Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Radhe Shyam Kumawat And Ors vs State Of Raj And Ors on 20 September, 2022
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12917/2017
1. Devendra Samota Son Of Shri Banwari Lal Choudhary,
aged about 21 years, Resident Of Village Kirarod, Tehsil
Kotputali, District Jaipur
2. Manoj Kumar Jat Son Of Shri Ram Pratap Jat, aged about
21 years, Resident Of Nayabas, Tehsil Bansur, District
Alwar, Rajasthan
3. Sunil Kumar Saini Son Of Shri Madan Lal Saini, aged
about 21 years, Resident Of Village Leelamandha, Post
Bassi Jogiyan, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar
4. Devendra Singh Awana Son Of Shri Bhagwat Gurjar, aged
about 21 years, Resident Of N.B.C. Quarter No. 2,
Bhairav Nagar, Hatwara Road, Jaipur.
5. Hansraj Sharma Son Of Shri Satyarayan Sharma, aged
about 20 years, Resident of Village Kalyanpura, Tehsil
Bassi, District Jaipur
6. Geeta Sharma Daughter Of Shri Bodu Ram Sharma, aged
about 20 years, Resident Of Nadi Wali Dhani, Village
Vimalpura, Via Kaladera, District Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Medical
And Health Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Directorate Of Medical Education, State Of Rajasthan,
Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur
3. Principal And Controller, S.m.s. Medical College, Jaipur,
Rajasthan
4. Department Of Physical Medicine And Rehabilitation
Through Head Of Department, S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur
5. Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Through
Registrar, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur
6. Rehabilitation Council Of India Through Its Chairperson,
B-22, Qutub Industrial Institutional Area, New Delhi-
110016.
----Respondents
Connected With (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:04:10 AM) (2 of 26) [CW-12917/2017] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13289/2017
1. Radhe Shyam Kumawat Son Of Shri Gendilal Kumawat, aged about 25 years, Resident Of Darbar Chorasya Ki Dhani, Via Bagru, District Jaipur.
2. Prasenjeet Mitra Son Of Prahalad Kumar Mitra, Aged about 25 years, R/o 410N4, Balaiyo Ki Gali, Diggi, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk, Rajasthan.
3. Devendra Singh, Son Of Sh. Digambar Singh, Aged about 22 years, R/o V.P. Patonda, Tehsil Hindaun City, District Karauli Rajasthan.
4. Umashankar Swami, Son Of Sh. Pooran Mal Swami, Aged about 25 years, R/o A-31, Sharda Colony, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur.
5. Rakesh Kumar Atwal, S/o Sh. Om Prakash Atwal, Aged about 20 years, R/o Post Chatarpur, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar Rajasthan.
6. Shubhangi Sharma, D/o Sh. Kailash Sharma, Aged about 21 years, R/o 1-A, Janpath Road, Opposite Youth Hostel, Jaipur.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Directorate Of Medical Education Through Its Director, State Of Rajasthan, Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
3. Principal And Controller, S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Department Of E.N.T, Through Head Of Department, S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur.
5. Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Through Registrar, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur.
6. Rehabilitation Council Of India Through Its Chairperson, B-22, Qutub Industrial Institutional Area, New Delhi- 110016.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9154/2021 Amit Kumar Charaniya Son Of Sh. Jagdish Prasad Bunkar, , Resident Of - Bada Gav, Bhatiya Post Akhepura Harmara Tehsil (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:04:10 AM) (3 of 26) [CW-12917/2017] Amer, Distt. Jaipur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Directorate Of Medical Education, State Of Rajasthan, Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
3. Principal And Controller, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Department Of Physical Medicine And Rehabilitation, Through Head Of Department, SMS Hospital, Jaipur.
5. Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Through Registrar, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur.
6. Rehabilitation Council Of India, Through Its Chairperson, B-22, Qutub Industrial Institutional Area, New Delhi- 110016.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Jain, Adv.
