MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. DR. M.G.R. EDUCATIONALAND RESEARCH INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY & Anr.

#11. Earlier, on 101h August, 2009 the MH&FW wrote to the Tmt. Kannammal Educational Trust (or 'the Trust' which runs the Institute) with a copy to the MCI and the Institute that in view of the recall of the recommendation for renewal of permission it was decided that permission could not be B renewed for that academic year. A specific request was made to the College that in view of the above it should not admit any fresh_batch of students for the academic year 2009-1 O and also to comply with the observations made by the MC I. C

#12. The Institute filed a writ petition in this Court on or about 101h August, 2009 being W. P. No. 349 of 2009 in which it was prayed, inter alia, for a direction to the respondents therein, that is, the MH&FW, the UGC and the MCI to consider grant of renewal of permission to admit students in the academic year D 2009-10 in terms of the decision taken by the MCI on 151hApril, . 2009. It was also prayed that permission may be granted to admit students from the academic year2009-10. 2 This Court did not grant any interim relief to the Institute to admit students forthe academic year 2009-10. ·E

#13. The position as it stood was that the College was not within the ambit of the Institute; the permission granted by 2 The reliefs prayed for in the writ petition were: • (a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith consider F the renewal of permission in terms of the decision of April 2009 of the Medical Council of India and accord permission to adniit the second batch of students for the academic year 2009-10. (b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to allow the first G batch of students admitted during the academic year 2008-2009 to pursue the course in the second year MBBS course. (c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus restraining the MCI in any manner in seeking to recall the recommendation of renewal of permission for admission of second batch of students; and H (d) Pass such other order and/or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. M.C.I. v. DR. M.GR. EDUCATIONAL & RES. INST., UNIVERSITY [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 589 the MCI to the Institute and the College to admit students for A the 2nd batch in the academic year 2009-10 was initially kept in abeyance and thereafter withdrawn (with several reiterations), and the Institute had petitioned this Court for permitting admission for ttie 2nd batch of students for the academic year 2009-10 but no interim relief was granted to B the Institute in this regard.

#14. Therefore, both the Institute and the College were fully aware that they could not admit students for the 2nd batch in the academic year 2009-10. Notwithstanding these facts c and the specific direction (given on 101h August, 2009) not to do so, the Institute and the College went ahead and admitted students for the 2nd batch of MBBS course in the academic year 2009-10. Justification for admissions made in 2009-10 D

#15. The main hurdle faced by the Institute in making admissions in 2009-10 was the absence of any approval given by the MCI and no approval was possible in the absence of any notification bringing the College in the ambit E of the Institute.

#16. Apart from the writ petition filed in this Court, the Institute had also filed W.P. No.13419 of 2009 in the Madras High Court for a direction to the MHRD to take a decision regarding issuance of an appropriate notification bringing the F College in its ambit. This writ petition was allowed by the High Court by an order passed on 171h August, 2009 with a direction to take a decision within six weeks.

#17. Pursuant to the direction given by the High Court, G the UGC appointed a committee on 2"d September, 2009 to inspect the College for bringing it under the ambit of the Institute. The committee conducted an inspection on 7th/8th September, 2009. It is not clear when the report was given by the committee, but on 1 Oth September, 2009 the UGC H 590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R. A recommended to the MHRD to grant ex-post facto approval for bringing the College under the ambit of the Institute from the academic year 2008-2009. 8

#18. The College also received a letter dated 15th September, 2009 (though the letter was of a general nature) from the MCI to all medical colleges to furnish the list of students admitted for the academic year 2009-10. Further, on 17th September, 2009 the MC I wrote to the College requesting for some documents but more importantly c informing it of a proposed inspection for renewal of permission for admission to the 3rd batch of students from the academic year 2010-11.

