Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

W.P.(C) 2215/2021 & CM APPL. 6448/2021 (interim relief) W.P.(C) 2223/2021 & CM APPL. 6461/2021 (interim relief) W.P.(C) 2245/2021 & CM APPL. 6505/2021 (interim relief) W.P.(C) 2264/2021 & CM APPL. 6585/2021 (interim relief) W.P.(C) 2270/2021 & CM APPL. 6596/2021(interim relief) W.P.(C) 2274/2021 & CM APPL. 6603/2021(interim relief)

1. Issue notice. Ms. Nidhi Raman, learned CGSC for R-1/UOI in W.P.(C) 2215/2021; Mr. Jaswant Rai Aggarwal, learned counsel for R- 1/UOI in W.P.(C) 2223/2021; Mr. T.P. Singh, learned counsel for R- 1/UOI in W.P. (C) 2245/2021; Ms. Suman Chauhan, learned counsel for R-1/UOI in W.P. (C) 2264/2021; Mr. Vivek B. Saharya, learned counsel for R-1/UOI in W.P.(C) 2270/2021; Mr. Jitesh Vikram Srivastava, learned Senior Panel Counsel for R-1/UOI in W.P.(C) 2274/2021 and Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, learned counsel for R-2/Central Council of Indian Medicine [hereinafter, "the CCIM"], in all the writ petitions, accept notice. Notice to the remaining respondents be served through all permissible modes, dasti in addition.

2. These six petitions are filed by Ayurvedic colleges, challenging the orders of the Union of India [hereinafter, "the Union"], rejecting their applications for permission to admit students in the academic year 2020- 2021. The impugned orders have been passed pursuant to recommendations received by the Union from the CCIM, and after giving show cause notices to the petitioner institutions. The petitioners submitted written representations in answer to the show cause notices, and also participated in the hearings convened by the Union. The relevant dates will be evident from the following table:

(d) In W.P. (C) 2215/2021, several deficiencies relate to the non- availability of the hospital staff, including the medical superintendent, modern medical staff, house officer or clinical registrar or senior resident (Ayurvedic), etc. The Hearing Committee, in each of these cases, has referred to the report of the CCIM with regard to the deficiencies (with reference to particular page numbers of the CCIM report which was neither communicated to the petitioner, nor extracted in the impugned order), and came to the conclusion that the Hearing Committee could not ascertain the availability of the required staff. The Hearing Committee has recommended that the competent authority may verify the availability of staff, and therefore, endorsed the report of the CCIM. In the face of this material, the Union has only recorded that, as per the submissions made by the college's representative and the observations of the Hearing Committee, the criteria are not fulfilled. The conclusion of the Union bears little correlation with the opinion expressed by the Hearing Committee. The Hearing Committee's opinion is inconclusive, whereas the Union has rendered a conclusive finding ostensibly on the basis of the Hearing Committee's report.

(h) In W.P. (C) 2274/2021, the following additional points arise:
(i) An additional ground is raised regarding the non-availability of the quality testing lab. Ms. Dave, learned counsel for the CCIM submits that this observation was based upon the physical inspection conducted by the CCIM representatives. However, in the impugned order, the Union has noted that the photographs of the lab have been submitted. However, further documentation has been referred to and a conclusion has been drawn against the petitioner for non-submission of the map of the building, copy of the register containing details of the tests conducted and test results of the tested medicine of products. The petitioner was not specifically called upon at any stage to produce these documents in support of its contention. The very fact that the conclusion is based upon non-submission of these documents indicates that the Union has not proceeded only on the basis of the physical inspection report but sought to test the petitioner's submissions on the basis of further documentary evidence.