Permission granted for subsequent years would be efficacious for previous years, and surprise inspections should allow reasonable time for compliance before denying permission.

ORDER :

1. 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 201314 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 201213 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 relating to the academic year 201213 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 199293 and 1996 respectively. For the academic years 201213 and 201314 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 201213 and 50 seats of UG and 2 PG course [five students] in two subjects [Kaya Chikitsa and Shalya Tantra] relating to the academic year 201314 in Ashwini Ayurveda Medical College. Hence, the writ petitions.

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 reassess the available facilities of the teachers and practical training as well as 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 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