Allahabad High Court
Sanskriti Ayurvedic Medical College & ... vs U.O.I. Thru Ministry Of Ayurveda,Yoga & ... on 3 February, 2020
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Judgment reserved on:20.01.2020 Judgment delivered on:03.02.2020 Court No. - 19 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 26425 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sanskriti Ayurvedic Medical College & Hospital Thru Manager Respondent :- U.O.I. Thru Ministry Of Ayurveda,Yoga & Naturopathy & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Laltaprasad Misra,Bal Keshwar Srivastava,Rajat Rajan Singh,Sushil Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.,Shree Prakash Singh A N D Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 23318 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sanskriti Ayurvedic Medical College & Hospital Thru. Chairam Respondent :- U.O.I. Thru. Min. Of Ayush New Dfelhi & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Sameer Kalia,Dr.L.P.Misra,Rajat Rajan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.,S.V.Singh,Shree Prakash Singh Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Heard Sri S.K. Singh and Sri Balkeshwar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the Union of India, Sri Shree Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 5 and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
These writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Challenging two orders passed by the Central Government declining to grant permission to the petitioner-Institution for running the B.A.M.S. Course for the academic year 2019-20. The orders have been passed in exercise of powers under Section 13-A/13-C of the Indian Medical Central Council Act, 1970.
The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners submitted an application/scheme for grant of permission for running B.A.M.S. Course for the academic year 2017-18 which was granted. Thereafter, as, such permission is required to be taken every year, another application/scheme was submitted for the academic year 2018-19 which was granted on 26.10.2018 conditionally with the stipulation that the required deficiencies shall be removed by 31.12.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner-Institution applied for grant of such permission under Section 13-A/13-C of the Act, 1970 for the academic year 2019-20. The said permission was declined by the Central Government vide order dated 01.07.2019, however, with the stipulation that if the Institution fulfills the shortcomings observed during inspection held in March, 2019 by 31.12.2019 along with satisfaction of all the minimum standards, requirements of infrastructure, teaching and training facilities as specified in Regulation 3 and 10 of the Indian Medicine Central Council (Requirements of Minimum Standard for Under Graduate Ayurved Colleges and Attached Hospital) Rules, 2016 as also the requirements of Indian Medicines Central Council (Requirements of Minimum Standard of Educations in Indian Medicine) Amendment Regulations, 2016 and all the requirements under the provisions of the Act, 1970 and relevant regulations made thereunder in toto, the Central Council of India Medicine may carry out inspection of the college for consideration of the matter for grant of permission for taking admissions in under Graduate (B.A.M.S.) Course from the academic year 2020-21 i.e. the next academic year. Several deficiencies were pointed out in the said order.
The order dated 01.07.2019 was based on an inspection conduced on 8/9.03.2019 and the report of the Hearing Committee dated 13.05.2019 which was submitted after considering the reply dated 25.04.2019 and 27.05.2019 submitted by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice dated 21.05.2019 issued to it. The said order dated 01.07.2019 was put to challenge by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 23318(M/S) of 2019 wherein the following order was passed on 04.09.2019:-
"1. I have heard Dr. L.P.Mishra & Rajat Rajan Singh, learned counsels for petitioner's institution, Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.3 and 4, and Sri Shree Prakash Singh, leaned counsel for the respondent no. 5, C.C.I.M.
2. By the present writ petition, order dated 01-07-2019 of the Under Secretary, Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (Ayush) is challenged by the petitioner whereby permission is denied to petitioner's institution for taking admissions in U.G(BAMS) course for the academic session 2019-2020 under section 13A/13-C of the IMCC Act,1970. Challenge to the impugned order is based on the ground that the impugned order is a non speaking order and has been passed without application of mind. The petitioner institution is running since 2016-17 with due approval.
3. Attention of this court is drawn towards Annexure No. 10, Minutes of the Meeting of the Ministry of Ayush dated 27.05.2019, which categorically notes reply of the petitioner to each and every objection raised in the CCIM report submitted to the Ministry of Ayush. Further attention is drawn towards the impugned order, more particularly to para nos. 7 to 9 of the same. Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 has also placed before this court the observations of the Hearing Committee dated 27-05-2019, which also finds that nearly all the deficiencies relevant stand fulfilled and there are no major shortcomings.
4. It is stated that not even a single reply or the document submitted by the petitioner is considered in the impugned order. The impugned order notes that representatives of the college were present in the meeting and thereafter, it has failed to consider the oral submissions made and documents submitted in the said meeting. Thus,the impugned order dated 11-07-2019 cannot stand.
5. Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh and Sri Sri S.P.Singh, learned counsels for the respondents also could not show any consideration of the submissions made by the petitioner in the impugned order. Hence, a case for interference is made out.
6. Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel has accepted notices for respondent no. 1 & 2.
7. Notices on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4 has been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel and Sri S.P.Singh, learned counsel is present for the respondent no. 5, CCIM.
8. Let Counter Affidavit be filed by the respondents within three weeks.
9. Rejoinder Affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter.
10. Connect with Writ Petition No.22484 (M/S) of 2019 and list after expiry of aforesaid period.
11. Meanwhile, operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 01-07-2019 shall remain stayed.
12. The respondents are directed to ensure that the petitioner is also permitted to participate in the mop-up counselling, which is to start from 22.09.2019. The fact of provisional permission shall be displayed on the counselling portal.
13. Meanwhile, it shall be open for the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order after taking into consideration all the submissions made by the petitioner."
In pursuance to the aforesaid interim order, although, no fresh admissions could be taken by the petitioners for the academic year 2019-20, the matter in dispute was reconsidered. After reconsideration of the reply and documents submitted by the petitioners the Central Government again arrived at the same conclusion, reiterating the same deficiencies which were pointed out earlier in the order dated 01.07.2019. Accordingly, vide order dated 19.09.2019 which is impugned in Writ Petition No. 26245(M/S) of 2019 once again it declined permission to the petitioner-Institution for fresh admission under Graduate (B.M.A.S.) Course for the academic year 2019-20.
The petitioner-Institution had sought permission for an intake of 61-100 seats in the under Graduate B.M.A.S. Course for the academic year 2019-20.
As already stated in pursuance to the conditional permission granted for academic year 2018-19 vide order of the Central Government dated 26.10.2018 under which not only the deficiencies pointed out had to be removed but the minimum standards, requirements of infrastructure, teaching and training facilities as specified in Regulations referred therein were to be satisfied by 31.12.2018, an inspection was conducted on 8/9.03.2019 and several deficiencies were noticed by the inspection team, accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 25.01.2019 a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 9 to Writ Petition No. 26425(M/S) of 2019 which has been taken up as the leading writ petition. The petitioner submitted reply to the said notice on 24.05.2019 and 27.05.2019 which were considered by the Hearing Committee on 27.05.2019 which submitted its report, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 12. Thereafter, as already stated the permission claimed by the petitioner was declined on 01.07.2019 and again on 19.09.2019. The deficiencies noted in the two orders are the same as mentioned in the show cause notice.
The contention of Sri S. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner was that after inspection conduced on 09.03.2019 and before the issuance of the show cause notice on 21.05.2019 the petitioner-Institution removed all the deficiencies. In this regard he read the report of the Hearing Committee wherein not only the deficiencies but the reply of the petitioner and the conclusions of the Hearing Committee have been mentioned. He laid great emphasis on the fact that the hearing Committee had agreed with the submission made by the petitioners on most of the points. He also invited the attention of the Court to Para 9 of the counter affidavit wherein the deficiencies detected during inspection had been mentioned briefly and the reply contained in para 14 of the rejoinder affidavit to the effect that these deficiencies had been removed prior to 21.05.2019.
The learned counsel for the petitioners invited attention of the Court to relevant Regulations especially Regulation 10 of the Regulations, 2016 contained in Annexure No. 4 to bring home the point that the statutory requirements were to be satisfied in a phased manner depending upon the year of admission. He also invited the attention of the Court to Schedule- V to contend that the deficiencies alleged with regard to higher faculty available in the departments of Dravyaguna; Rogs Nidan evam Vikriti Vigyana and Swasthavritta and Yoga was absolutely misconceived as there was no requirement of at least two higher faculty in each department. He contended that the final decision by the Central Government was contrary to the report of the Hearing Committee. The petitioner- institution had invested a lot of money and should not have been denied permission by the Central Government on flimsy grounds which were rectifiable as was also observed by this Court in its interim order dated 04.09.2019 and which in fact had been rectified but in a pre-determined manner the permission had again been declined vide order dated 19.09.2019 without taking into consideration the rectifications and remedial steps taken after the inspection of March, 2019. He also pointed out that vide show cause notice dated 21.05.2019 itself the petitioner had been given an opportunity of hearing, meaning thereby, the defects mentioned in the show cause notice could not only be explained but the same could also be rectified, and, as, they had been rectified the same should have been taken note of while passing final orders by the Central Government. In the end he submitted that the cut off date for admission to the course in question for the academic year 2019-20 had expired but certain petitions/applications were pending before the Supreme Court seeking relaxation in the cut off date, as such, if the same was granted the petitioner-Institution would also be benefited and it would be in a position to take fresh admissions for the academic year 2019-20. He relied upon the decision of the Uttarakhand High Court dated 23.08.2019 rendered in Special Appeal No. 815 of 2019; Uttranchal Ayurvedic College and Arn. Vs. Union of India and Ors. in this regard.
Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Central Government submitted that in view of the deficiencies pointed out by the inspecting team the Central Government was justified in declining to grant permission to the petitioner-institution under Section 13-A/13-C of the Act, 1970. He invited attention of the Court to Regulation 3(3)(a) of the Regulations, 2016 to contend that conditional permission of one year for particular academic session is to be granted only to those Colleges which are fulfilling the requirements mentioned in the said provision on the basis of inspection by the Central Council between 31.12.2019 to 31.03.2020, for the succeeding academic session. For the academic year 2018-19 the petitioner-institution was granted such conditional permission as is evident from the letter dated 26.10.2018 contained in Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition but the defects pointed out therein were not rectified by the petitioner-institution by 31.12.2018 as was apparent from the inspection conducted on 8/9.03.2019. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 21.05.2019 in this regard. Thereafter, the Hearing Committee gave an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, considered its reply and submitted its report whereupon the Central Government for reasons mentioned, denied permission to the petitioner vide order dated 01.07.2019. The subsequent order dated 19.09.2019 is also to the same effect and according to him none of the orders suffer from any error. He prayed that the Court should declin to interfere in the matter.
Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 5 also contended on the same lines as Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh.
As per Section 13-A/13-C of the Act, 1970 no person shall establish a medical college; or no medical college shall open a new higher course of study or training etc. or increase its admission capacity etc. except with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of the said section.
Sub-section 8 of Section 13-A lays down the factors which are to be taken into consideration by the Central Council while making its recommendation under Clause-(b) of Sub-section (4) and by the Central Government while passing an order, either approving or disapproving the scheme under sub-section (5). These include the capability to offer the minimum standards of medical education as prescribed by the Central Council under Section 22; adequacy of financial resources for the purpose; whether necessary facilities in respect of staff, equipment, accommodation, training, hospital or other facilities to ensure proper functioning of the medial college or conducting the new course of study or training or accommodating the increased admission capacity have been provided or would be provided within the time-limit specified in the scheme; whether adequate hospital facilities, having regard to the number of students likely to attend such medical college or course of study or training etc. have been provided or would be provided within the time-limit specified in the scheme; whether any arrangement has been made or program drawn to impart proper training to the students by persons having recognized medical qualifications; the requirement of manpower in the field of practice of Indian medicine in the college; any other factors as may be prescribed.
The Central Council of Indian Medicine with the previous sanction of the Central Government has made Regulations known as the Indian Medicine Central Council (Requirements of Minimum Standard for under-graduate Ayurveda Colleges and attached Hospitals) Regulations, 2016 in exercise of powers conferred by clause (j) of Section 36 of the Act, 1970. Regulation 3(1)(a) of the Regulations, 2016 reads as under:-
"3(1)(4) The Ayurveda colleges established under section 13A and existing under section 13C of the Act and their attached hospitals shall fulfill the requirements of minimum standard for infrastructure and teaching and training facilities referred to in the regulations 4 to 11 upto the 31st December of every year for consideration of grant of permissions for undertaking admissions in the coming academic session;"
Regulation 3(3)(a) of Regulations, 2016 reads as under:-
"3.(3) Requirements of Minimum Standard to grant of conditional permission of one year-
(a) The conditional permission of one year for particular academic session shall be granted only to those colleges which are fulfilling following requirements on the basis of the inspection by the Central Council between the 31st December to the 31st March for the succeeding academic session:
(i) the requirement of teachers as specified in the Schedule-V;
(ii) the requirement of teaching hospital as specified under sub-regulation (2) of regulation 7;
(iii) availability of minimum seventy-five percent. of required equipment as specified in the Schedule-VII;
(iv) availability of herbal garden as specified in the Schedule-III;
(v) availability of hospital staff as specified in the Schedule-IV,
(vi) availability of technical and other staff as specified in the Schedule-VI;
(vii) availability of college council as specified in sub-regulation (1) of regulation 9;
(viii) availability of college website as specified in sub-regulation (2) of regulation 9;
(ix) availability of biometric attendance as specified in sub-regulation (3) of regulation 9; and
(x) availability of minimum constructed area of college and hospital as specified in regulation 5."
