Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 17491, 17757, 17820, 17886, 17961, 18034, 18103, 18161 and 18961 of 2011 as common issues are involved in these cases. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 17757 of 2011. [2]. The petitioner is an Ayurvedic College and Hospital which came to be established in the year 1995 and became functional from the Academic Session 1995-96. The petitioner has been granted affiliation/approval/recognition etc. by the concerned bodies/stake holders from time to time. It may be sufficient to mention here that in terms of the Indian Medicine Council Act, 1970, the Central Council of Indian Medicine ['CCIM'] used to be the Prescribed Statutory Regulatory Body to approve the infrastructure and other facilities required to be maintained by the Ayurvedic colleges. Thereafter, an amendment was carried out in the said Act on 7.11.2003, whereby CWP No. 17757 of 2011. ::-2-::

the CCIM became the Recommendatory Body and the final decision with regard to recognition or establishment or continuance of an Ayurvedic College was to be taken by the Central Government. The CCIM has, subsequently and with the prior approval of the Central Government, framed the Indian Medicine Council [Permission to Existing Colleges] Rules, 2006 laying down the infrastructural parameters required to be maintained by the existing Medical Colleges for continuation of their recognition/permission under the 1970 Act.
Sr. No. Parameters Minimum Standards Requirements for conditional permission for the academic Session 2011-12.
1. Teaching Staff for under [i] At least 90% of the total requisite teaching Staff as Graduate ASU Colleges per the CCIM's draft norms with no minimum requirement of teachers from modern faculty.
And [ii] 50% higher faculty [Professor + Reader] of the total required higher faculty staff as per the CCIM's draft norms.
[11]. In my considered view, there is some substance in the contention of the Colleges that they have suffered some genuine difficulties, in creation of the infrastructure as per the revised minimum standard norms. For example, the Colleges are required to follow the 'reservation policy' and it is stated at the Bar that despite issuing several advertisements, no suitable candidates from the reserved categories have come forward to seek appointment. It is also stated that adhoc or temporary appointments from the open category against the reserved category posts are not permitted by the CCIM/Union of India. Such like difficulties need to be looked into and suitably remedied by the CCIM or the Central Government by granting reasonable time to make recruitments in which a representative of the Government of India can also be associated besides the University Observers. In the event of non-availability of the reserved category candidates, there appears to be no rhyme or reason to preclude the Colleges to recruit the candidates belonging to general category against the reserved posts on adhoc/contractual basis so that the petitioner Colleges are able to fulfill the condition of infrastructural facilities in terms of the Circular dated 18.03.2011, it would serve the cause of the student community as well. Such like practical difficulties have unfortunately not been visualized or addressed while revising the minimum standard norms. The petitioners would therefore be justified in asking for some additional time to remove such like deficiencies to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned and this factor shall be required to be kept in view while re-inspecting the colleges in terms of the directions issued here-in-after.