#19. Be that as it may, in compliance with the letter dated 15th September, 2009 the College sent on 30th D September, 2009 a list of students that it had admitted in the 2nd batch of MBBS course from the academic year' 2009-10. E

#20. Learned counsel for the Institute justified the actions of the Institute on the above facts and submitted that the admissions made were bona fide and anticipatory. Three facts were highlighted in this regard: (i) W.P. No.13419 of 2009 was allowed by the Madras High Court on 171h August, 2009 and a recommendation given by the UGC on 1 Oth September, 2009 to the MHRD to grant ex-post facto F approval for bringing the College under the ambit of the Institute from the academic year 2008-2009; (ii) The College had received a letter dated 15th Septen ber, 2009 (though the letter was of a general nature) from the MCI to all medical colleges to furnish the list of students admitted for the G academic year 2009-1 O; and (iii) More importantly, on 17th September, 2009 the MCI wrote to the College requesting for some documents and informing it of a proposed inspection for renewal Jf permission for admission to the 3'd batch of students for the academic year 2010-11. These three facts led the Institute to believe that the admissions made in the H M.C.I. v. DR. M.G.R. EDUCATIONAL & RES. INST., UNIVERSITY [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 591 academic year 2008-09 were now acceptable to the MHRD A and that the MCI also had no real objections if admissions were made in the academic year 2009-10. In fact, there was even a possibility that admissions could be made in the academic year 2010-11. On a cumulative assessment of these facts the College admitted students in the 2nd batch and B sent the list of admitted students to the MCI on 30 11 September, 2009. ' Discharge of students admitted in 2009-10

#21. Pursuant to the directions given by the MH&FW to C the Trust (on 10th August, 2009) not to admit the 2"d batch of students for the academic year 2009-10, the MCI also wrote to the College on 4th February, 2010 that the students who had been admitted by the College for the academic year 2009- 10 may be discharged immediately and compliance D submitted.

#22. On 1st April, 2010 the MCI again wrote to the College reiterating its request to discharge the students admitted in the academic year 2009-10 since the compliance E report pursuant to the earlier letter dated 4th February, 201 O had not yet been received. This was followed soon thereafter by an order passed by the MH&FW on 5th April, 2010 that regularization of admission of students in the academic years 2008-09 and 2009-10 cannot arise since there is no F notification bringing the College under the ambit of the Institute. It was also mentioned in the order that the renewal of permission from the academic year 2010-11 could not be considered for the same reason.

#23. Despite the letter dated 41h February, 2010 and the order dated 5th April, 2010 no steps were taken by the College for discharging the students admitted to the 2nd batch in the academic year 2009-10. Accordingly, by a letter dated 191 h May, 2010 (the third in the series) the MCI wrote to the College H reiterating its request that the students admitted in the G 592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R. A academic year 2009-10 in the 2"d batch may be discharged and that no compliance report had been received pursuant to the letter dated 4th February, 2010. Bringing the College within the ambit of the Institute B

#24. The Institute continued to pursue its proposal to bring the College under its ambit of the Institute. This eventually led to the UGC deciding on 251h September, 2009 to accord ex-post fact approval to the admissions made by the Institute in the College in the academic year C 2008-09. However, the MCI continued to hold the view that the admission of students of 2008-09 cannot be regularized as no notification had been issued by the MHRD bringing the College within the ambit of tht:? !nstitute. This was communicated by the MCI to the MH&FW on 18th March, D 2010.

#25. Apparently in view of this conflict of opinions, the Institute filed W.P.No.13044 of 2010 in the Madras High Court and on 14th July, 2010 the High Court passed an E order to the effect that the notification under Section 3 of the UGC Act may be issued in favour of the Institute subject to the decision in a public interest petition pending in this Court being W.P. No.142 of 2006 filed by one Viplav Sharma. Based on this order, the Institute made a representation on F 201h July, 2010 to the MHRD for appropriate orders. G

#26. Since the MHRD did not pass orders on the representation made by the Institute, yet another writ petition being W. P. No.18682 of 2010 was filed by the Institute in the Madras High Court. This writ petition was decided on 18th August, 2010 and a direction issued to the MHRD to pass appropriate orders in terms of the earlier order of 14th July, 2010 after considering the recommendations of the UGC within one week. H 27. Upon receipt of the order passed by the Madras High Court in W.P. No. 18682 of 2010 an order was passed by the M.C.I. v. DR. M.G.R. EDUCATIONAL & RES. INST., UNIVERSITY[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 593 MHRD on 31st August, 2010 rejecting the recommendations A of the UGC made on 30th September, 2009 to bring the College in the ambit of the Institute. As a result, the ex-post facto approval granted to the College by the UGC (on 25'h September, 2009) in the academic year 2008-09 stood rejected. . B

#28. The order dated 31st August, 2010 passed by the MHRD was challenged by the Institute by filing W.P. No. 20995 of 2010 in the Madras High Court.

