Karnataka High Court
Ashwini Ayurveda Medical College vs The Union Of India on 24 January, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 201, 2020 (2) AKR 283
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No.43305/2013 (EDN - RES) c/w
W.P.No.35592/2013 (EDN - AD) AND
W.P.No.55255/2013 (EDN - AD)
IN W.P.No.43305/2013:
BETWEEN:
1. ASHWINI AYURVEDA MEDICAL
COLLEGE & P.G. CENTRE
405/1, OPP. BATHI LAKE, P.G.ROAD,
DAVANAGERE-577 566.
BY ITS PRINCIPAL.
2. ABU DEVAN
S/O RAJU S.,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
3. ARJUNA BABU
S/O PRABHAKARAN PILLAI
C/O ANJALI,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
4. FAZEELATH BANU
D/O MOHAMMED YASEEN
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
5. KUSHAL KUMAR U.,
S/O UMESH V.T.,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
6. SHALINI H.,
D/O GIRIRAJ H.,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
-2-
7. SYEDASELAHA PARVEEN
D/O SYED USGAR HUSSAIN,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
ALL ARE THE STUDENTS,
STUDYING IN BAMS COURSE IN
ASHWINI AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE
AND PG CENTRE, DAVANAGERE.
8. Dr. CHITTAR REKHA
D/O ASHOK KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
STUDYING IN PG COURSE IN SHALA
TANTRA SUBJECT IN ASHWINI AYURVEDA
MEDICAL COLLEGE AND PG CENTRE
DAVANAGERE.
9. BASETTAPPA DASHAMANI
ADIVEPPA DASHAMANI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
10. VINAY KUMAR
S/O RAVI KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
11. BISMILLA KHAN S.A.,
S/O AHMEDULLA KHAN S.A.,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
12. NIVEDITHA C.K.,
S/O CHIDANANDA K.,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
13. BASAVARAJAPPA R.,
S/O RUDRAPPA K.,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
14. KAMTA PRASAD,
S/O RAM DHAKAN,]
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
15. Dr. MRITUNJAY KUMAR PANDEY
S/O KARYANAND PANDEY
-3-
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
ALL ARE THE STUDENTS, STUDYING
IN BAMS COURSE IN ASHWINI
AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE
AND PG CENTRE, DAVANAGERE.
16. Dr. SANJAY KUMAR SINGH
S/O JAGADISH SINGH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
17. Dr. ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA
S/O NARENDRA MISHRA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
18. Dr. AJAY KUMAR PANDEY
S/O RAMDEV PANDEY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
19. MAITHILI C.,
D/O CHANDRASHEKARA C.S.,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
20. Dr. HEENAKOUSHAR KUMDGOL
S/O MAHAMMADGOUSE KUDGOL
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
21. Dr. ABDULKHADAR
S/O Dr. ABDULKHADAR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
ALL ARE THE STUDENTS, STUDYING
IN PG COURSE IN SHAYLA TANTRA
SUBJECT IN ASHWINI AYURVEDA
MEDICAL COLLEGE AND PG CENTRE
DAVANAGERE.
(CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE
COURT ORDER DATED 11.02.2015.) ... PETITIONERS
[BY SRI VINOD PRASAD, ADV.]
-4-
AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF AYURVEDA, YOGA
AND NATUROPATHY, UNANI,
SIDDHA & HOMEOPATHY (AYUSH)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.
2. CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
NO.61-65, INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
JANAKAPURI, NEW DELHI-110001.
3. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560011,
REP. BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR. ...RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI KUMAR M.N., CGC FOR R-1;
SMT.MANASI KUMAR, ADV. FOR R-2;
SRI N.K.RAMESH, ADV. FOR R-3.]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF THE R-1, PASSED ON DATED 06.09.2013,
DECLINING THE PERMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER COLLEGE
FOR GIVING ADMISSION FOR BAMS (UG) COURSE WITH 50
SEATS AND 2 PG COURSE VIZ., (i) KAYA CHIKITSA (ii) SHALYA
TANTRA WITH 5 SEATS IN EACH COURSE FOR THE CURRENT
ACADEMIC YEAR 2013-2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-M TO THE W.P.
