Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Pydah Educational Academy, ... vs Govt. Of A.P. & Anr. on 23 July, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(5)ALD115, 1999(4)ALT568
ORDER
1. The petitioner is a Society registered under the Soicieties Registration Act, 1860. It claims to have started Pydah College in 1992 with several Courses "B.Sc., B.Com., B.B.M., M.B.A., M.C.A., M.Sc (Comp), B.Sc., (Special), B.C.A., and Intermediate etc., in Visakhapatnam. The petitioner filed the present writ petition for a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not granting the Essentiality Certificate in favour of the petitioner for running the Degree Course in the Bachelor of Lab Technology and Diploma in Medical Lab Technology as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also seeks a consequential direction to the respondents to issue the Essentiality Certificate to them. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by Secretary to Government in Education Department is the first respondent. The University of Health Sciences (Now called as N.T.R.University, Health Sciences) represented by its Registrar is the second respondent.
2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:-
The Government of Andhra Pradesh Constituted an expert committee in G.O.Ms. No.922 HM & FW (K2) Department dated 3-6-1995. The said Committee consisted of the Director, Medical Education, the Director of Medical Services and the Director of Public Health. The Committee was to go into various aspects of starting para-Medical Courses and also formulate guide-lines. The said Committee submitted a report on 1-10-1995. Based on the report, the Government decided to start Degree/Diploma Certificate Courses in para-Medical Education. These Courses are all with reference to Laboratory Services, Imageology, Cardiology Services, Anaesthesia Services, E.N.T.Services, Ophthalmic Services, Dental Services and NEphrology Services. The Courses in Laboratory Service, with which we are concerned in this case include diploma in Medical Lab Technology, Certificate Course in Blood Banking Technology and B.Sc., Medical Lab Technology. Regulation of imparting of education for the three courses vests with the Director of Medical Education, whereas the Course in B.Sc., Medical Lab Technology is under the University of Health Sciences.
3. After accepting the report and preparing the guide-lines in respect of various categories of courses, the Cabinet appointed a Sub-committee. The Subcommittee considered the guide-lines of the Department and suggested changes. After considering all this, the Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 99 of A.P. Education Act, 1982 made Rules. These Rules are called A.P. Private Para Medical Training Institutions (Grant of Permission and Regulation of Admission into Private Institutions) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter callled as the Rules for short). These rules were framed in G.O. Ms. No.304 Health, Medical and Family Welfare (W-I) Department, dated 7-8-1997. It may be mentioned that the Government in G.O. Ms. No.267, HM and FM (W.I.) Department, dated 14-7-1997 appointed a Committee under the Chairmanship of Justice Rama Chandra Raju for making recommendations for giving Essentiality Certificate which is the basis for conferring recognition and affiliation. If it is a B.Sc., Medical Lab Technology, the second respondent is the competent authority for conferring recognition and affiliation. If it is other course, it is the Government to confer recognition and affiliation.
4. The Section Committee (Justice Ramachandra Raju Committee) issued notification inviting applications for two year Diploma Course in Medical Lab Technology as well as for B.Sc., Degree Course in Medical Lab Technology under University of Health Sciences. The notification was issued in news papers including 'Eenadu' a Telugu daily on 27-9-1997. The last date for receipt of applications fulfiling all the conditions was 20-1-1998 before the closing of office hours. The conditions inter alia provide that submission of applications for starting the course does not confer any right for establishment of institution/college, that the institution will be inspected by the Officers deputed by the Selection Committee. The petitioner submitted two applications, one for Diploma in Medical Lab Technology (Lab Technician Training Course) and the other is for B.Sc., Degree Course in Medical Lab Technology. He also paid Rs.10,000/-by way of Bank Demand Draft. According to the petitioner, he has given all the information in the application. The institutions of the petitioner were also inspected by a inspection committee consisting of two Professors of a Medical College on 9-1-1998. Thereafter, the petitioner has not received any communication either granting Essentiality Certificate or rejecting the applications. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court. The petitioner has raised many contentions including the ground that the Selection Committee itself should inspect the institution and the power to inspect cannot be delegated. It is also contended that the petitioner's institution has better facilities than other institutions which were given Essentiality Certificates. Therefore, the action of the respondents is illegal.
5. The University of Health Sciences filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner has not applied in Form No.1 for Certificate of Registration and Affiliation with the necessary particulars as prescribed by Rule 5 of the relevant Statutes. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that this Court by an order dated 7-9-1998 in WP No.24626 of 1998 filed by Rama Educational Society, Kakinada directed the University to receive the representation of the institution and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the Standing Counsel for the second respondent University. The role of the university is granting recognition and affiliation. One of the conditions for such affiliation is that the institution shall enclose Essentiality Certificate. Therefore, the petitioner herein cannot have any grievance against the second respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner did not receive any Essentiality Certificate issued by the first respondent. Therefore, the contention of the second respondent University that it is a case of mis-joinder of parties has some force. Be that as it may, according to the petitioner though he submitted applications before 20-1-1998 and thereafter the institution of the petitioner was inspected by the inspecting committee and no orders were passed. The petitioner has not been communicated the decision of the Selection Committee or the Government of Andhra Pradesh. A perusal of the rules and various Government Orders do show that when an application for Essentiality Certificate is rejected by the authorities, the rejection order need not be communicated to the petitioner. There is no such obligation under the rules or the relevant Government Orders. However, be it noted that as per the rules there is a four stage selection process before an institution of para-Medical Course is given recognition or affiliation. The first stage is receipt of applications by the Selection Committee. The second stage is visit of the institution by the Inspection Committee for the purpose of noting the features. Third stage is again consideration by the Selection Committee based on the inspection report as well as test check report if any and making recommendation to the Government for issuing Essentiality Certificate. The 4th stage is the acceptance or rejection of the recommendations of the Selection Committee and issuing Essentiality Certificate based on which institution will be started. Here it may be noticed that as per Rule 10(3) of the Rules, the Government will issue the Essentiality Certificate to only such applicant institutions which are recommended by the committee. As per Rule 12, the institutions for the Diploma or for the Certificate Courses which obtain the certificate and also satisfy the requirements as specified by the Justice Ramachandra Raju Committee and obtain its approval shall be deemed to be recognised. This is with regard to the Certificate Courses. In so far as Degree Courses are concerned, the Essentiality Certificate is valid unless the inspection team appointed by the University of Health Sciences finds its performance is far below the standards and recommends to the State Government to de-recognise the institution.
7. Therefore, this Court is of the view that when there is plurality of decision making process at which stage the petitioner faced rejection is as much important as the decision itself. A eilizctt has a right to question the decision of the Government either before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or elsewhere. Therefore an order of rejection containing reasons for rejection has to be communicated to the petitioner. In the light of this view, this court is not examining the various grounds urged by the petitioner and all of them are left open to be agitated by the petitioner in due course.
8. The Writ petitions is, therefore, disposed of directing the respondents to communicate the orders of the Government on the two applications made by the petitioner for starting Certificate Course and Degree Course in Lab Technology with a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.