JUDGMENT : N.NAGARESH, J. The petitioner, who is Principal of a Self Financing Medical College, is before this Court seeking to quash Ext.P23 order of disapproval issued by the 1 st respondent to start M.D. (Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy) for the Academic Year 2024-2025 in the petitioner's College and to issue approval to start course in this Academic Year. 2. The petitioner states that the Medical College was established in the year 2014-2015. It is a “minority institution”. The College was started with the Letter of Permission (LoP) of the Central Government. The LoP was recommended by the Medical Council of India. The College has been affiliated with the University. The College was granted recognition by including the name of the College in the First Schedule of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. 3. For the year 2024-2025, the petitioner applied for permission to start PG Courses, including M.D. (Dermatology). The National Medical Commission (NMC) issued Ext.P2 public notice directing the applicant-Colleges to produce bank guarantees for the courses applied for. The ? College provided Bank guarantee for an amount of 85 lakhs, as evidenced by Ext.P3. Thereafter, the NMC issued Ext.P5 Show-cause Notice directing the College to rectify the remarks noted by the NMC. The College submitted Ext.P6 explanation. 4. In Ext.P5, the NMC had noted that the Essentiality Certificate was inadequate. No other serious deficiency was noted by the NMC. The College submitted new Essentiality Certificate. To the surprise of the petitioner, without considering the facts, the NMC issued Ext.P7 letter of disapproval. The deficiency noted in Ext.P7 is that as per AEBAS, the attendance of a Professor is less than 75% and that there is deficiency in faculty. 5. The petitioner states that the objection as to deficiency of faculty is unsustainable because rule specifically permits that if there is any excess qualified faculty in any higher category, that can be counted to make up the deficiency, if any, in the lower category. The disapproval is, therefore, unsustainable. 6. The NMC considered the First Appeal filed by the College. The College attended the hearing and relevant facts were apprised to the Appellate Authority. However, without considering any of the contentions, the appeal was rejected as per Ext.P15. In Ext.P15, the reasons advanced for rejection was that there is no Associate Professor and the attendance of one Professor is less than 75% as per AEBAS. The College attended the hearing and relevant facts were apprised to the Appellate Authority. However, without considering any of the contentions, the appeal was rejected as per Ext.P15. In Ext.P15, the reasons advanced for rejection was that there is no Associate Professor and the attendance of one Professor is less than 75% as per AEBAS. Against the rejection of the First Appeal, the petitioner filed Ext.P16 Second Appeal under Section 28(6) of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. The College submitted their explanation along with details. Later, Ext.P19 order was issued by the NMC declining approval to start M.D. (Dermatology). In Ext.P19, the only reason advanced by the 1 st respondent for rejection was that there is non-availability of sufficient faculty in the Department and that attendance of one Professor was found to be short. 7. The petitioner states that the shortage of attendance was alleged taking into consideration the attendance of the faculty concerned only for two months, which was unjustified. The petitioner, therefore, filed W.P.(C) No.43746/2024. This Court by Ext.P20 judgment held that the attendance requirement should be based on the whole Academic Year and cutting out two months out of the Academic Year and alleging shortage of attendance cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order was set aside with a direction to reconsider the matter. 8. The petitioner states that the 1 st respondent, without considering any of the points highlighted in Ext.P20 judgment, rejected the appeal on another ground as per Ext.P23. In Ext.P23, it has been stated that the petitioner failed to make available Form-16 and Salary Slips of all faculties working in the Department. The petitioner would urge that the said allegation is incorrect. The communication requiring production of Form-16 was not received in the office of the College before the hearing date. The hearing was conducted on 08.01.2025. The E-mail sent by the 1 st respondent was received in the office subsequently on 13.01.2025. The petitioner would urge that the impugned order rejecting the approval will not stand the scrutiny of law for many reasons. The petitioner submitted that the petitioner has paid Rs.85 lakhs along with the application. The petitioner will have to remit application fee afresh unless the sanction is granted to start M.D. (Dermatology) in this Academic Year. 9. Deputy Solicitor General of India-in-Charge entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The petitioner submitted that the petitioner has paid Rs.85 lakhs along with the application. The petitioner will have to remit application fee afresh unless the sanction is granted to start M.D. (Dermatology) in this Academic Year. 9. Deputy Solicitor General of India-in-Charge entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. On behalf of the 1 st respondent, it is submitted that the College was requested to make available Form-16 and Salary Slips of all faculty members, appointment letters of all the faculty members and AEBAS data of all the faculty members on the day of hearing. This is evident from Ext.R1(a). However, the College representatives could not produce the documents. The representatives sought for time to produce Form-16 and Salary Slips. However, the same was not produced. 10. Therefore, the committee decided the matter on the basis of available materials and documents, according to which the College does not have adequate faculty for starting of M.D. (DVL) Course for the Academic Year 2024- 2025 as per the documents and submissions made by the petitioner. The request for starting of M.D. (DVL) with two seats for the Academic Year 2024-2025 was hence rejected. 