In the present case an inspection of the petitioner-Institution was conducted on 8/9.03.2019 and various deficiencies were pointed out. The said deficiencies were communicated to the Principal of the petitioner-Institution vide show cause notice dated 21.05.2019 giving it an opportunity of hearing in terms of the provisions of the first proviso to sub-section 5 of Section 13-A of the Act, 1970 before the designated Hearing Committee so as to present its case and clarify the position/deficiencies pointed out in the said show cause notice and to show cause as to why the permission to take admissions in under Graduate (B.A.M.S.) for the academic year 2019-20 should not be denied to it. It was made clear that as per extent Central Government policy, the submission will be only with reference to the position that prevailed as on the date of inspection/visitation as detailed in the Regulations, 2016, and other relevant Regulations under the Act, 1970. The deficiencies pointed out in the show cause notice were as under:-
"A. Area of common departments:-
a) Total area of lecture halls is 322.54 sq.mt. Against the minimum requirement of 480 sqmts. as per RMS, 2016.
b) No specimen available in museum of the department of Ayurveda Sahmita & Siddhant B. Teaching staff -
a. There is 01 higher faculty available in the department of Dravyaguna Vigyan, Rog Nidanavum Vikriti Vigyan and Swasthvritta & Yoga, against the minimum requirement of 02 in each as per RMS, 2016.
b. Yoga teacher is not available against the minimum requirement of 01 as per RMS, 2016.
C. Functionality of the Hospital -
a. No delivery has been conducted from 1st jan.2018 to 31st Dec2018.
D. Hospital OPD and IPD functionality:-
a.) As per visitors observation cash receipts for OPD and IPD charge/lab charges are not available.
E. Hospital staff -
a. There are 06 RMO/RSO/MO or CR available in Hospital staff against the minimum requirement of 09 as per RMS, 2016.
b. There are no assistant matron in hospital staff, available against the minimum requirement of 02 as per RMS, 2016.
c. There are 02 Pharmacists available in Hospital staff against the minimum requirement of 04 as per RMS, 2016.
d. There is no Anaethesiologist in modern medical staff available against the minimum requirement of 01 as per RMS, 2016.
e. There is no Panchkarma nurse in staff for Panchkarma therapy section for OPD and IPD available against the minimum requirement of 01.
f. There is no nurse in staff for Operation Theatre and Ksharsutra therapy section available against the minimum requirement of 01 as per RMS, 2016.
g. As per visitors report part-II 08 modern medical staff was found on informed leave during day of visitation. However no leave applications or relevant documents attached along with annexure."
The reply was submitted on behalf of the Institution on 24.05.2019 which is annexed as Annexure 10. Yet another reply was submitted on 27.05.2019 before the Hearing Committee a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 11.
A perusal of the aforesaid replies would show that on several points of deficiencies the petitioner admitted the same that such deficiencies existed on the date of inspection. These admissions in the reply were with regard to (i) existence of availability of only one higher faculty in the department of Dravyaguna Vigyan, Roga Nidan avum Vikriti Vigyan and Swasthvritta and Yoga; (ii) with regard to no delivery having been conduced in the hospital from 1st Jan. 2018 to 31st Dec. 2018 albeit on account of various promotional schemes of the Government luring the patients at Government hospitals; (iii) absence of cash receipts for OPD and IPD charge/lab charges; (iv) as against required 09 RAM/RSO/MO or CR in the hospital staff only 06 such staff was available at the time of inspection, though, three more had been appointed subsequently on 01.04.2019. (v) It was admitted that there were no assistant matron in hospital staff at the time of inspection but two had been appointed subsequently on 01.04.2019. (vi) It was admitted that against the minimum requirement of 04 Pharmacists as per Regulations, 2016 only 02 were available at the time of inspection but remaining two had been appointed subsequently on 03.04.2019. (vii) It was admitted that there was no Panchkarma nurse in the staff for Panchkarm therapy section for OPD and IPD at the time of inspection but one had been appointed subsequently on 01.04.2019. (viii) It was also admitted that there was no nurse in the staff for Operation Theatre and Ksharsutra therapy section at the time of inspection but one had been appointed subsequently on 01.04.2019. (ix) It was admitted that modern medicine doctors were not available in the hospital on date of inspection but the explanation given was that they are available in the hospital on call basis only. (x) With regard to absence of cash receipts for OPD and IPD/lab charges which would establish as to whether the hospital was functional or not, it was submitted that the Institution did not charge any amount for OPD/IPD/Clinical/Pathology, medicine and others from the patient i.e. the treatment is provided to the outdoor and indoor patients free of cost, even Pathological tests and medicines are not charged.
