SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI., ANIL R. DAVE, VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.
Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 31892 OF 2012
WITH SLP(C) No.33452 of 2012, SLP(C) No.33455 of 2012, SLP(C) No.33560 of 2012, SLP(C) No.34001 of 2012, SLP(C) No.34020 of 2012, SLP(C) No.34255 of 2012, SLP(C) No.34264 of 2012, SLP(C) No.30156 of 2012, SLP(C) No.30086 of 2012, SLP(C) No.31349 of 2012, SLP(C) No.23715 of 2012, SLP(C) No.33908 of 2012, SLP(C) No.33909 of 2012, SLP(C) No.33897 of 2012, SLP(C)Nos.1118-1119 of 2013, SLP(C) No.35051 of 2012, SLP(C) No.39893 of 2012, SLP(C) No.381 of 2013
Decided On : 06-03-2013
Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 - Sections 13A, 13B and 13C - Department of AYUSH - National Council for Teachers Education - Special Leave Petitions have been filed against orders passed by Aurangabad Bench and Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court involving common issues matters relating to Aurangabad Bench arise out of common order in regard to admissions to various institutions teaching Indian form of medicines such as Ayurvedic etc for academic - Special Leave Petition has been filed by Welfare Trust against judgment of Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court against an order regarding admissions for the self-same period - other Special Leave Petitions relate to common orders passed by Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court regarding admissions for another Special Leave Petition regarding admissions for has been filed by the Backward Class Youth Relief Committee and Another against order passed by Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court –Held, Central Government and was regulated by Act and Regulations framed there could not compromised by lowering the standards required maintain excellence of the profession learned ASG submitted that once deficiencies had been removed permission was once again granted to admit students for academic year learned ASG submitted that sympathy towards the students who had been allowed to file their application forms could not be a ground to grant permission where more than half the period of study was already over ASG submitted where certain degree of professionalism was required there was no scope conducting bridge courses to enable students for that particular year to catch up with students of the subsequent semester Court but it equally true that such leave was granted without creating any equity favour of applicants - Those who chose to file their applications did so their own risk and it cannot now contended since they have been allowed to file their applications pursuant to orders passed by Court they had acquired right to be admitted in different Institutions which they had applied privilege granted to candidates cannot now be transformed into right to admitted in course for which they had applied - Apart from anything else one has to take practical view of the matter since more than half term first year is over - Though has been contended on behalf of Institutions concerned that extra coaching classes would be given to new entrants it is practically impossible for student to pick up threads of teaching for entire first year when half the course had been completed – Petition dismissed
Key Points: - The judgment concerns admission permissions for Indian medicine colleges and when the Central Government/AYUSH can withhold permissions (!) - It discusses deficiencies in infrastructure and staff as a basis for refusing permission (!) - It notes that more than half the first-year term was over and that bridging or practical remediation for students is impractical (!) (!) (!) - It states that permission granted by courts to accept admission forms did not create equity or a right to admission (!) (!) - It emphasizes that professionalism and minimum standards should not be compromised (!) - It references the regulatory framework: Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 and 2003/2006 Regulations (!) (!) - It concludes with dismissal of petitions and costs to parties (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.
1. These Special Leave Petitions have been filed against orders passed by the Aurangabad Bench and the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court involving common issues. The matters relating to the Aurangabad Bench arise out of a common order dated 4th October, 2012, in regard to admissions to the various institutions teaching the Indian form of medicines such as Ayurvedic, Unani, Siddha, etc. for the academic year 2011-12.
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 35051 of 2012 has been filed by the Umar Bin Khattab Welfare Trust against the judgment of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court against an order dated 29th December, 2010, regarding admissions for the self-same period. The other Special Leave Petitions relate to the common orders dated 13th July, 2012 and 2nd August, 2012 passed by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court regarding admissions for the year 2011-12. Yet, another Special Leave Petition regarding admissions for the year 2012-13, has been filed by the Backward Class Youth Relief Committee and Another against the order dated 9th August, 2012, passed by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court.
2. The common issue involved in all the Special Leave Petitions is in regard to the refusal by the Government of India, in its Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy, hereinafter referred to as "AYUSH", to grant permission to the colleges to admit students for the academic year 2011-12, for the BAMS/ Post Graduate courses. Such permission appears to have been refused on account of various deficiencies relating to the infrastructure and teaching staff, which had not been rectified and brought into line with the minimum standard norms.
3. From the materials as disclosed and the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, it appears that in the case of Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavni Mandal Sanchalit MSKM B.Ed. College v. National Council for Teachers' Education and Ors. [(2012) 2 SCC 16], this Court, while rejecting the prayer of the institutions to permit students to continue in unrecognized institutions, observed that mushroom growth of ill-equipped, under-staffed and unrecognized educational institutions has caused serious problems with the students who joined the various courses.
4. As far as medical institutions are concerned, the procedure relating to the recognition of medical colleges as well as admission therein was governed by the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, hereinafter referred to as "the 1970 Act", which was amended in 2003, to incorporate Sections 13A, 13B and 13C, which provided the procedure for establishing new colleges and making provision for seeking prior permission of the Central Government in respect of the same. The amendment also attempted to bring in reforms in the existing colleges by making it mandatory for them to seek permission from the Central Government within a period of three years from their establishment. Having regard to the said amendments, the Central Council of Indian Medicine, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, framed Regulations, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 36 of the 1970 Act. The said Regulations were named as the Establishment of New Medical College, Opening of New or Higher Course of Study or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity by a Medical College Regulations, 2003, hereinafter referred to as "the 2003 Regulations".
Regulation 6(1)(e) of the 2003 Regulations provides for applications to be made by a medical college owning and managing a hospital in Indian medicines containing not less than 100 beds with necessary facilities and infrastructure. The Central Council of Indian Medicine further framed Regulations in 2006 called as the Indian Medicine Central Council (Permission to Existing Medical Colleges) Regulations, 2006, hereinafter referred to as "the 2006 Regulations". Regulation 5(1)(d) of the 2006 Regulations provides that the applicant colleg
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.