JUDGMENT : The instant writ application has been heard alongwith writ applications being W.P. No.13277 (W) of 2015 and W.P. No.13124 (W) of 2015. 2. The petitioners, in the instant writ application, are pursuing the medical course in the Medical College, at Joka (hereinafter referred to as the said College) run and administered by the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ESIC) and are currently in the 2nd Year of MBBS course. 3. The facts involved in the instant lis are that the said College is run on the basis of yearly renewal of permission for admission of students to be recommended by the Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as the said Council) and to be granted by the Central Government. On 5th January, 2015 a memorandum was issued by the Deputy Medical Commissioner intimating, inter alia, a decision that ESCI should exit the field of medical education entirely. Apprehensive of future prospects being jeopardized, the students, similarly situated with the petitioners, preferred a writ application being W.P. No.4856 (W) of 2015. In the midst thereof such apprehension was set at rest by a subsequent memorandum issued by ESIC intimating a decision to the effect that the admissions to ongoing MBBS/BDS/PG courses at ESIC Medical Institutions shall be continued. The same was followed by a press release dated 23rd March, 2015 that the ESIC would continue to admit students at its three Medical Colleges (which includes the Medical College at Joka) and one Dental College. Observing such facts, the said writ application was disposed of with a hope and trust that the Corporation shall continue to provide infrastructural support necessary for the purpose of obtaining renewal of the medical programmes by the MCI. Subsequent thereto a decision was adopted in the meeting of the Executive Committee of MCI on 13th May, 2015 by which the said Committee, upon considering the compliance verification of the Assessment Report dated 27th April 2015 and previous Assessment Report (10th and 11th December, 2014) noted deficiencies which were existing and which were mandatorily required to be fulfilled by the said College for the purpose of renewal of permission and decided to recommend to the Central Government not to renew permission for admission of 3rd Batch (100 seats) of ESIC Medical Council, Kolkata. Due to such non-recommendation by MCI, the Central Government by a memorandum dated 15th June, 2015 directed the said College not to admit students in 3rd batch (100 seats) of MBBS course for the academic year 2015-16. 4. Before proceeding further it needs to be recorded that in the midst of hearing of this writ application a document issued by the Dean of the said College pertaining to faculty deficiency and a document dated 1st June, 2015 pertaining to submission of declaration forms of newly recorded teaching facilities, were produced by the petitioners. Let the same be kept on record. 5. The primary contention of the petitioners is that the non-renewal of permission for admission of 3rd Batch in the said college would severely prejudice the petitioners inasmuch as unless renewal of permission is granted for four consecutive years including permission of 3rd Batch of students for the academic session 2015-16 the petitioners after completion of their MBBS course will not be recognised or registered as doctors and thus will not be able to practice as MBBS doctors in Government/ESIC/Private hospitals and that such non-renewal of permission will also adversely affect their studies inasmuch as the same would result in scarcity of competent teachers. 6. Mr. Sanyal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, adopts the submissions made by Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, learned senior council appearing for the writ petitioners in W.P. No.13277 (W) of 2015 and submits that the said College is run by ESIC, which is a Central Government organization and that a certain percentage of seats in ESIC Medical Colleges are reserved for the economically weaker sections and such act on the part of ESIC is laudable inasmuch as it generously contributes to the sacred constitutional directives to ensure that the weaker section of the society is uplifted and that such functioning of ESIC cannot be compared with a private self-financing institute and that as such in the earlier writ application the Court expressed its hope and trust that all disputes pertaining to renewal of permission would be set at rest by the governmental concerns. In respect of similarly situated colleges the MCI has recommended for renewal of permission on the basis of an undertaking given to remove the deficiencies as pointed out by MCI but in respect of the petitioners herein a different yardstick has been applied. In respect of similarly situated colleges the MCI has recommended for renewal of permission on the basis of an undertaking given to remove the deficiencies as pointed out by MCI but in respect of the petitioners herein a different yardstick has been applied. Furthermore, the Medical Colleges were not called though on 13th May,2015 the Principal Secretaries of Health of State Government Colleges were called by MCI and that as such the impugned decision of the Executive Committee of MCI suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. 7. He further argues that there can be no impediment towards resolution of the dispute pertaining to renewal of permission since the ESIC is ready and willing to meet the deficiencies within a short period, in the event an opportunity is granted to that effect. 8. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the ESIC has handed over to this Court a memorandum dated 18th June, 2015, a perusal of which reveals that the ESIC is committed to comply with all regulatory requirements for running the medical college and to undertake to rectify all deficiencies before the start of academic session 2015-16. 9. Per contra, Mr. Saugata Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the MCI has primarily contended that any direction to revisit the decision of the MCI or any direction for reconsideration of the matter on the basis of the undertaking given by ESIC would disturb the schedule towards admission as stipulated under the regulations and as directed to be followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. In support of such argument, Mr. Bhattacharya has relied upon the following judgments: (a) Mridul Dhar vs. Union of India reported in (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 65. (b) Priya Gupta vs. State of Chandigarh reported in AIR 2012 Supreme Court 2413. (c) Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Medical Council of India and others reported in (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 60. 11. He further submits that in the event any direction towards reconsideration is issued that would lead to preference of innumerable litigations disturbing the entire schedule towards admission of medical students. 12. In support of his arguments, Mr. Bhattacharya has also drawn the attention of this Court to Sections 10, Section 33A of the Medical Council of India Act, 1956 and the regulations framed under the said Act of 1956, particularly the regulation 8(3) of the 1999 Regulations. 13. In reply Mr. 12. In support of his arguments, Mr. Bhattacharya has also drawn the attention of this Court to Sections 10, Section 33A of the Medical Council of India Act, 1956 and the regulations framed under the said Act of 1956, particularly the regulation 8(3) of the 1999 Regulations. 