Mr. Rishiraj Maheshwari, Adv.
Mr. Kritin Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Girraj Rajoria, Adv. & Mr. Aamir Khan Yusuf, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Ram Pratap Saini, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG with Mr. Harshal Tholia, Adv. and Mr. Ankit Rathore, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Chirania, Adv.
Mr. Vikas Pareek, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Harsh Sahu, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order 20/09/2022 These three writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, raising an issue with regard to non grant of approval and (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:04:10 AM) (4 of 26) [CW-12917/2017] registration of their courses by Rehabilitation Council of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Council'), This Court with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, is deciding the present writ petitions by a common order.
The petitioners in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12917/2017 are the candidates who have acquired the qualification of BPO i.e. Bachelor in Prosthetic & Orthotic.
The writ petitioners in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13289/2017, are the candidates who have acquired qualification of B.P.O. and B.A.S.L.P. (Bachelor in Audiology and Speech Language Pathology).
The writ petitioner in S.B. Writ Petition No.9154/2021, is the candidate, who has acquired qualification of BPO.
The petitioners have pleaded in their writ petition that initially an advertisement was issued in the year 2013, wherein, applications were invited by Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (hereinafter referred to as 'RUHS'), for different Para Medical Courses for the Session 2013-14.
The petitioners have pleaded that in pursuance of said notification, the petitioners applied for under graduate course as mentioned above i.e. BPO and BASLP and an Information Booklet was issued by RUHS, wherein, different admission procedure and other relevant conditions were prescribed.
The petitioners have pleaded that the counselling process were undertaken against tentative seat matrix as shown along with Information Booklet and all the petitioners being meritorious, came to be admitted in the aforesaid two courses and they started undergoing these courses in SMS Medical College, Jaipur. (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:04:10 AM)
(5 of 26) [CW-12917/2017] The petitioners have pleaded that after their admission was granted, they were hopeful that the Authorities who had granted them admission, will permit them to write their examination and accordingly, they will be granted their degrees/diplomas, respectively. The petitioners after completing their courses which started from the Session 2013-14, were also found eligible for declaration of their result by RUHS and as such, the courses which were undertaken by them, was also required to be approved from the Council as the Council has been established under the provisions of Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1992').
The petitioners when came to learn about dispute with regard to their courses not being recognized by the Council, approached the respondents and requested that since they have already undergone the entire course as such, their courses were required to be recognized for all purposes including employment and do practice on the basis of validly acquired qualification.
The petitioners have pleaded in their petitions that the requisite internship which the candidates were required, was also undertaken by them in the year 2017 itself and as such, the petitioners when came to know that the State Government and the Council, are not able to confer proper degree/diploma courses on the petitioners then they approached this Court.
This Court finds that the prayers made by the petitioners in the writ petition was for giving direction to the State Government for approaching Council for seeking their necessary approval for the academic courses for the Sessions 2013-14 and 2014-15. The petitioners also prayed that the directions is required to be given (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:04:10 AM) (6 of 26) [CW-12917/2017] to the Council to grant approval of the Courses of BPO and BASLP, if petitioners have passed from SMS Medical College, Jaipur.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that during pendency of the writ petition on completion of their course, they have been conferred with the degree issued by the RUHS and as such, now the petitioners have grievances with regard to not having the approval from Council of their courses and further their non registration with the Council on account of not approving the course, started by the SMS Medical College, Jaipur, without having their prior approval.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the reliefs which were claimed initially by them while filing the writ petition, are not relevant now due to subsequent developments which have taken place as the petitioners have been granted their requisite degrees of undergraduate courses by RUHS, as such, this Court may consider only these above mentioned two prayers.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent State-SMS Medical College, Jaipur, while had initially decided to impart education in Para Medical Courses, had undertaken the requisite exercise of approval by the Central Government and after seeking their approval, the said courses were commenced by them.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Act of 1992, was introduced for the purpose of regulating the training of rehabilitation professionals and the maintenance of a Central Rehabilitation Register and no institution of the Rehabilitation Professional Course was to be started without prior approval of the Council/Central Government.
