Karnataka High Court
Ashwini Educational Associations vs The Union Of India on 24 September, 2020
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.50828 OF 2018 (EDN-EX)
BETWEEN
ASHWINI EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
ASHWINI AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE
AND P G CENTRE,
NO.405/1, OPP BATHI LAKE, ASHWINI NAGAR,
P.B.ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577566
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
DR. SREEKANTH B.G
S/O SRI. B.H. GANGADHARAN,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF AYURVEDA, YOGA AND NATUROPATHY
UNION SIDDHA AND HOMEOPATHY (AYUSH)
AYUSH BHAWAN,B BLOCK, G.P.O COMPLEX,
INA, NEW DELHI-110023
REP BY ITS SECRETARY/ SPECIAL SECRETARY
2. THE CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE
61-65, INDUSTRIAL AREA, JANAKAPURI,
NEW DELHI-110058
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
3. THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560041
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DIRECTORATE OF AYUSH,
DHANAVANTRI ROAD,
2
BENGALURU-560 009
REP BY ITS DIRECTOR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT BIRDY AIYAPPA M, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SMT MANASI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2
SMT PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R4
SRI N K RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER FOR 2018-19 DTD:4.9.2018 PASSED
BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ONLY IS SO FAR IT RELATD
TO THE DENIAL OF PERMISSION TO CONDUCT POST
GRADUATE COURSES IN 2 DISCIPLINES WITH AN INTAKE
CAPACITY OF 5 SEATS IN EACH DISCIPLINE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner-Ayurvedic Medical College is aggrieved by the order dated 04.09.2018 passed by the first respondent-Union of India denying permission to the petitioner-Institution for admitting the students to Post Graduate Ayurvedic Courses in two disciplines with an intake capacity of five seats in each of the disciplines for the academic sessions 2018-2019.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the only ground on which the Union of India 3 sought to deny permission is that there is non- availability of Central Research Laboratory as per the PG Ayurveda Regulations, 2016. Learned Counsel further submits that by the very same order, permission was granted to admit students to the Undergraduate BAMS Courses with an intake capacity of 50 seats. However, the learned Counsel submits that the matter stands covered by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Central Council of Indian Medicine Vs. Union of India and Others in W.A.No.736/2011 and connected matters, where it was held that for the subsequent years if permission is granted on the premise that there is no deficiency or that the deficiency has been removed, the factum of removal of deficiency should receive the benefit for the previous academic year also. In this regard, it is submitted that for the subsequent year i.e., 2019-20 the Union of India has granted permission and therefore the writ petition is required to be allowed. It is submitted that the said decision was reiterated by another Division Bench in 4 case of Bahubali Vidyapeeths JV Mandal Gramin Ayurvedic Medical College Vs. Union of India and Others in W.P.No.107076/2018 decided on 01.07.2019 at Dharwad Bench.
3. The learned Counsel for respondent No.2- Central Council of Indian Medicine submits that the decisions of the Division Benches in the case of Central Council of Indian Medicine Vs. Union of India which was referred to by the Division Bench while deciding the case of Bahubali Vidyapeeths JV Mandal, did not take into consideration the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal and Another Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2013) 16 SCC 696.
4. It is submitted that similar submissions were made before the Apex Court that since the deficiencies had already been removed and that is why permission was subsequently given for the admission of students, therefore there could be no reason to deny permission for the previous academic year where the deficiencies were found. Considering 5 such submissions, it is submitted that the Apex Court held that those who chose to file their applications did so at their own risk and it cannot now be contended that since they have been allowed to file their applications pursuant to the orders passed by the Court, they had acquired right to be admitted in different Institutions to which they had applied. It was held that approval granted to the candidates cannot now be transformed into a right to be admitted in the Course for which they had applied. The learned Counsel therefore submits that the view taken by the Division Bench that when permission was granted to a subsequent year after the deficiencies were removed, would automatically hold good for the previous years also, runs counter to the decision of the Apex Court.
5. The submission of the learned Counsel for respondent No.2-Central Council of Indian Medicine cannot be considered in view of the fact that the decisions of the two Division Benches in the case of Central Council of Indian Medicine Vs. Union of India 6 in W.A.No.736/2011 and connected matters and the subsequent decision in Bahubali Vidyapeeths have not been questioned by the Central Council for Indian Medicine.
6. In that view of the matter, the submissions of the learned Counsel for respondent No.2 is only heard to be rejected.
7. Learned Counsel for Smt.Birdy Aiyappa appearing for respondent No.1-Union of India submits in the light of the memo dated 23.07.2019 filed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the requirement for the academic year 2018-2019 was that the student should have passed the qualifying examination and without a student getting through the qualifying examination, the petitioner Institution could not have admitted such students.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that such a requirement will be looked into by the University before approving the admission of the students. Moreover, it is submitted that it is possible that the students may have approached the Courts 7 and obtained interim directions. Nonetheless all these aspects can be considered by the University.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.09.2018 at Annexure 'A' is hereby quashed and set aside, insofar as the denial of permission with respect to admission of students to Post Graduate Courses in two disciplines with five seats in each of the disciplines for the academic year 2018-2019.
Sd/-
JUDGE JT/-