11. The Deputy Solicitor General of India-in-Charge further submitted that the College was given sufficient time for submitting Form-16 and Salary Slips of the faculty members in DVL Department. However, in spite of granting sufficient time, the petitioner’s College failed to produce the same. It is the duty of the petitioner to produce the required documents before the Appellate Authority. It is the subjective satisfaction of the Appellate Authority that matters. 12. The Deputy Solicitor General of India-in-Charge further submitted that a medical student requires gruelling study and that can be given only if proper facilities are available in a Medical College and Hospital attached to it. The Medical College and Hospital should be well equipped and Teaching Faculty and Doctors have to be competent enough that when a medical student comes out, he is perfect in the science of treatment of human beings and is not found wanting in any way. For the said purpose, the NMC has a duty to ensure that there are sufficient number of faculties and the rules applicable to appointment and service of faculties are strictly adhered to by the Colleges. 13. For the said purpose, the NMC has a duty to ensure that there are sufficient number of faculties and the rules applicable to appointment and service of faculties are strictly adhered to by the Colleges. 13. The application submitted by the petitioner for starting PG Course M.D. (DVL) was first rejected by the NMC as per Ext.P7 letter of disapproval dated 06.05.2024. In Ext.P7, it was stated that there is inadequate attendance in respect of one Professor. The faculty was also found to be inadequate because there is only one Professor and one Assistant Professor available and no Associate Professor was engaged by the petitioner. It was also stated that clinical materials data of the Department was not provided in Standard Assessment Form (SAF). 14. Pursuant to Ext.P7, the petitioner filed appeal before the Government. Explanation was given. It was stated that as the College has additional superior faculty, the absence of an Associate Professor cannot be a reason for rejection of the application. The petitioner preferred an appeal against Ext.P7 order which was rejected as per Ext.P15 order. In Ext.P15, it was again alleged that no Associate Professor is registered and attendance of one Professor is less as per AEBAS attendance from 01.01.2024 to 29.02.2024. The petitioner filed Second Appeal before the Government of India. The Government considered the matter and passed Ext.P19 order. In Ext.P19 order, the Government of India has reiterated that there is deficiency of faculty since as per AEBAS attendance from 01.01.2024 to 29.02.2024, no Associate Professor was available in the Department. 15. The petitioner, thereafter, filed W.P.(C) No.43746 of 2024. In the said writ petition, this Court came to a conclusion that the objection relating to shortage of attendance in respect of one of the Professors is unsustainable. The NMC has taken into consideration only a short period of two months for ascertaining the attendance requirement. The attendance requirement should be based on the whole Academic Year. Cutting out two months out of the Academic Year and alleging shortage of attendance cannot be sustained. This Court also noted with approval that as per the Minimum Standard Requirements prescribed by the NMC for Teaching Faculty, any excess Teaching Faculty in the higher cadre can compensate for the deficiency of lower cadre of the same Department. 16. Cutting out two months out of the Academic Year and alleging shortage of attendance cannot be sustained. This Court also noted with approval that as per the Minimum Standard Requirements prescribed by the NMC for Teaching Faculty, any excess Teaching Faculty in the higher cadre can compensate for the deficiency of lower cadre of the same Department. 16. Pursuant to Ext.P20, the 1 st respondent passed Ext.P23 order again rejecting the application of the petitioner, on an altogether different reason. In Ext.P23, it was stated that the College was required to make available Form-16 and Salary Slips of all the faculties of the Department on the day of hearing. However, the college representatives could not submit the required documents in respect of the faculty in the Department and requested for a day to submit Form-16 and Salary Slips of the faculties. However, these documents were not produced. It was also observed that the documents submitted by the College are non conclusive and do not prove the fact that they have adequate faculty in the Department. The Committee noted that the decision was taken on the basis of available documents and facts, according to which the College does not have adequate faculty for starting M.D.(DVL) Course for the Academic Year 2024-2025. 17. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India representing the 1 st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 2 and 3. 18. The application of the petitioner for M.D. (DVL) Course was considered by the 1 st respondent and initially, Ext.P7 letter of disapproval was passed. In Ext.P7 disapproval the reasons advanced for rejection was the inadequate attendance of a faculty and lack of Associate Professor to teach the subjects. In fact, the allegation of inadequate attendance was found to be unsustainable by this Court in Ext.P20 judgment. 19. Furthermore, as the petitioner had two Professors, the lack of an Associate Professor would not be termed as inadequate faculty in view of the Regulations of the NMC themselves. The petitioner’s appeal against Ext.P7 was still rejected as per Ext.P15. In Ext.P15, it was again alleged that no Associate Professor is registered and attendance of one Professor is less as per AEBAS attendance. The petitioner preferred further appeal against Ext.P15, which was rejected as per Ext.P19. The petitioner’s appeal against Ext.P7 was still rejected as per Ext.P15. In Ext.P15, it was again alleged that no Associate Professor is registered and attendance of one Professor is less as per AEBAS attendance. The petitioner preferred further appeal against Ext.P15, which was rejected as per Ext.P19. In Ext.P19, the 1 st respondent again alleged that there is deficiency of faculty and attendance. 