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:04:10 AM)
(7 of 26) [CW-12917/2017] Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that before starting the courses by the SMS Medical College and RUHS University, the Central Government had carried out the inspection by a team of experts and as such, the Inspection Committee, so constituted by the Central Government-Director General, Health Services, New Delhi had recommended that new courses could be undertaken by the Government Medical College-SMS Medical College and as such, there were 10 courses which were recommended to be commenced by SMS Medical College, Jaipur.
Learned counsel submitted that the said inspection was carried out in view of sanction granted by the Central Government on 11.02.2011 and after one time grant adequate budget to SMS Medical College, Jaipur, the Inspection Committee recommended and approved for starting these courses.
Learned counsel submitted that the State Government accordingly, started the admission process for the year 2013-14 and 2014-15 and after completion of the courses, the respondent- Council, cannot deny the right of the petitioners to have proper approval and registration with the Council.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the stand which has been taken before this Court by the State Government of starting the course after due intimation to Council by way of several correspondence entered between the two parties, clearly reveal that the requisite sanction was granted by the Council to start these courses and as such, there is no legal impediment which can deprive the petitioners to have a valid qualification in their favour making them entitled either to work as professionals by having the qualifications or to do job on the basis of qualifications granted by the University. (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:04:10 AM)
(8 of 26) [CW-12917/2017] Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the inter- se dispute between the State Government and the Council or any omission on their part to have proper communication about approval, should not result into depriving the petitioners to possess the requisite qualifications.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were led to believe that the course which was to be imparted by a reputed Government College like SMS Medical College, Jaipur, and the entire examination process being undertaken by RUHS, will have no clouds or doubt about such course being validly imparted to the petitioners.
Learned counsel further submitted that the eligibility criteria was prescribed by the respondents at the time of initial admission and merit being the sole criterion and if the petitioners on the basis of their merit have been granted admission, the respondents should not be allowed to question the validity of course which has been validly undertaken by them.
The respondent No.6 i.e. the Rehabilitation Council of India has filed reply to the writ petition.
The respondent-Council has pleaded that the Act of 1992 has been enacted by the Parliament and the Council is a statutory body.
It is pleaded on their behalf that Council lays down the policy parameters regarding various aspects of training and education in the field of Rehabilitation and Section 11 of the Act of 1992, provides for seeking recognition by any institution or University in India.
The Council has pleaded that no professional courses can be started by any Institute/University without prior approval of the (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:04:10 AM) (9 of 26) [CW-12917/2017] Council and institutions are approved to run the training courses after evaluation of infrastructure and other resources by the Visiting Experts of the Council.
The Council has taken a stand that the RUHS was running the course without seeking necessary approval from them for the Academic Year 2013-14.
The Council has further stated in their reply that inspection was conducted by the Inspecting Team in February, 2015 and proposal to run the BPO course of the RUHS, was rejected vide order dated 17.02.2015, as the institution did not have essential parameters for grant of approval. The right which was exercised by the RUHS, while giving admission has also been doubted by the Council as no prior approval was taken by the RUHS, from the Council.
The entire liability for making wrong admissions has been fastened on the RUHS and the action of the Council has been justified as per the statutory provisions contained in the Act of 1992.
The respondent-State has filed the separate reply. The respondent-State has pleaded in their reply that an Inspection Committee under the Chairmanship of DDG (P), Dte, GHS had inspected the SMS Medical College, in March, 2011 and as one time grant, the State Government was permitted to start new Para Medical Courses and after such approval, the State Government granted admissions to the different students including the petitioners.