#29. Apparently since the writ petition was not being C decided on a priority basis by the Madras High Court, a petition being T.P.(C) No. 512 of 2011 was filed by the Institute in this Court for the transfer of W. P. No. 20995 of 2010 to this Court for disposal. While declining the request, this Court passed an order on 24th February, 2012 D requesting the Madras High Court to dispose of the pending writ petition preferably within three months without waiting for the decision in Viplav Sharma's case. 3 Acting upon the request, a learned Single Judge disposed of the E pending writ petition on 9t11 November, 2012 and quashed the ' The order passed by this Court reads: " The petitioner - Institute has filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No.20995/2010) before the High Court of Judicature at Madras for bringing the ACS Medical College and Hospital under the ambit of the Deemed University, which is pending before the High Court. This transfer petition has been filed by the F petitioner - Institute under Article 139A of the Constitution for transfer of Writ P"!iUon No.20995/2010 from Madras High Court to this Court for being decided by this Court along with WP.{C)No.142/2006: Viplav Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors. {Deemed University case). We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are not inclined to transfer the writ petition. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances G of this case, we request the High Court of Judicature at Madras to dispose of the Writ Petition No.20995 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of communication of this order, without waiting for the decision of this Court in Viplav Sharma's case (supra). The parties would be at liberty to complete pleadings before the High Court within six H weeks from today. The transfer petition is disposed of with the aforementioned observations." 594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R. A order dated 31st August, 2010 passed by the MHRD. While doing so, a direction was given to the MHRD to issue a notification under Section 3 of the UGC Act bringing the College under the ambit of the Institute with effect from 2008- 09. The MHRD was also directed to consider regularizing B admissions made by the Institute and the College in 2009- 10 and to grant renewal of permission for admissions for the academic year 2010-11.

#30. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed c by the learned Single Judge, the MCI and the MHRD filed writ appeals being Writ Appeal Nos. 2772/2012 and 256/2013 before the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. By its judgment and order dated 15th April, 2013 the Division Bench set aside the direction given by the learned Single Judge for issuing a notification under Section 3 of the UGC Act and remanded the entire matter for reconsideration by the MHRD. D

#31. Pursuant to the decision rendered by the Division Bench, the MHRD gave a hearing to the Institute on 8th May, E 2013 and passed an order on 23rd May, 2013 to the effect that the College was a constituent unit under the ambit of the Institute for two academic years that is 2008-09 and 2009- 10 subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions and also subject to the decision in Viplav Shanna's case. F G H

#32. On 24th May, 2013 the Institute sent a representation to the MH&FW in respect of the order passed by the MHRD on 23rd May, 2013. This representation was forwarded to the MCI which decided to make an assessment of the College for recognition of the admissions made in 2008-09. The assessment was made on 71h/81h August, 2013 and the consequent report was then considered by the Under Graduate Committee of the MCI and subsequently by the Board of Governors of the MCI. By a decision taken on 2nd M.C.I. v. DR. M.G.R. EDUCATIONAL & RES. INST., UNIVERSITY [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.) 595 September, 2013 the Board of Governors of the MCI decided A to recognize the admissions made in the academic year 2008-09 but reiterated the earlier decisions that the students admitted in the 2nd batch in the year 2009-10 be discharged. The Board of Governors also decided to black list the Institute and the Trust for a period of five years. 4 B

#33. A copy of the assessment report of 71h/81h August, 2013 was sent by the MCI to the MH&FW on 12th September, 2013 and on the same day the MCI passed a detailed order on the lines of the resolution of the Board of Governors to the C MCI and communicated it to the College.