20. Thereupon, the petitioner approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.43746/2024. This Court categorically found that the respondents were not justified in calculating the attendance only for a period of two months, to come to a conclusion that there is deficiency of attendance. This Court held that the attendance requirement should be based on the whole Academic Year. 21. This Court further noted that as per the Minimum Standard Requirements prescribed by the National Medical Commission for Teaching Faculty, any excess Teaching Faculty in the higher cadre can compensate for the deficiency of lower cadre of the same Department. The College has excess Teaching Faculty in the higher cadre. Therefore, it cannot be contended that there is deficiency of faculty in the petitioner’s College. Pursuant to Ext.P20, the 1 st respondent passed Ext.P23 order. By Ext.P23 order, the application of the petitioner was again rejected, this time for the reason that the petitioner failed to produce Form-16 and Salary Slips of all the faculties of the Department on the day of hearing. 22. I find that the petitioner has been prosecuting the applications for MD in Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy since March, 2024. The applications were rejected for one reason or another. The petitioner approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.43746/2024. This Court found that the rejection on the grounds of deficiency of facilities and deficiency of attendance of a faculty member cannot stand the scrutiny of law. The 1 st respondent was directed to reconsider the matter. Now, the application stands rejected for the reason that the petitioner failed to make available Form-16 and Salary Slips of all faculties of the Department. It is to be noted that the intimation regarding the requirement of production of Form-16 and Salary Slips was sent by the 1 st respondent just a day before the scheduled day of hearing. The Deputy Solicitor General of India-in-Charge would submit that even thereafter, the petitioner was given opportunity to produce Form-16 and Salary Slips. 23. It is to be noted that the intimation regarding the requirement of production of Form-16 and Salary Slips was sent by the 1 st respondent just a day before the scheduled day of hearing. The Deputy Solicitor General of India-in-Charge would submit that even thereafter, the petitioner was given opportunity to produce Form-16 and Salary Slips. 23. I find from Ext.P19 that the Committee has noted that there is availability of faculty in the Department. The only allegation in Ext.P19 was that a Professor has shortage of attendance and there was deficiency of one Associate Professor. Both these reasons were held to be unsustainable by this Court in Ext.P20 judgment. Therefore, as things stand now, the applications submitted by the petitioner stands rejected for the only reason that the petitioner has failed to produce Form-16 and Salary Slips of all faculties of the Department. 24. I find that Form-16 is a form prescribed under Section 203 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Rules made thereunder. Form-16 is a proof of remittance of TDS. When the NMC / Government of India has sufficient materials to ascertain the number of faculties and even the attendance particulars of the Professors, the NMC could have very well come to a conclusion that the faculties are continuing in the College and attending their duties. As regards the requirement for submission of Form-16 and Salary Slips, this Court fails to understand the insistence for production of Form-16 and Salary Slips by the Government of India in an appeal preferred against the decision of the NMC. 25. The Deputy Solicitor General of India-in-Charge would submit that Form-16 and Salary Slips are directed to be produced to ensure that the faculty members are attending classes are being paid wages. The quantum of wages is not an issue in this matter. If Form-16 and Salary Slips are produced for the purpose of ensuring that the faculties are attending the classes, the application of the petitioner can be considered. The Deputy Solicitor General of India-in-Charge further submitted that the last date for giving options for special stray vacancy round is over by 13.03.2025 and the petitioner may not get students to start the M.D. (DVL) Course in this Academic Year. 26. The Deputy Solicitor General of India-in-Charge further submitted that the last date for giving options for special stray vacancy round is over by 13.03.2025 and the petitioner may not get students to start the M.D. (DVL) Course in this Academic Year. 26. It is to be noted that the petitioner has remitted Rs.85 lakhs as fees for grant of approval of the course and if the application is not considered this year, the petitioner will have to apply afresh paying an enhanced fee of Rs.2.5 Crores next year and the petitioner will be able to start the course only after two years. On the other hand, if the petitioner’s application is considered and approval is granted this year, then the petitioner can seek for renewal of approval for the next year. 27. Taking into consideration the afore facts, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of with appropriate directions. 28. The petitioner is directed to make available Form-16 and Salary Slips in respect of the faculty relating to M.D. (DVL) to the 1 st respondent within a period of two weeks. If the said documents required as per Ext.P23 order are produced, the 1 st respondent shall reconsider the matter taking note of the documents thus produced and Ext.P28 (print out from the Dashboard of NMC in proof of attendance of faculty) and pass orders afresh within a further period of four weeks. In order to enable the 1 st respondent to pass orders afresh on the basis of these documents, Ext.P23 is set aside. The writ petition is disposed of as above.