The State has pleaded that the RUHS, had also granted permission for the Session 2013-14 and accordingly the selection of the students, was made for aforesaid two courses. (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:04:10 AM)
(10 of 26) [CW-12917/2017] The State has pleaded that in the month of August, 2014, online application was also sent to the Council for granting recognition and only on account of letter issued in February, 2015, the Council, informed that the SMS Medical College, Jaipur, that institute had shown poor performance with regard to the essential parameters as per the revised guidelines and such approval was not accorded to admit students for the academic session 2015-16 and further the State was advised to re- approach the council afresh and apply with the requisite documents.
The State has also pleaded that after receiving the objections from the Council, the Principal and Head of Department of the Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Department, vide order dated 27.05.2015, had apprised Principal & Controller, SMS Medical College, Jaipur about the facilities which were avoidable and the compliance which was made for issuance of letter of recognition for BPO Course.
The State has taken a stand that the admissions granted to the students for the Session 2013-14 & 2014-15, were absolutely in accordance with requirement of law as per the Act of 1992 and no violation has ever been made by the State of statutory provisions while granting admission to the students including the petitioners.
The State has also filed additional affidavit before this Court on 25.07.2022 and they have placed certain documents on record to show that the procedure was followed by them with regard to running the courses.
This Court had also directed the State Officials to file additional affidavit with regard to the correspondence entered (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:04:10 AM) (11 of 26) [CW-12917/2017] between the SMS Medical College and the Council and further to explain as what steps were taken by them for starting the new courses.
The respondent-State has filed additional affidavit dated 30.08.2022, wherein, certain letters and other correspondences have been placed on record.
Learned counsel-Mr. Ravi Chirania, appearing for the respondent-Council submitted that prayer sought by the petitioners in the writ petitions, cannot be granted as the functions of the Council are clearly defined as per the Act of 1992.
Learned counsel submitted that the only recognized qualifications which are granted by any University or other Institution are required to be included in the Schedule and those Universities or Institutions which are granting qualification for the Rehabilitation Professionals, if are not included in the Schedule, are required to apply to the Central Government to have such qualification recognized and the Central Government after consulting the Council may by notification amend, the schedule so as to, include such qualification in the schedule.
Learned counsel submitted that in the present case, since the institution itself has not been recognized by the Council and as such, the petitioners cannot claim a right that they should be allowed to have approval of the Council and further they should be registered with the Council.
Learned counsel further submitted that the Act of 1992 permits for framing of Regulations and accordingly Rehabilitation Council of India Regulations, 1997 have been framed.
Learned counsel submitted that there are norms which are prescribed for starting Rehabilitation Professional Course and as (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:04:10 AM) (12 of 26) [CW-12917/2017] per Regulation 24, no institute of Rehabilitation Professional Course can be started without prior approval of the Council.
Learned counsel submitted that as per sub-Regulation (2) of Regulation 24, the institution has to seek prior approval of the Council through the respective State Government and after assessment being made by the authorized professionals appointed by the Council, the said courses can be started.
Learned counsel submitted that in the present case, the entire mechanism which is provided for starting a rehabilitation professional course, has not been followed and if the State Government has undertaken such exercise, Council is not bound by the same.
Learned counsel for the Rehabilitation Council of India-Mr. Ravi Chirania further submitted that so called correspondence said to be entered between the State Government and Council, nowhere reflects that prior permission was sought from Council before starting course in the year 2013-14 and only correspondence takes place by the State with regard to starting the course for the Academic Session 2015-16 and accordingly Council, specifically denied the State Authorities to run the said course as they did not fulfill the requisite parameters.
Learned counsel for the Rehabilitation Council of India has further submitted that the concept of post facto sanction, is not available as per the statutory provisions contained in the Act of 1992 and reference made thereunder and as such, even if this Court has come to conclusion that the petitioners were rightly admitted in the course, no inspection can be carried out now for the facilities, which might be available at the relevant time. (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:04:10 AM)
(13 of 26) [CW-12917/2017] Learned counsel submitted that the State Government ought to have been vigilant and prudent for seeking prior permission before starting the course and only because SMS Medical College, Jaipur or RUHS, have undertaken the exercise, the same should not be given a seal of approval by this Court.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that initially step for starting the new course was taken after prior approval of the Central Government as the Expert Team of Central Government after considering the infrastructure and other requirement, approved 10 different courses including two courses, on which the petitioners have been imparted their training.