#34. Acting upon the order passed by the MCI, the MH&FW issued a notification on 1st October, 2013 under Section 11 (2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 D recognizing the MBBS degree for the students admitted in the academic year 2008-09. 5 The Institute was also included in the First Schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

#35. However, the Institute was not fully satisfied with the E order of 12th September, 2013 passed by the Mel and so it ' The order of black listing has since been set aside and is not an issue before us. 5 11. Recognition of medical qualifications granted by Universities or medical institutions in India .-(1) The medical qualifications granted by any University or F medical institution in India which are included in the First Schedule shall be recognised medical qualifications for the purposes of this Act. (2) Any University or medical institution in India which grants a medical qualification not included in the First Schedule may apply to the Central Government to have such qualification recognised, and the Central Government. after consulting the Council, G may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the First Schedule so as to include such qualification therein, and any such notification may also direct that an entry shall be made in the last column of the First Schedule against such medical qualification declaring that it shall be a recognised medical qualification only when granted after a specified date. H 596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 5 S.C.R. A B filed W.P. Nos.1959 and 1964 of 2014 in the Madras High Court challenging that order. By a decision rendered on 14th July, 2014 a learned Single Judge of the High Court did not interfere with the recognition of the admissions made of the 2008-09 batch of students but the order passed by the MCI to discharge the students of the 2009-10 batch was set aside. The MCI was also directed to consider the case of those students in the light of the order passed by the MHRD on 23ro May, 2013 after giving a hearing to the Institute. C

#36. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 141h July, 2014 the MCI preferred an appeal before the Division Bench and that came to be disposed of by the order dated 13th August, 2014 impugned before us. The Division Bench did not interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge D and affirmed the remand with respect to the students admitted for the academic year 2009-10. The order dated 13th August, 2014 underwent a minor clarification on 19th August, 2014 to the effect that the MCI may pass an order (on remand) without being influenced by the findings of the learned Single Judge. It is under these circumstances that the MCI does not challenge the admission of students in the College in the academic year 2008-09 but questions the admissions made in 2009-10. E F Subsequent events

#37. After the order dated 13th/19th August, 2014 passed by Madras High Court, the MHRD constituted an Expert Committee to re-examine the issue of bringing the College G under the ambit of the Institute and that Expert Committee gave a recommendation on 22"d September, 2014 that there is no provision for the grant of an ambit order only for two years that is 2008-09 and 2009-10 but that the ambit order "should have been for the entirety." H M.C.I. v. DR. M.GR. EDUCATIONAL & RES. INST., UNIVERSITY [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 597

#38. While accepting the recommendation of the Expert A Committee the MHRD passed an order on 25t11 September, 2014 to the effect that the College is a constituent unit under the ambit of the Institute for the purposes of conducting an academic course from 2014-15 batch onwards, subject to the decision in Viplav Sharma's case. B

#39. These facts would indicate that the admissions made by the Institute and the College in 2008-09 are not in issue and this was in fact reiterated by the learned Additional Solicitor General who appeared for the MCI. The only issue C is with regard to the validity of the admissions made by the ·Institute and the College in 2009-10 despite specific directions given by the MCI and the MH&FW and the consequence of the possibility of holding those admissions as being unauthorized. D Discussion and findings

#40. There is no doubt from the narration offacts that the Institute and the College, in complete defiance of the E directions given by the MCI and the MH&FW admitted students to the 2nd batch of the MBBS course in the academic year 2009-10. It is true that the Institute gave some justification for doing so namely that it was expecting grant of approval for admissions and thatthis was fo~ified by some F communications received from the MCI. However, this justification wears extremely thin. considering the specific directions given by the MCI and the MH&FW not to admit students in the 2nd batch in the academic year 2009-10. The Institute had also approached this Court praying for G permission to admit students in the 2nd batch in 2009-10 but no permission or interim order was granted by this Court. Notwithstanding this, the Institute went ahead and made admissions. H 598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R. A

#41. To make matters worse, there is nothing to suggest that at the relevant time the College was within the ambit of the Institute. In fact it is only when the MHRD passed an order on 251 h September, 2014 (after the judgment under appeal) that recognition was given to the Institute but limited only to B conducting the MBBS course commencing from 2008-09 and 2009-10 and thereafter in 2014-15. Clearly, the admission of the students in the academic year 2009-10 was unauthorized at the relevant time. I C

#42. It is a little disturbing that the MCI and the MH&FW were completely helpless for several years in taking any action against the Institute and the College in respect of the admission of the 2nd batch of students. The UGC and the MHRD were also passive spectators. It is quite clear that the D statutory authorities and the Government were toothless tigers when it came to retaining admission of the 2nd batch of students in the academic year 2009-10 or taking quick remedial steps after the admissions were made. Unless the statutory authorities and the Government realize and E appreciate that by their inaction they are encouraging blatant defiance of their directions and are putting society at risk with possibly not fully competent doctors, the possibility of improving the health of our people will remain a pipe dream. F