IN W.P.No.35592/2013:
BETWEEN:
1. ASHWINI AYURVEDA MEDICAL
COLLEGE & P.G. CENTRE,
405/1, OPP. BATHI LAKE, P.G.ROAD,
-5-
DAVANAGERE-577 566
BY ITS PRINCIPAL
2. Dr. NATARAJ S. ARALAGUPPI
S/O SIDDHARAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
3. Dr. BUDHWANTH GANESH ADHINATH
S/O ADINATH ATMARAM
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
4. Dr. MUTTAPPA M. AMBIGER
S/O GUGUNDAPPA AMBIGER
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
5. Dr. SARALA T.B.,
W/O BASAVARAJAPPA T.,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
6. ANANDKUMAR C. YALIGAR
S/O CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
7. Dr. ANANDKUMAR M. WODEYAR
S/O MALLIKARJUNA S.H. WODEYAR
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
8. Dr. CHITRALEKHA V. KRISHNA
W/O Dr. VENKATAKRISHNA K.V.,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
9. Dr. RANJITHA B.S.,
D/O SHIVANANDAPPA B.,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
10 . Dr. MANJUNATH A.R.,
S/O RAMESH S.,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
11 . Dr. SANTOSH PATIL
S/O R.M.PATIL, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
ALL ARE THE STUDENTS STUDYING
PG COURSE IN ASHWINI AYURVEDA
-6-
MEDICAL COLLEGE & P.G. CENTRE
405/1, OPP BATHI LAKE, P G ROAD
DAVANAGERE-577 566
12 . VIJAY KUMAR JAISWAL
S/O MITHILESH
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
13 . SURESHAPPA UJJANAGOWDA
S/O KIRTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
14 . AYESHA ANJUM D.,
D/O MOHAMMED DAVOOD
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
15 . SANDHYA PATIL B.G.,
D/O B.G.NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
16 . UMA PATIL
W/O K.M.KOTRESH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
17 . UMA H.M.,
D/O SHIVAYOGAIAH H.M.,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
ALL ARE THE STUDENTS STUDYING
BAMS COURSE IN ASHWINI
AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE &
P.G. CENTRE, 405/1,
OPP BATHI LAKE, P G ROAD
DAVANAGERE-577 566 ... PETITIONERS
[BY SRI VINOD PRASAD, ADV.]
AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF AYURVEDA, YOGA
AND NATUROPATHY, UNANI,
-7-
SIDDHA & HOMEOPATHY (AYUSH)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.
2. CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
NO.61-65, INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
JANAKAPURI, NEW DELHI-110001.
3. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560011,
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR. ...RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI KUMAR M.N., CGC FOR R-1;
SMT.MANASI KUMAR, ADV. FOR R-2;
SRI N.K.RAMESH, ADV. FOR R-3.]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 DATED 09.07.2013, DECLINING
PERMISSION TO PETITIONER COLLEGE TO GIVE ADMISSION
TO THE STUDENTS PETITIONER No.2 TO 17 FOR THE
ACADEMIC YEAR 2012-2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-P.
IN W.P.No.55255/2013:
BETWEEN:
1. BAPUJI AYURVEDIC MEDICAL
COLLEGE & HOSPITAL
BAPUJI CAMPUS, T.R. NAGAR,
CHALLAKERE-577 722
BY ITS PRINCIPAL
2. ABHISHEK DIXIT
S/O KIRAN DIXIT,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
-8-
3. AKTHAR ALI
S/O ABDUL SARDAR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
4. AMIRULLA MANSOORI
S/O EBADULLAH MANSOOR,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
5. DEVESH KUMAR VISHWAKARMA
S/O PANNALAL VISHWAKARMA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
6. DILEEP KUMAR PATHAK
S/O LALLAN PRASAD PATHAK,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
7. DIVYA SAHADEVAN
D/O SAHADEVAN M.K.,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
8. HARENDRA SINGH
S/O BRIJ PAL SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
9. IRSHAD AHMED
S/O SHAMIM AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
10 . KHALID MUSTAFA
S/O AJMER ALI
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
11 . LINGALA PRASHANTH REDDY
S/O SHYAM SUNDER REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
12 . LOKESH SRIVATSAV
S/O SHYAM SRIVATSAVA,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
13 . MAHENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA
S/O SHUKLA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
-9-
14 . MOURYA SMRITA KUMARI RAMSU
D/O RAMSAMUJH MOURYA,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
15 . MOHAMMED JAFAR
SHAFI AHMMAD MUNDAS
S/O SHAFI AHAMMAD MUNDAS,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
16 . MOHD ANEESH
S/O GULSHER, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
17 . MOHIT KUMAR
S/O GOVERDHAN DAS
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
18 . MUNWAR
