Statutory Scheme must govern the consideration of the proposal. The benchmark regarding infrastructure and academics to be fulfilled by the applicant college for permission to establish medical college lire pre-conditions. However, without fulfilment of those . conditions. conditional LOP was granted to the petitioner college on the basis' of direction issued by the OC, which was then acted upon by the Central Government by issuing a formal LOP for the academic session D E F G H 764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] n S.C.R: ·· A 2016-2017 on conditions specified by the OC. The college has failed to fulfil those conditions as was noticed during the verification of compliance. It is submitted that no indulgence be shown to the petitioner college, much less, grant further relief claimed to allow the petitioner college to admit students in the second batch of the MBBS course for the academic B c scssion2017-18. 11. Heard Mr. Rajiv Dhavan, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Abdhesh Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manindcr Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General for Union of India and Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel for the Medical Council oflndia. 12. We must first answer the submission of the petitioners that the satisfaction recorded by the OC whilst accepting the explanation offered by the petitioners was binding on the Central Government. We do not agree with this submission. It is one thing to say that the satisfaction/opinion recorded by the OC constituted by this Court is a D relevant matter and which must receive due attention of the Hearing Committee as well as the Central Government. But it.is not possible to accept the contention that the opinion of QC must bind the. Hearing Committee and the Central Government whilst discharging their statutory duties, moreso, when the legislative scheme of the Act has bestowed E the final authority upon the Central Government to grant or refuse to grant permission in terms of Section 10-A of the Act. 13. Having said this, we may now advert to the deficiencies noticed. in the assessment report regarding verification of compliance submitted by the college. The deficiencies noticed in the said report in respect of F faculty members and residents were sought to be explained by the college - that 4 (four) faculty members and 5 (five) residents had gone for exchange/withdrawal of money from the bank with permission of the Principal and 3 (three) were on sanctioned leave. This explanation commended to the OC as plausible and on that basis, the OC was of the view that deficiency in respect of faculty members would stand reduced G · to t11e pcrinissi.ble limit. Hence, the OC recommended confirmation of LOP. The Hearing Committee, however, observed that the petitioner college did not substantiate the stand so taken. Further, absence of such . large number of faculties and residents during working-duty hours could not be countenanced. Additionally, the Hearing Committee was of the H view that the college was not able to explain the absence of 5 (five) VARUNARJUN TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 765 residents who were on night off and yet could not come, even late, for A · the head count. Besides, no entry to that effect was recorded in the Standard Assessment Forms (for short, "SAF"). The OC, however, has not commented on this aspect of the matter at all. In our opinion, the ,11..-view taken by the Competent Authority of the Central Government is a possible view. The pre-conditions to maintain high academic standards for imparting MBBS course canno.t be undermined. In this case, the deficiency of faculty and residents was significant, besides the other . two deficiencies taken note of by the Hearing Committee and the Central Government in the impugned decision. For that, the college did not produce supportive documents or evidence in respect of its claim of 6 (six) minor operations and list of paramedical non-teaching staff. These deficiencies cannot be treated as trivial or unrelated to maintenance of high standards of imparting medical education. B c 14. We are conscious of the fact that the proposal under consideration was for establishment of a new medical college from academic session 2016-17 and that has to be examined keeping in mind D the norms specified in the statutory scheme formulated regarding permission to establish a new medical college. That scheme postulates the minimum standard of education, which has been formulated by the MCI in terms of Section 19-A of the Act. The scheme provides for minimum infrastructure facilities and staff requirements for 100 admissions. It also provides guidance as to how deficiency in respect of E those matters should be calculated. The Medical Council of India has published those norms and the schemes for requirements to be fulfilled by the applicant College(s) for obtaining Letter oflntent and Letter of · Permission for establishment of a new medical college and for yearly renewal under Section 10-A of the Act. Inter alia, it provides as follows:- F ------ -- -~-- .. -· --------- "NJt~·: . For 011 rmse of' JWrkilll! out the deficie11ro: ( 1) The deficiency qf teaching fa::ulty and Resident Doctors shall be cauntai se1Ylratdv. G (4) For Teadiiml Fac1dty: ( ~ For mlcu/ating the .dejicieocy qf faculty, Prof. Assoc Prof., Asst. Prqf & Tutor in respective departments shill be counted together. (b) Any excess tea:hing fident Doctors: (q) Excess if SR can be compensata:I to the defidency of JR of the same department only. (b) Excess SRI.JR of any department cannot rompensate the deficietry of SR/JR in af1)' otlrr department. (c)A1!Y excess if JR CfO'lmt compmsate the deficiency of SR in same or w1y other deμtment. (<,p Any ex02Sslextra tmclringfaculty of same or any other ckfxirtment ca1111ot compemate the deficiency of SR/JR e_:g:._f!!Eess