#43. It is also necessary to point out that though the MCI and the MH&FW accorded recognition and approval to the admissions made by the Institute in the academic year 2008- 09, no recognition or approval was accorded to the admissions made by the Institute to the 2nd batch of students in the academic year 2009-10. However, the MHRD went a step ahead and accepted the report of the Expert Committee set up by it and brought the College within the ambit of the Institute from 2009-10 onwards. Clearly one Ministry of the H Government is completely oblivious of the views of another G M.C.I. v. DR. M.G.R. EDUCATIONAL & RES. INST., UNIVERSITY [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 599 Ministry of the Government and this absence of coordination A is what perhaps enabled the Institute and the College to make admissions in the academic year 2008-09 and present a fait accompli to the statutory authorities and the Government resulting in the approval and recognition of the admissions made in that academic year. It is also this absence of B coordination which perhaps enabled the Institute and the College to take similar advantage in respect of the admissions to the 2nd batch of MBBS students in the academic year 2009-10. c

#44. We are pained to point out that without the College being under the ambit of the Institute and having made unauthorized admissions in the academic year 2008-09, the MCI conducted an inspection of the facilities available in the College on 23'd/24111 March, 2009 for renewal of permission D to admit the 2nd batch of students in the academic yecir 2009- 10. Not only was the inspection carried out but a positive recommendation was made by the MCI to the MH&FW to renew the permission. E

#45. Again, when the College was not within the ambit of the Institute and could not admit students in the 2"d batch beginning in the academic year 2009-10, the MCI sent a letter to the College on 15th September, 2009 to furnish the list of students admitted in the academic year 2009-10. It is true that F the letter was of a general nature but obviously it was sent without any application of mind and the Institute sought to take advantage of this in _the submissions made before us. What is worse is that on 17th September, 2009 the MCI wrote to the College proposing an inspection for renewal of permission G for admission to the 3rd batch of students from the academic year 2010-11. The mechanical manner in which the MCI has acted is extremely unfortunate to say the least.

#46. When the MCI came to know and was given the list H 600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R. A of students admitted to the 2"ct batch in 2009-1 O by a communication dated 301 h September, 2009 sent by the College, it kept quiet till 4tti February, 2010 that is for a period of about four months. The MCI could have and should have acted swiftly and taken some remedial steps but it permitted the unwitting students to continue their studies for which they would have had to pay a heavy price with the loss at least of one year of their education. Even the MH&FW kept quiet till 5th April, 2010 that is for a period of about 5 months. It is unfortunate that unauthorized admissions to a medical college C are being taken in such a casual manner by the concerned B statutory authorities and the Government.

#47. In its order dated 121 h September, 2013 the MCI referred to A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society v. D State of Andhra Pradesh6 to the effect that no direction can be issued contrary to the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 or the Regulations framed thereunder. Therefore, it was observed in the order that the Board of Governors in the MCI cannot regularize the admission of the E 2nd batch of students in the academic year 2009-10.

#48. In the referred decision, one of the submissions made was that the interests of the students who had been admitted into the MBBS course of that institute "should not be sacrificed F because of the conduct or folly of the management and that they should be permitted to appear at the University examination notwithstanding the circumstance that permission and affiliation had not been granted to the Institute." It was noticed that the students concerned had not only lost their G money to gain admission into the institute but had lost one or two years of their precious time thereby virtually jeopardizing their future careers. Therefore, this Court left it open to the State Government to devise suitable ways, legislative and H • 1986 (2) sec 667 M.C.I. v. DR. M.G.R. EDUCATIONAL & RES. INST., UNIVERSITY [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 601 administrative to compensate the students, at least A monetarily.

#49. Insofar as the present appeals are concerned, the fact situation is somewhat different inasmuch as the MHRD has now brought the College within the ambit of the Institute not B only for the academic year 2008-09 (about which there is no dispute) but also for the admissions made to the 2"d batch in the academic year 2009-10. This is notwithstanding the objections of the MCI and the MH&FW. That being the position, it is not as if the admissions made by the Institute C and the College in 2009-10 continue to be completely unauthorized. The admissions made were completely unauthorized at the relevant time but have now been granted approval and recognition as a result of certain subsequent events which have been taken into consideration by ·the D MHRD. The MCI and the MH&FW as well as the UGC have therefore little option but to fall in line in this regard.