Learned counsel for the State submitted that even Regulation 24 prescribes that any institute can start Rehabilitation Professional Course with prior approval either from Council or from Central Government.
Learned counsel submitted that Regulations of 1997 specifically gives powers to any institute to start the professional course, if the same has approval from the Central Government.
Learned counsel submitted that the stand of the Council is absolutely contrary to the statutory provisions contained in the Act of 1992 and Regulations of 1997.
Learned counsel for the State further submitted that the Authorities after having approval from the Central Government, had initiated the admission process of the students and accordingly the RUHS was authorized to conduct the selection process and after the candidates were found meritorious, the said course was undertaken and all the petitioners have completed their course and accordingly they have also been granted degree by RUHS.
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:04:10 AM)
(14 of 26) [CW-12917/2017] Learned counsel submitted that inspection which has been carried out by the visiting team of Council, only restrained the State Government from the Session 2015-16 and accordingly the State Government has not granted any admission from the Session 2015-16, however the earlier admissions which were granted, cannot be treated wrong or illegal in any manner.
Learned counsel submitted that there is enough correspondence available on record to infer that the Council was informed about the courses, which were started by SMS Medical College and due intimation was also sent by them.
Learned counsel submitted that plea of Council that the State Government did not comply with the mandatory provisions, is also without any substance.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State further submitted that even if as per Section 11 of the Act of 1992, if the qualifications are not included in first schedule, however, as per sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act of 1992, the qualification which is prescribed by any institution can be added in the said schedule on the basis of request of the State Government.
Learned counsel submitted that the State Government has been consistently requesting the Authorities that the petitioners who were admitted in the Academic Session 2013-14 and 14-15, should not be deprived to get their qualification recognized and as such, necessary approval was required to be given by the Council.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Apollo College of Veterinary Medicine Vs. Rajasthan State Veterinary Council & Ors., (2015) 2 SCC 291. (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:04:10 AM)
(15 of 26) [CW-12917/2017] Learned counsel on the strength of the said judgment submitted that if the students have been admitted and passed out from the institutions which are affiliated to University and if there is a lapse on the part of the Government to make certain amendments in the provisions of the Act to include the qualification then writ of mandamus can be issued by this Court to recognize such qualification and the candidates with qualification acquired from the recognized University, should not be deprived to pursue their courses.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on a judgment passed by this Court in the case of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3365/1999 (Suresh Chand Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), decided on 04.01.2017.
Learned counsel on the strength of the said judgment submitted that as far as relief which is required to be considered by this Court, can always be suitably molded and since petitioners initially prayed for different relief and now if due to lapse of time and certain subsequent developments, the prayer of the petitioners are considered for granting approval and their registration with the Council, the same relief can be moulded by this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also places reliance on a judgment reported in 2012 (4) WLC 31 (Dr. Anil Kumawat & Ors. Vs. Naveen Agarwal & Ors.).
I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
This Court is primarily concerned with the issue of treating the qualification of the petitioners as a valid and recognized (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:04:10 AM) (16 of 26) [CW-12917/2017] qualification as per the provisions contained in the Act of 1992 and Regulations of 1997.
This Court, deems it proper to quote relevant Sections of the Act of 1992, which read as under:-
"11. (1) The qualifications granted by any University or other institution in India which are included in the Schedule shall be recognised qualifications for rehabilitation professionals. (2) Any University or other institution which grants qualification for the rehabilitation professionals not included in the Schedule may apply to the Central Government to have any such qualification recognised, and the Central Government, after consulting the Council may, by notification, amend the 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 Schedule against such qualification only when granted after a specified date.