Based on the aforesaid, the Hearing Committee heard the petitioner and submitted its report. It noted submissions on behalf of the petitioner and recorded its over all observations wherein certain deficiencies at Point no. 3, 4 and 5 were clearly noted. Its overall observations recorded at the end of its report were as under:-
"Overall observation of the Hearing Committee In view of the above submission of the college representatives and observations of the Hearing committee during the hearing on 27.05.2019 the overall observations of the Hearing committee are as under:
1. Area of common departments :-
a. Total area of lecture halls is 806.35 sq.mt.
b. 31 specimens available in museum of the department of Ayurveda Samhita & Siddhant.
2. Teaching staff-
a. There is only 01 higher faculty available in the department of Dravyaguna Vigyan. Roga Nidan avum Vikriti vigyan and Swasthvritta & Yoga against the minimum requirement of 02 in each. b. Yoga teacher is available.
3. Functionality of the Hospital -
a. No delivery has been conducted from 1st Jan. 2018 to 31st Dec. 2018.
4. Hospital OPD and IPD functionality :-
a. Cash receipts for OPD and IPD charge/lab charges are not available due to free of cost treatment.
5. Hospital staff-
a. There are 06 RMO/RSO/MO or CR available in Hospital staff.
b. There are no assistant matrons in hospital staff available.
c. There are 02 Pharmacists available in Hospital staff.
d. There is no Panchkarma nurse in staff for Panchkarma therapy section.
e. There is an Anaesthesiologist namely Dr. Muneeb Ahmad in modern medical staff. f. There is no nurse in staff for Operation Theatre and Ksharsutra therapy section. g. 08 modern medical staff were available on call basis."
Even at the cost of repetition it needs to be emphasized that the statutory requirements should have been satisfied by 31.12.2018 and should have been found to be so satisfied on the date of inspection which in this case was 8/9.03.2019. The explanation in this regard which was required to the show cause notice dated 21.05.2019 was also to be submitted keeping the date of inspection in mind as was specifically mentioned in the show cause notice. Any subsequent removal of deficiencies would not be relevant for academic year 2019-20 for which the exercise was being undertaken. This is also evident from Regulation 3 quoted earlier. The subsequent removal of deficiencies, if any, may hold good for considering the grant of permission to the petitioner under Section 13-A/13-C for next academic session i.e. 2020-21 in view of Regulation 3(1)(a) and Regulation 3(3)(a) of the Regulations, 2016, but not for academic session 2019-20.
A conjoint reading of the show cause notice and the Hearing Committee's report would show that the statutory requirements were not satisfied fully as on the date of inspection, except some of them.
Based on the aforesaid exercise an order was passed on 01.07.2019 as already noticed wherein deficiencies were pointed out and permission was declined to the petitioner with the stipulation that if the deficiencies were removed by 31.12.2019, then, it would be considered for the grant of permission for the next academic session 2020-21.