#50. We also find a substantial difference between the referred case and the present appeals inasmuch as in A.P. E Christian Metlica/ Educational Society, .the students had undergone one or two years of study. However, in the present appeals they have undergone the entire course of study and are now waiting to commence their internship. Having sp~nt five years in pursuing their MBB.S ceurse, to now telf the F stuclents that they have simply wasted their time would hardly be a just and fair view to take. The students in the present case appear to be mere pawns in a bigger game played by the Institute and the College in which the MCI, the MH&FW, the UGC and the MHRD have participated as spectators. We · G cannot let the matter rest at that simply because the admission of the 2nc1 batch of students in the academic year 2009-10 has been recognized and approved by the MHRD. H 602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R. A

#51. In view of this, we requested learned counsel for the parties to address us on the consequential orders that may be passed keeping in view the fact that it is not very clear whether the course of study undergone by the students admitted in the 2"d batch in the academic year 2009-1 O B matches up to the quality expected by the MCI and the MH&FW.

#52. Learned counsel for the parties (other than the MCI) suggested7 a few alternatives to save the careers of the C students. We heard and took note of various suggestions made in the consequence hearings and are of the view that given the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is required to play the role of a bridge over troubled water. The careers of the students certainly require to be D saved but at the same time the interests of potential patients who may be treated by what might possibly be not fully qualified doctors has also to be considered. It is far too dangerous for our society to be treated by doctors who may not be fully qualified or equipped to handle the exigencies of E medical aid and services. Lives of common men and women cannot be put to grave risk under these circumstances.

#53. Therefore, since this issue has been debated and discussed from various points of view, and to strike a balance F between competing interests, we are of the opinion that: (1) A student admitted by the Institution in the academic year 2009-10 should be required to once again undergo the final examination -: this time under the auspices of a State G Health University located outside the State of Tamil Nadu, preferably Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bengaluru. The examination should be h.eld within three 7 Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Senior Advocate for the students and Mr. Rajeev Dhavan, H Senior Advocate for the Institute. M.C.I. v. DR. M.G.R. EDUCATIONAL & RES. INST., UNIVERSITY [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 603 months from today. The Institute will bear the expenses for A conducting the said examination. (2) The Institute/State Health University/Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences shall intimate to the Medical Council of India the proposed date of examination and the B Medical Council of India shall appoint examiners to oversee the conduct of such examination. The Institute will bear the expenses for conducting the said examination. (3) If a student qualifies in the said examination, he/ c she may be allowed to begin his/her internship programme and on successful completion thereof, an MBBS degree shall be awarded by the Institute, subject to the final decision in Viplav Sharma's case. If a student does not qualify in that examination, he or she may be given another chance to qualify D after a gap of six months in a similar examination conducted under the auspices of a recognized University (but not Deemed to be University) located outside the State of Tamil Nadu. The Institute will bear the expenses for conducting the said examination. E (4) The MHRD and the MH&FW should put their house in order and ensure better and more effective coordination with each other as well as the MCI and the UGC. F (5) The MCI, the MH&FW, the UGC and the MHRD should take a joint inspection of the facilities in the College within a period of two months from today to ascertain and determine whether the College should be allowed to admit students in the academic year 2015-16 and whether it G provides necessary facilities as required by law and the regulations. (6) Costs of Rs.5 crores deserve to be imposed on the Institute for blatantly violating the directions of the MCI and the H 604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R. A MH&FW and creating a complete mess insofar as the students admitted to the 2"d batch of MBBS course in the College in the academic year 2009-10 are concerned. The amount will be deposited by the Institute in the Registry of this Court within four weeks from today. The amount of Rs.5 crores B so deposited towards costs shall not be recovered in any manner from any student or adjusted against the fees or provision of facilities for students of subsequent batches.

#54. We direct accordingly and dispose of the appeals C with these directions. A copy of this judgment and order be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of 1lndia and the Secretary, University Grants Commission. ' . D

#55. List for compliance after six weeks. Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.5153/15 @CC No.837/2015)

#56. Delay condoned. The SLP is disposed of in terms E of the decision in civil appeal~ arising out of SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014. Nidhi Jain Appeals disposed of. F