13. (1) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, any qualification included in the Schedule shall be sufficient qualification for enrollment on the Register.
(2) No person, other than the rehabilitation professional who possesses a recognised rehabilitation qualification and is enrolled on the Register,--
(a) shall hold office as rehabilitation professional or any such office (by whatever designation called) in Government or in any institution maintained by a local or other authority;
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:04:10 AM)
(17 of 26) [CW-12917/2017]
(b) shall practice as rehabilitation
professional anywhere in India;
(c) shall be entitled to sign or authenticate any certificate required by any law to be signed or authenticated by a rehabilitation professional;
(d) shall be entitled to give any evidence in any court as an expert under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 on any matter relating to the handicapped:
Provided that if a person possesses the recognised rehabilitation professional qualifications on the date of commencement of this Act, he shall be deemed to be an enrolled rehabilitation professional for a period of six months from such commencement, and if he has made an application for enrollment on the Register within said period of six months, till such application is disposed of.
3. Any person who acts in contravention of any provision of sub-section (2) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
14. Every University or institution in India which grants a recognised qualification shall furnish such information as the Council may, from time to time, require as to the courses of study and examinations to be undergone in order to obtain such qualification, as to the ages at which such courses of study and examinations are required to be undergone and such qualification is conferred and generally as to the requisites for obtaining such qualification."
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:04:10 AM)
(18 of 26) [CW-12917/2017] This Court, deems it proper to quote relevant Regulation 24 of the Regulations 1997, which reads as under:-
"24. Norms for starting a Rehabilitation Professional Course:-
(1) No Institute of rehabilitation professional course shall be started without the prior approval of Council / the Central Government.
(2) To obtain approval of Council, the institution desirous of starting the Degree / Diploma / Certificate courses shall approach the Council, through the respective State Govt./Union Territory Administration. The State Govt./Union Territory Administration shall be requested to assess the requirements of various professionals.
(3) The State Government/Union Territory Administration must indicate in clear terms whether they are or not in favour of starting of a college/or institutions managed by a Non-
Governmental Organisation.
(4) The management of the Institute shall adopt the standards of Staff, space and equipments as recommended by the Council and give an undertaking for their phased implementation within the stipulated period.
(5) The management of the Institute must submit in writing, the willingness of university/Board who can grant affiliation if the Council permits the Degree/Diploma Course to be started.
(6) The management of the Institute must satisfy the Council about possessing enough training facilities to undertake the Degree/ Diploma course.
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:04:10 AM)
(19 of 26) [CW-12917/2017]
(7) The management must provide adequate
facilities of administrative and teaching staff required for the Degree/Diploma course as per the recommendations of the Council.
(8) The management of the Institute must submit a plan for the construction of full-fledged division and appoint competent personnel to manage the same.
(9) On receipt on an application from an
organization for permission to start new
rehabilitation professional course, the Council shall call for if not done by the Organization, the same recommendations/views of the State Government. In case the recommendations/views of the State Government are not received within a period of ninety days, the council shall be entitled to process the application on its own with the support of his committees and thereafter takes such decision as it deem necessary."
This Court finds that functions of the Council have been provided under Section 11 of the Act of 1992 and qualification granted by the University or other institutions in India, which are included in the Schedule of the Act of 1992, are required to be recognized qualification for rehabilitation professionals.
This Court further finds that as per sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act of 1992, if any University or other Institution which grants qualification for Rehabilitation Professionals but are not included the schedule, can apply to the Central Government to have such qualification recognized and the Central Government after consulting the Council made by notification, amend the schedule to include such qualification and (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:04:10 AM) (20 of 26) [CW-12917/2017] any such notification will also direct that entry being made in the last column of the schedule of the Act, against such qualification when granted after specified date.
