AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ
Heard Mr. Arvind Vasishth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 2, Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Mr. Suyesh Pant, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and, with their consent, the Special Appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission.
By the order, impugned in the writ petition, dated 09.07.2019 the appellants-writ petitioners were informed that the deficiencies, found in inspection on 27/28.03.2019, were of such a fundamental nature that they adversely affected the ability of the College to provide quality medical education in terms of the provisions of the IMCC Act and the relevant regulations; it was decided by the Central Government to withdraw the five year permission granted by letter dated 16.11.2016 and 14.12.2016 respectively; and permission granted earlier to the appellants, for taking admission to BAMS course with 100 seats in UG (BAMS) Course and 20 seats in PG Course for academic session 2019-2020, was being withdrawn. The appellant-writ petitioner was also informed that the college was being provided time upto 31.12.2019 to fulfill the shortcomings as observed during this year as mentioned in earlier paras of the order, along with the requirements mentioned thereafter, so that the Central Council of Indian Medicine may carry out inspection of the college for consideration of grant of permission for taking admission in UG (BAMS) course and PG courses from the academic year 2020-21. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court filing WPMS No.2406 of 2019.
In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge noted the submission, urged on behalf of appellant-writ petitioner, that the deficiencies pointed out by the respondent authorities were with regard to the intake of 100 seats and, if the intake of 60 seats is taken into consideration, there was no deficiency. The writ petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to make an application before the Department of AYUSH, Government of India, which shall get inspection done by the Central Council of Indian Medicine, and pass appropriate orders within two weeks from the date of the order, as per the Regulations. Aggrieved thereby, the present Special Appeal.
Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-petitioner, would submit that the deficiencies pointed out in the impugned order relate mainly to the teaching faculty; it is not even the case of the respondents that the appellant-writ petitioner does not have the requisite faculty; it is merely because 13 faculty members did not register themselves with the first respondent, were they ignored in computing the total number of faculty members required for the course; the regulations require 150 days time to be granted to rectify the deficiencies; even without granting the petitioner's time, of five months, to rectify the deficiencies, the order of cancellation was passed; and this Court may consider passing a similar interim order as was passed in WPMS No.2133 of 2019 dated 02.08.2019.
On the other hand, both Mr. Ramji Srivastava and Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel, would submit that a bare reading of the impugned order would show that there were several deficiencies in the appellant-writ petitioner's college which rendered it wholly unsuited to admit students for the academic year 2019-20; permitting the petitioner to admit students, without rectifying the deficiencies, would result in a situation where, in case the deficiencies are not rectified, the students, admitted in the college, would be left stranded; it is only if, and after, the appellant-writ petitioner rectifies the deficiencies can their request for grant of approval, for the next academic session, be considered; and the respondents had granted the appellant-writ petitioner time till 31.12.2019 to rectify the deficiencies for the next academic year 2020-21.
While the dispute raised in this writ petition can be effectively adjudicated, on its being heard and decided, after inviting counter affidavits from the respondents, the order under appeal appears to have been passed on the appellant expressing urgency contending that the second round of counseling is scheduled to be held on 31.08.2019, and thereafter only the mop-up counseling would remain to be held; and, if the appellant-writ petitioner is not permitted to participate in the counseling process to be held on 31.08.2019, they would be deprived of their right to admit students, even if the respondents were to be satisfied later that the deficiencies, pointed out in the impugned order, have been cured and rectified.
The Indian Medicine Central Council (Requirement of Minimum Standard for under-graduate Ayurveda Colleges and attached Hospitals) Regulations, 2016 were made in the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 36(J) of the India Medical Central Council Act, 1970. These Regulations came into force on its being notified on 07.11.2016. Regulation 3 relates to the requirements of minimum standard to grant permission. Under clause (1)(a) thereof, Ayurveda colleges, established under Section 13(A) and existing under Section 13(C) of the Act, and their attached hospitals, shall fulfill the requirements of minimum standards for infrastructure and teaching and training facilities referred to in Regulations 4 to 11 upto the 31st of December every year, for consideration of grant of permissions for undertaking admission in the coming academic session. Clause (b) requires the Central Council to visit the college Suo moto three months before expiry of permission. Regulation 3(2) relates to the requirements of minimum standards to grant permission for a period of five years and under clause (a) thereunder, after fulfillment of the requirement as per these Regulations by the college, permission shall be granted to undertake admissions for a period of five years; the college shall be randomly inspected within the said period on receipt of any complaint; or if from online bio-metric attendance it is found that teaching, non-teaching staff, hospital staff are not present regularly, or the hospital is not properly functional, or otherwise as required by the Central Government or by the Central Council. Clause (b) stipulates that any deficiencies, arising within the said period, shall be fulfilled by the college within hundred and fifty days under intimation to the Central Council, otherwise permission for a period of five years is deemed to be withdrawn. Clause (c) stipulates that the colleges, which were permitted for a period not exceeding five years from the academic session 2014-15 to 2018-19 and 2015-16 to 2019-20, shall maintain the requirements as specified under Regulations 4 to 11, otherwise permission for a period of five years shall be deemed to be withdrawn. While it is contended, on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner, that Regulation 3(2)(b) applies to all colleges, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that regulation 3 (2)(b) would apply only to such colleges which were granted permission for the first time under the 2016 Regulations, and not for colleges which were in existence prior thereto.
The submission which found favour with the learned Single Judge, resulting in the order under appeal being passed, was that the petitioner fulfilled the requirement for admission of 60 UG students. While this Court would not take upon itself the task of examining whether or not the appellant-writ petitioner had fulfilled the stipulated conditions, as these are all matters for the Central Council to examine, the fact remains that, even if the Central Council were to be satisfied, after causing inspection, that the appellant-writ petitioner fulfilled the eligibility criteria for admission of 60 UG students and 20 PG students, it would be of no avail, since the counseling process would have been completed by then. The Second round of counseling, for both Undergraduate and postgraduate students, is scheduled to be held on 31.08.2019, and even if the Central Council were to be satisfied later that all the deficiencies have been rectified, it would matter little as no candidate can participate in the second round of counseling process being held on 31.08.2019 both for under graduate and post graduate students.
The order under appeal required the Central Council of Indian Medicine to make an inspection and, on the basis of its recommendations, for the department of AYUSH, Government of India to pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks' from the date of the order as per the Regulations. The two weeks period stipulated by the learned Single Judge would expire by 04.09.2019. Since, the appellant-writ petitioner would submit that the entire cause would be rendered infructous by then, as the counseling process is scheduled to be held prior thereto on 31.08.2019, suffice it to modify the order under appeal to the limited extent that the Department of AYUSH, Government of India shall either take a decision, after inspection by the Central Council before 31.08.2019, regarding admission of at least 60 Undergraduate student and 20 Postgraduate students in the present academic session 2019-20; or, alternatively, consider whether, pending inspection and passing of final orders, the appellant-writ petitioner can be permitted to participate in counseling process for admission of 60 UG and 20 PG seats, subject to such conditions as the Department of AYUSH, on the recommendations of the Central Council of Indian Medicine, may consider fit to impose.
The Special Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.
We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion as to whether or not the appellant-writ petitioner has now fulfilled the requirements or whether they now satisfy the stipulated conditions for admission of 60 Under Graduate students and 20 Post Graduate students, for these are all matters for the Central Council to recommend, and for the Department of AYUSH, Government of India to consider.
Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the parties, on payment of the prescribed charges, today itself.