When this Court vide order dated 04.09.2019 stayed the operation of the said order dated 01.07.2019 and directed reconsideration, even after such reconsideration, situation did not change obviously for the reason that whatever deficiencies had been removed by the petitioner, if at all they had been removed, were subsequent to the cut off date and would not hold good for academic session 2019-20, though, they could be considered for the next academic session. In fact some of the deficiencies had not even been removed even subsequent to the date of inspection. The explanation offered in respect of various points was not found satisfactory. Accordingly, permission was again declined vide order dated 19.09.2019. Relevant extract of the order dated 19.09.2019 giving reasons for declining permission reads as under:-
"8. WHEREAS, in view of the observation of the Hearing Committee based on submission made by the college representatives during hearing and the recommendations and visitation report of the CCIM referred in para 3 above, it is found that, ''Sanskriti Ayurvedic Medial College & Hospital, 28 Km stone, Chhata, Mathura- 281 401, Uttar Pradesh" is not fulfilling the following basic minimum requirements for grant of permission for the academic session 2019-20:
i. Required no of Higher faculty is not available in the departments of Dravyaguna Vigyan, Roga Nidan avum Vikritit Vigyan and Swasthvritta & Yoga, as per RMS, 2016. (Teaching staff is essential for conduction of regular classes for the Students and necessary Patient case through the OPD& IPD services and play cardinal role in the functionality of the college & hospital). ii. Required no of RMO/RSO/MO or CR in Hospital staff is not available as per RMS, 2016. (Hospital staff is essential for providing necessary Patient care through the OPD & IPD services and play cardinal role in the functionality of the hospital) iii. Required no. of assistant matron in hospital staff is not available as per RMS, 2016. (Hospital staff is essential for providing necessary Patient care through the OPD & IPD services and play cardinal role in the functionality of the hospital.) iv. Required no of Pharmacists in Hospital staff are not available as per RMS, 2016. (Hospital staff is essential for providing necessary Patient care through the OPD & IPD services and play cardinal role in the functionality of the hospital.) v. Panchkarma nurse in staff for Panchkarma therapy section for OPD and IPD is not available as per RMS, 2016. (Hospital staff is essential for providing necessary Patient case through the OPD & IPD services and play cardinal role in the functionality of the hospital.) vi. Nurse in staff for Operation Theatre and Ksharsutra therapy section is not available as per RMS, 2016. (Hospital staff is essential for providing necessary Patient case through the OPD & IPD services and play cardinal role in the functionality of the hospital.) vii. No delivery has been conducted from 1st Jan. 2018 to 31st Dec. 2018.
(Absence of functional Labour room adversely affects the ability of college to provide quality labour training to the student and proper care to the patients)."
As regards the deficiency relating to there being only one higher faculty in the three departments referred hereinabove, inspite a query being put to the learned counsel for the Central Government in the order dated 24.09.2019 as he was unable to explain the requirement of at least two higher faculty in each department in view of the stipulation occurring in Note-iv to Schedule- 5, the same has not been explained even in the counter affidavit nor could it be explained during the course of the arguments. Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the Central Government insisted that 14 departments were required to be functional from the start of the Institution which was rebutted by the petitioner by inviting the attention of the Court to Regulation 10 according which the requirements were to be satisfied in a phased manner and as at that moment only 10 departments were functional a total of 20 higher faculty were required and the deficiency in this regard could not exceed more than 20% of such total requirement with availability of minimum of one higher faculty and one Lecturer. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as against 20 higher faculty the petitioner had 17, therefore, the requirement was satisfied. The Court is of the view that the Regulations are not very clear in this regard as to whether all the 14 the departments are required to be operational since start or in a phased manner, therefore, this aspect is left open for reconsideration if the petitioner is considered for the next academic year. But this does not have any material bearing on the end result in view of the other deficiencies pointed out in the impugned order which could not be rebutted by the petitioner's counsel.
This Court need not go into factual issues regarding deficiencies detected in man power, staff, infrastructure, facilities etc. for the reasons already mentioned hereinabove i.e. the admission of the petitioner regarding deficiencies on the date of inspection which have already been referred. The deficiencies that may have been removed subsequent to the inspection held on 8/9.3.2019 but prior to 31.12.2019 may be considered by the competent authority for the purposes of the next academic session, if the occasions so arises.
The impugned order dated 19.09.2019 not only mentions the deficiencies specifically but also indicates the relevance and importance of each parameter in respect of which deficiency has been noted and how it would adversely affect the functioning of a medical college and hospital. The explanation offered by the petitioner was not found to be acceptable. The deficiencies were the same as mentioned in the earlier order dated 01.07.2019.
This Court is of the view that in view of the admitted deficiencies of the petitioner as on the date of inspection and even thereafter the Central Government can not be faulted for having declined to grant permission for admission to the under Graduate (B.A.M.S.) course for the academic year 2019-20 under Section 13-A/13-C of the Act, 1970. The opposite parties are the experts best suited to evaluate the satisfaction of statutory requirements and minimum standards prescribed for operating/running a medical college and this Court does not find any ground for interference with the assessment made by the competent authority in this regard. Moreover, the cut of date for admission to the aforesaid course for academic year 2019-20 has already expired.
So far as academic year 2019-20 is concerned, not only the cut off date for admission has expired, there is no error in the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Subject to the observations made hereinabove, the writ petitions are dismissed.
Order Date :- 03.02.2020
R.K.P. (Rajan Roy,J.)