This Court finds that sub-section (2) of Section 13, specifically provides that no person other than the rehabilitation professional, who possesses a recognized rehabilitation qualification and is enrolled on the register can practice as rehabilitation professional anywhere in India and further he shall not be able to hold office as rehabilitation professional or any officer in Government or in any institution maintained by Local or other Authority.
The plain reading of said Section, makes it very clear that a person who has a rehabilitation professional qualification can alone practice as a rehabilitation professional or can get a job.
This Court on reading of Regulation 24, finds that norms have been prescribed for starting a rehabilitation professional course.
As per Regulation 24, any institution of rehabilitation professional course cannot be started without prior approval of Council/Central Government.
This Court finds that in the present case, the Central Government had started pilot project by way of scheme known as Establishment of the National Institute of Para Medical Sciences (NIPS), Regional Institutions of Para Medical Sciences (RIPS) in State Government Medical Colleges, for conducting Para Medical Courses.
This Court finds that the State Government has placed on record the inspection report of visiting of Inspection Committee, (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:04:10 AM) (21 of 26) [CW-12917/2017] SMS Hospital, Jaipur for conducting UG & PG Para Medical Courses under one time grant.
The perusal of the said report specifically makes it clear that Inspection Committee had recommended budget to the SMS Medical College for different new courses and their intake capacity was also increased in same existing course and as such, on approval of the report by a Competent Authority, by way of MoU between Government of India and the State Government, and on allocation of fund to the Medical Colleges under the aforesaid scheme, courses were started by SMS Medical College.
This Court further finds that the approval of the Central Government to run the course was available with the State Government at relevant time and accordingly the SMS Medical College had asked the RUHS to undertake the exercise of granting admission in different courses.
This Court finds that the RUHS had issued the Instruction Booklet and the eligible candidates were asked to apply in pursuance of notification which was issued and after undertaking the entire process of making selection, different candidates came to be selected for Under Graduate Course and Post Graduate Course.
This Court finds that if any candidate who came across the notification issued by RUHS for undertaking the exercise of giving admission and accordingly applied to be admitted in the said course, cannot be misled by the Authorities later on by holding that the course in which they have been admitted is not a recognized course.
This Court has a reason to believe that the University Authorities only after due approval and communication by the (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:04:10 AM) (22 of 26) [CW-12917/2017] State Authorities, undertook the said exercise of making admission for the Session 2013-14 and 2014-15.
This Court is required to consider as whether petitioners had taken admission in the course which were offered by the RUHS without taking any prior approval of the Competent Authorities as per Act of 1992 or whether State Government had acted in a proper manner while asking RUHS to make admission in these courses.
This Court finds that if Central Government at relevant time had undertaken the exercise of approving the course and accordingly the Authorities proceeded further, no fault can be found in action of the State Government in undertaking the exercise, as same was approved by the Central Government for running the rehabilitation professional course.
This Court finds little substance in the submission of learned counsel for the Rehabilitation Council of India that very initiation of any admission process was contrary to Regulation 24 as no prior approval of the Council was taken.
This Court finds that if the Regulations of 1997, specifically provides that Central Government can also grant approval for starting rehabilitation professional course, no such plea can be allowed to be raised by Council that the Central Government was not authorized in any manner to grant approval to run the course by SMS Medical College. The legislature has consciously used both words i.e. Council/Central Government and if in a given case, at one point of time, the Central Government was having some scheme to run Para Medical Course as per requirement in different parts of the Country, the same power cannot be doubted by the Council by taking a plea before this Court that it is the (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:04:10 AM) (23 of 26) [CW-12917/2017] Council alone who could have granted approval to run the Professional Courses.