13. In reply Mr. Sanyal, submits that the judgments delivered in the case of Mridul (Supra) and Priya (Supra) are distinguishable on facts. It is not a case where there had been any deliberate attempt on the part of the college authorities to violate the time schedule, regulation and order of merit to give admission to students in an arbitrary and nepotistic manner. Faced with an initial reluctance on the part of ESIC to continue with medical programmes, the petitioners were constrained to approach this Court and during pendency of the writ application the ESIC authorities altered their decision and decided to continue with medical programme in the interest of the students at large and such facts stand recorded in the earlier order of the Court and in the said order the Court expressed its trust and hope that the authorities would continue to provide necessary infrastructural support for the purpose of obtaining renewal. Admittedly, the said order has not been appealed against by either of the parties to the said proceeding. 14. Mr. Sanyal has further brought it to the notice of this Court that the schedule for receipt of applications for establishment of new medical colleges and processing of the applications by the Central Government by the Medical Council of India as effective on 26th August, 2009 has been substituted and through such amendment issuance of a letter of permission by the Council has been stipulated to be 15th June, 2015 and that prior to expiry of the said period the letter dated 1st June, 2015 has been issued by the Dean of the said College to MCI which was received on 4th June, 2015 but the same was not considered which constitutes an inaction on the part of the respondents to act on the basis of the said communication. 15. Mr. Sanyal has also placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Hind Charitable Trust Shekhar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India & Ors. 15. Mr. Sanyal has also placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Hind Charitable Trust Shekhar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India & Ors. and has drawn the attention of this Court to the observation made by the Court to the effect that MCI has renewed recognition of the Government Medical Colleges on the basis of the undertakings given by the concerned college and that as such there is no reason not to permit the concerned college to admit students. 16. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and I have considered the materials on record. 17. As the basic facts are not disputed by the parties to the writ application, no affidavit has been called for. The undisputed facts are that in the earlier writ application the Court expressed its hope and trust that necessary infrastructural support will be provided by the authorities and that by a letter dated 18th June, 2015 the ESIC authorities have already undertaken to comply with all the regulatory requirements for running the Medical Colleges including that of the petitioners and that the Dean of the said college has also made a declaration to the effect that the faculty deficiencies has been brought down from 33% to 23%. 18. I do not find any reason to disbelieve such statement made by the Dean of the said college. What remains is the fulfilment of the other deficiencies as indicated in the impugned decision dated 13th May, 2015. To that effect the ESIC authorities have already committed to comply with all the regulatory requirements, as would be explicit from memorandum dated 18th June, 2015. 19. In this context, it needs to be mentioned that by a judgment dated 15th June, 2015 delivered in the case of Tanvi Sarwal vs. CBSE, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already cancelled the All India Pre-Medical and Pre-Dental Entrance Test, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the said Examination of 2015) and the Hon’ble Court further directed the appropriate authorities to conduct a fresh examination and on behalf of the petitioners it has been contended that since the said examination has to be conducted afresh in terms of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, admissions in the concerned MBBS course cannot be finalized, prior to completion of such examination. Thus, it is evident that the said College shall not be in a position to fill up its seats prior to conclusion of the said Examination of 2015. It is also not a case where a direction for reconsideration of recommendation by MCI would tantamount to frustration of the principal of admission on merit or deprivation of the students’ right to choose a college/course on the strength of merit or moulding of the time schedule to suit the convenience of some economic or other interest of any institution. 20. In the conspectus of facts, I am of the opinion that appropriate directions are required to be passed for the purpose of ascertaining the veracity of declaration given by the Dean of the said college to the effect that the faculty deficiency has been brought down from 33% to 23% and also to avail necessary undertaking from the said college to fulfil the other deficiencies, if any, for the purpose of recommendation for renewal of permission. The object, on the rudiments on which the judgments were delivered in the cases of Mridul (Supra) and Priya (Supra), was to plug the loopholes and to make the entire admission process transparent and the directions through the instant order shall not in any manner be contrary to such object. 21. Accordingly, the impugned decision of the Executive Committee of MCI dated 13th May, 2015 relating to the Medical College, Joka, Kolkata is set aside and the Medical Council of India is directed to conduct an inspection in the said college to ascertain the veracity of the declaration given by the Dean of the said college to the effect that the faculty deficiency has been brought down from 33% to 23%. Such inspection should be conducted by the Medical Council of India within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order. 22. Such inspection should be conducted by the Medical Council of India within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order. 22. In the event, upon such inspection, it is found that the faculty deficiency, in terms of the declaration submitted before this Court by the Dean of the said college has been brought down from 33% to 23% and in the event an undertaking is given by the said college and the ESIC to remove the other deficiencies pointed out in the decision dated 13th July, 2015 within a period of two weeks from the date of such inspection, the Medical Council of India shall consider the matter afresh and take a decision as regards recommendation for renewal of permission for admission to the 3rd Batch (100 seats) of the said college, within a period of two weeks thereafter. 23. With the above observations and directions, the writ application is disposed of. 24. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be handed over to the parties on compliance of necessary formalities. (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.) Later: Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for MCI prays for stay of operation of the order for a period of two weeks. Such prayer of Mr. Bhattacharya is considered and rejected.