EDUCATION

Supreme Court's Judgement on Katihar Medical College

Al-Karim Educational Trust and another, v. State of Bihar and others, Respondents.

A.M. Ahmadi, CJI, S.C. Sen and K.S. Paripoornan, JJ.

Constitution of India, Articles 226, 133- Education Medical Course Affiliation Grant of Ordinarily it is to be decided by State Government after consultation with Medical Council Unreasonable withholding of decision by State Government-Supreme Court would be constrained to exercise jurisdiction.

Constitution of India, Article 226 Education Medical College Affiliation College started by minority community - Temporary affiliation granted years before Students admitted, allowed to take exam, but results withheld Inspection of college by Medical Council ordered thrice Each time old deficiencies shown to be complied but new deficiencies pointed out Indicative of fact that affiliation is unnecessary delayed Only minor deficiencies remaining to be complied with - State Government directed to issue orders immediately - Insistence on absolute adherence to requirements without regard to their relevance, for the purpose of imparting education Not proper when institution has begun to function, students admitted, have taken examination and their results withheld.

In the matter of grant of affiliation, it is ordinarily for the State Government after consulting the Medical Council of India to arrive at a decision. However, if it is found that the affiliation is being withheld unreasonably or the decision is being prolonged for one reason or the other, this Court would, though reluctantly, be constrained to exercise jurisdiction. We must make it clear that we are not diluting the importance of fulfilling the essential pre-requisite set by the Medical Council before granting recognition. The facts of this case are very special and exceptional. In the present case, we take note of the following aspects:

a)     The appellant institution was granted temporary affiliation nearly 6 years ago (29.12.1989).

b)    More than three years ago, (on 16.7.1992) this Court directed that students may be admitted and permitted to take examination, subject to certain conditions and this has been so done.

c)     In view of the earlier orders of this Court dated 28.9.1993, the only question that survives for consideration is whether affiliation should be granted to the appellants.

d)    On more than three occasions, this Court, after perusal of the affidavits, of the parties and report of the concerned authorities about the deficiencies pointed out, directed time-bound inspections, by Medical Council of Appellants India, along with other authorities bearing in mind that we are concerned with the post-establishment stage.

e)     At one stage, it came to light that the original deficiencies having been removed, new or further deficiencies were pointed out by the Medical Council of India, which were ordered by this Court to be removed.

f)     Finally, the appellants filed a tabular statement -along with an affidavit dated 4.9.1995, sta ting that even the new deficiencies pointed out have been removed and the averments in that behalf stand uncontradicted.

g)    The appellants, claim to be a minority institution and the difficulties/or even the imponderables to start a new institution, cannot be gainsaid. To insist on fulfilling all requirements, at a stretch in modern conditions, is not a practical proposition and ordinarily, only those aspects or requirements, which in the minimal will give a good start for effectively imparting education, with ancillary requisites may be considered sufficient, in the extraordinary circumstances of this case.

h)    It is impractical to insist, for a fool proof or absolute adherence to all requirements without regard to their importance or relevance, for the purpose of imparting education, in a practical way, especially because the institution has begun to function, students admitted to institution have taken the examination and the fact of a good many number of students should not hang in the balance in an unending or everlasting manner.

i)      In the final analysis, the question to be posed, is whether there exists the minimal and satisfactory requirements to keep the matter going, and not whether better arrangements that will render the set up more efficient and more satisfactory, should be insisted as "a wooden" rule.

j)      () It may be that there are some minor deficiencies here and there which call for rectification. Time can certainly set right such matters. What is required is a total, practical, overall view in the light of the latest tabular statement filed along with the affidavit dated 4.9.1995. Material placed before the Court goes to show that there has been "substantial" though not literal compliance with the deficiencies pointed out in the latest report dated 28.6.1995.

k)    Lapse of time and the turn of events call for urgent action and any delay on that score will entail untold hardship to the students and the institution.

12. In the totality of the circumstances disclosed in the case and having regard to the fact that at each stage new deficiencies are being pointed out, the latest being the report dated 28.6.1995 (explained by the subsequent affidavit of the appellants dated 4.9.1995), we are satisfied beyond any manner of doubt, that the deficiencies have been substantially complied with and minor deficiencies pointed out in the last mentioned report of 28.6.1995 are not such as to permit withholding of the affiliation to which the appellants' institution is entitled. From the manner in which the deficiencies have been pointed out from time to time, each time the old deficiencies are shown to have been removed, new deficiencies are shown, gives the impression that the affiliation is unnecessarily delayed. For the removal of the minor deficiencies pointed out in the report of 28.6.1995, a compliance affidavit dated 4.9.1995 is filed. Once the institution feels secure on the question of affiliation, we have no doubt that these minor deficiencies, if they exist shall be taken care of by those in charge of the institution. Fer taking such further steps, the grant of affiliation need not wait. We make this position clear. The steps for the grant of affiliation to the appellants institution may now be expedited and we direct the respondents to issue the necessary orders without loss of time.

(Source: AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1469)