The submission of learned counsel for the respondent-Mr. Ravi Chirania that the inspection was never carried out by the team of Rehabilitation Council of India prior to Session 2015-16 and as such, any admission granted before 2015-16 i.e. in the year 2013-14 & 2015-16, cannot be treated as a valid qualification, suffice it to say by this Court that if specific order has been issued or rejection has been made by the Council for starting the course from the year 2015-16 then accordingly the State Government did not proceed to make any admission in these courses, however, same would not result into wiping out or taking away right of those candidates who were admitted by the Primary Institution in the State-SMS Medical College for doing the courses.
The submission of learned counsel for the respondent that there is no provision under the Act of 1992 or under Regulations of 1997 to grant post facto sanction or approval of these courses, this Court finds that the power which has been conferred in the Council, is defined under Section 11 of the Act of 1992 and the qualifications granted by the University or any other institution which are included in the schedule, are required to be treated as recognized qualification, however, any University or other institution which has granted qualification to rehabilitation professional, not included in the schedule can also apply to the Central Government to have such qualification recognized and Central Government after consulting the Council can issue by notification to amend the schedule, this Court finds that the initial prescription of any recognized qualification by way of schedule is (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:04:10 AM) (24 of 26) [CW-12917/2017] not a one time arrangement only and if there are certain institutions which are granting or imparting education in rehabilitation programme, such qualification if granted by University or other institution, can also be treated as recognized qualification.
This Court finds that in present facts of the case, the State Government though has been writing letter to the Council, however, the entire correspondence reveals that the Council was insisting for considering the case of the SMS Medical College for giving them permission for the Academic Session 2015-16, however, the State Government earlier efforts to inform the Council to start the course for 2013-14 & 2014-15, is not clearly established before this Court.
This Court considering the fact that petitioners who have already undergone the course and they have attended the classes, have been conferred degree by RUHS and now at this juncture to convey them that their course is a sheer waste and their degree is a waste piece of paper, will be too harsh.
This Court finds that the Apex Court in the case of Apollo College of Veterinary Medicine Vs. Rajasthan State Veterinary Council & Ors. (supra) has also considered the issue about award of degrees by recognized Universities and only on account of proper permissions not being granted by statutory Council, such degrees were validated by the Court and as such, the action of the Authorities who did not decide their applications properly was not appreciated by the Apex Court and accordingly direction was given that any degree which is awarded by a recognized University and the lapse has been committed by one (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:04:10 AM) (25 of 26) [CW-12917/2017] statutory Authority, the same should not result into depriving the candidates from having proper qualification.
The objection of the respondent-Council that the relief which has been claimed in the present writ petition may not be granted by this Court, this Court finds that initially when petition was filed, the petitioners had prayed for directing the State Government to approach the Council for seeking necessary approval for the courses and further sought direction to get approval of the courses. This Court finds that during pendency of the writ petitions, the degrees have already been issued to the petitioners and now only issue remains with regard to granting approval of said degrees and registration with the Council.
This Court finds that in a writ jurisdiction if subsequent events take place and by afflux of time if certain events have bearing in the matter in the writ petition then accordingly the Court considering the scope of writ can grant adequate relief to the petitioners.
This Court finds that in the present facts of the case now only issue is with regard to the grant of approval and registration of petitioners with the Council. This Court finds that the Central Government had approved the institutions in which petitioners were imparted their training and courses, and deems it proper to allow the prayer which has been sought by the petitioners.
This Court accordingly finds that the petitioners cannot be deprived to have a seal of approval from the Authorities in respect of their courses and further their registration with the Council cannot be denied only on the ground that the State Government had started the course without having prior approval of the Council.
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:04:10 AM)
(26 of 26) [CW-12917/2017] Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. The respondent-Council is directed to grant approval of the courses which have been acquired by the petitioners for the Session 2013-14 and 2014-15 and they may also be registered with the Council by treating them as having valid qualification acquired from recognized institution.
The Authorities may undertake the necessary exercise within a period of six weeks after receipt copy of this order.
A copy of this order be separately placed in each petition.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J Ramesh Vaishnav/Bhavnesh Kumawat 19-21 (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:04:10 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)