S/O JUMMA KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
19 . NAGAMA TOHFIK KHAN
D/O TOHFIK KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
20 . PREM CHANDRA JHA
S/O SHREE LALAN JHA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
21 . RAJAT RAJPUT
S/O MAHESH RAJPUT,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
22 . RAM ASHEESH SHARMA
S/O MAHENDRA NATH,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
23 . SANDEEP KUMAR VISHWAKARMA
S/O RAMBRIKSH VISHWAKARMA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
24 . SANJAY GAUTAM
S/O SUKHVIR GAUTAM,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
- 10 -
25 . SAWANT ARTI GHANSHAM
D/O SAWANTH GHANSHAM MAHADEO,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
26 . SHYAM KUMAR
S/O GOPAL JEE,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
27 . SUJEET KUMAR YADAV
S/O SURESH YADAV,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
28 . SUNIL KUMAR
S/O DURGA PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
29 . TIWARI PRADEEP KUMAR UMASHANKER
S/O UMASHANKER M. TIWARI,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
30 . UMMAR SHARIF ARAB JAMDAR
S/O ABDUL KHADAR,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
31 . VISHNU DATTA VISHWAKARMA
S/O TILAK DHARI VISHWAKARMA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
32 . YADAV POOJA RAJENDRA
D/O RAJENDRA YADAV,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
PETITIONERS 2 TO 32 ARE ALL
STUDENTS OF BAMS COURSE,
STUDYING IN BAPUJI AYURVEDIC
MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL
BAPUJI CAMPUS, T .R NAGAR,
CHALLAKERE-577 722 ... PETITIONERS
[BY SRI VINOD PRASAD, ADV.]
- 11 -
AND:
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO
MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY
WELFARE, DEPARTMENT OF INDIA,
SYSTEM OF MEDICINE & HOMOEOPATHY
(AYUSH) EDUCATION POLICY SECRETARIAT
INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY BUILDING,
No.1, RED CROSS ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110001.
2. CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE
NO.61-65, INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
OPP. D BLOCK, JANAKAPURI,
NEW DELHI-110001
BY ITS SECRETARY
3. RAJIV GANDHI INSTITUTE
OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560011,
BY ITS REGISTRAR. ...RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI KUMAR M.N., CGC FOR R-1;
SMT.MANASI KUMAR, ADV. FOR R-2;
SRI N.K.RAMESH, ADV. FOR R-3.]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE
R-1 & R-2 TO PASS AN ORDER REGARDING REGULARIZATION
OF THE ADMISSION OF THE STUDENTS i.e., PETITIONERS No.2
TO 32 FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2012-2013 FOR BAMS
COURSE.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED, IS COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER
THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
- 12 -
ORDER
Since similar and akin issues are involved in these matters, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
The petitioners in W.P.No.43305/2013 have challenged the order of the first respondent dated 06.09.2013 whereby the permission to the petitioner- college for admission to BAMS [UG] course with 50 seats and 2 PG course viz., [i] Kaya Chikitsa [ii] Shalya Tantra with 5 seats in each course for the academic year 2013-14 has been declined and in W.P.No.35592/2013, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 09.07.2013 whereby the permission to the petitioner-Institution for admission to BAMS Course relating to the academic year 2012-13 has been declined and a direction has been sought in W.P.No.55255/2013 to the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 to regularize/approve the admission of the students
- 13 -
relating to the academic year 2012-13 for BAMS course in the petitioner-Institution.
2. It is contended that the petitioner-institution Ashwini Ayurveda Medical College [W.P.No.43305/2013 and 35592/2013 and the petitioner-College Bapuji Ayurvedic Medical College [W.P.No.55255/2013] are imparting education in BAMS Course since 1992-93 and 1996 respectively. For the academic years 2012-13 and 2013-14 the CCIM had inspected the petitioner- institutions and reported certain deficiencies. The Union of India on the said reports had passed the orders, refusing the permission for the petitioner-colleges to give admission to the BAMS course in the academic year 2012-13 and 50 seats of UG and 2 PG course [five students] in two subjects [Kaya Chikitsa and Shalya Tantra] relating to the academic year 2013-14 in Ashwini Ayurveda Medical College. Hence, the writ petitions.
- 14 -
3. This Court vide interim orders has permitted the petitioner-Institutions to admit the students while making it clear to such admitted students regarding the pendency of the present writ petitions and such admissions shall be subject to the result of this writ petition. However, it was made clear that the petitioners shall not exceed the admission strength of students for the Courses. Subsequently, the students were permitted to appear for the examinations subject to the result of the writ petitions. Results of such students were directed to be declared. Further, permission was granted to those students who had not cleared the subjects to appear for the supplementary examinations, subject to the result of the writ petitions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the CCIM had inspected the petitioner's institution on 28/29.02.2013 to re-assess the available facilities of the teachers and practical training as well as
- 15 -
to verify the compliance report submitted by the petitioner-institutions pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P.No.24677/2013. The CCIM had submitted its Visitation Team report before the Central Government without making it available to the petitioner-institutions. On receiving a notice from the Ayush Department, the petitioner came to know the gist of objections raised by the CCIM. On going through the said notice, the petitioner-institutions came to know that the CCIM had sent an incorrect report not based on the facts. Indeed, the visitation team did not get the signature of the representative of the college so as to be made known the contents of the report to the college Authorities.
5. Learned counsel submitted that any decision by the respondent should be before the commencement of academic year so that the deficiency could be rectified. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 conducting the inspection and further proceedings without giving any
- 16 -
opportunity for the petitioners to rectify the same is wholly unsustainable that too, raising new objections/deficiencies regarding the strength of the faculty and the infrastructure, without bringing to the notice of the petitioner-institutions. Learned counsel placing reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Central Council of Indian Medicine V/s. Union of India and others, in W.A.No.736/2011 and allied matters [DD 31.10.2011] submitted that the permission granted by the respondents for the subsequent years, would be efficacious for the previous years also. Copies of the grant of permission order for the periods 2014-15 to 2018-19 and 2019-20 are placed on record. Placing reliance on the same, the learned counsel sought for allowing the writ petitions.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the deficiencies pointed out by the
- 17 -
Inspection Team [CCIM] indicates that the petitioner- Institutions had no eligible number of teachers and the required number of beds in IPG for conducting UG and PG Courses. The respondent No.1 had provided an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in terms of sub-section 5 of Section 13A of the Act, 1970 by issuing notice and on considering the oral and written submissions of the petitioners, the Hearing Committee has examined and verified the relevant documents of the hospital data of the petitioners and observed the subsisting deficiency. On the basis of the observation of Hearing Committee, an expert body, the petitioner- Institutions were denied permission to admit the students for the academic years 2012-13 and 2013-
14. The questions regarding the functioning of the genuine hospital and such other deficiencies are matters of facts considered and decided by the respondent No.1 on the basis of the Visitation Team
- 18 -
report and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the CCIM - respondent No.2 submitted that each academic year being different, permission granted by the respondents relating to the subsequent years would not be a ground to condone the deficiencies pointed out by the Visiting Inspection Team. It was argued that at the time of the second visit, some more deficiencies were noticed by Inspection Team and the same was reported to the respondent No.1. Any admission of the students made in terms of the interim order is subject to the result of the writ petitions. The respondent No.1 considering the inspection report, has rightly denied the permission/recognition to the petitioner-Institutions relating to the academic years in question. The Writ Court exercising the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot adjudicate on
- 19 -
the orders impugned as an Appellate Authority. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dental Council of India V/s. Dr. Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal, Hingoli and Others [(2017) 13 SCC 115] and National Council for Teacher Education and Another V/s. Venus Public Education Society and Others [(2013) 1 SCC 223].
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record.
9. It is not in dispute that on the report of the the Visitation Team of the respondent No.2, the respondent No.1 declined to grant permission to the petitioners for admission of students to BAMS course UG/UG and PG as applicable relating to the academic years 2012-13 and 2013-14 in question.
- 20 -
10. It is also not in dispute that for the subsequent academic years, respondent No.1 has granted permission to the concerned petitioner- Institutions to admit the students for the BAMS Course [UG/UG and PG].
11. In the circumstances, the moot question that arises for consideration of this Court is, Whether the permission granted by the respondent No.1 relating to the subsequent academic years, permitting the concerned petitioner-Institutions for the BAMS Course [UG/UG and PG] as applicable would be efficacious for the previous years also.
12. This issue is no more res integra in view of the Division Bench ruling of this Court in the case of Central Council of Medicine, supra where by the Division Bench relying upon the Father Muller's Charitable Institutions, Kankanady, Mangalore V/s. Union of India [W.P.No.23802/1998, disposed of on
- 21 -
06.07.2009] followed by Yadalam Trusts's Sushrutha Ayurvedic Medical College & Others V/s. Government of India & Others [W.P.No.12213/2008, disposed of on 19.08.2009] case, has categorically held that permission granted for a subsequent year would be efficacious for the previous year also. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference:
"9. In Father Muller's Charitable Institutions, Kankanady, Mangalore V/s. Union of India [W.P.No.23802/1998 disposed of on 06.07.2009] followed by Yadalam Trusts's Sushrutha Ayurvedic Medical College & Others V/s. Government of India & Others [W.P.No.12213/2008, disposed of on 19.08.2009], this Court has held that permission granted for a subsequent year would be efficacious for the previous y ears also. This decision has been affirmed by the Division Bench with which we respectfully concur.
10. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appeal filed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine is wholly devoid of merit. Firstly, neither the Central Government nor the State Government supports the prayer of the appellant for canceling the admission of several students
- 22 -
for the academic year 2009-10. The Appellant is only a recommendatory Body, and the Central Government is fully empowered not to accept its advice. It cannot be overlooked that the cancellation order dated 31.10.2009 has come in the wake of completion of admission for the relevant academic year. Secondly, the appellant is only a recommendatory body and it cannot arraign the Union Government as a respondent, when the Central Government is desirous of complying the mandamus issued by the learned Single Judge. Thirdly, we see no justification for the appellant to issue the far reaching cancellation orders, which has the result of wastage of a valuable year in students' life, it may jeopardize their future irretrievably. We think that recommendations must be given well in advance, at least on or before the month of June, for the next following academic year. Fourthly, once permission to continue the course for a particular academic year is granted, it must be concluded that the deficiencies and shortcomings notified with regard to the previous year, have been complied with even in respect of the year for which permission had been withdrawn."
13. The Cognate bench of this Court in W.P.No.49166/2013 [DD 26.02.2015] following the said ruling of the Division Bench, ordered that permission to make admission for the academic year 2013-14 [previous year] is granted and directed to announce the
- 23 -
results of the students with regard to the relevant previous academic year in an expeditious manner.
14. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that CCIM is only a recommendatory body and the Central Government is empowered either to accept or reject the recommendations. As held by the Division Bench, once permission is granted to continue the course for a subsequent academic year, it must be concluded that the deficiencies and shortcomings notified with regard to the previous years, have been complied with even in respect of the year/s for which permission had been withdrawn.
15. In view of the permission granted to the petitioner-Institutions relating to the subsequent academic years placed on record being undisputed, the deficiencies and shortcomings notified with regard to the academic years 2012-13 and 2013-14 are to be construed as complied with.
- 24 -
16. It is significant to note that the students of the petitioner-Institutions were permitted to appear for their respective examinations and their results are announced by virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court relating to the academic years in question, as such their valuable year cannot be disturbed at this length of time in view of the subsequent permission accorded by the respondent No.1.
17. It is settled law that surprise inspection would ensure that the required facilities and infrastructures are provided. However intimation of the result of such inspection requires to be communicated in order to provide a reasonable time to report compliance of such deficiencies noticed. Such surprise inspections have to be held within a reasonable time to enable the institutions sufficient time to report compliance. It is after noticing the compliance, permission has been given for admission in the
- 25 -
subsequent years. In the circumstances, the judgments relied upon by the respondents are not applicable to the facts of the case.
In the result, writ petitions are allowed. The order dated 06.09.2013 at Annexure-M in W.P.No.43305/2013 and the order dated 09.07.2013 at Annexure-P in W.P.No.35592/2013 are set aside. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 shall regularize/approve the admissions of the students to the BAMS Course UG/UG and PG made in terms of the interim orders in the concerned petitioner-Institutions relating to the academic years 2012-13 and 2013-14 in an expeditious manner.
Sd/-
JUDGE NC.