Back
2013 Supreme(Bom) 2058
In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.
Padmanabh Ratnakar Muley & Others
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, (Through Secretary, Health Department) & Others
Writ Petition Nos. 3391 of 2013, 3574 of 2013, 3769 of 2013, 3881 of 2013 & 8077 of 2013
Decided On : 10-10-2013
For the Petitioners:A.N. Sabnis h/f G.L. Gujar, Mrs. R.P. Gour, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, P.P. More, K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.Ps. R2, K.C. Sant, P.S. Pawar, Y.G. Gujarathi, R3, S.B. Kakade, Advocates, R5 & R6, Alok Sharma, A.S.G.I.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Health University's notification imposing a limit on the number of attempts for the first year examination in the BAMS course was unsustainable in light of the provisions of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970.
Headnote:
Attempts - Education - Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, Section 22, Section 36 - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, specifically Section 22 and Section 36, and their implications on the attempts allowed for the first year professional examination in the BAMS course. The court highlighted the power of the Central Council to prescribe minimum standards of education and make regulations, and how these provisions influenced the decision to quash the impugned notification and orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were students in various Ayurvedic colleges and were barred from taking the first year examination of the BAMS course after six attempts, based on a notification issued by the Health University. The petitioners challenged the notification, contending that it was discriminatory and violated their constitutional rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned notification issued by the Health University, which limited the number of attempts for the first year examination, was unsustainable in light of the amended Regulations of 2012 of the Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM). The court quashed the notification and directed the colleges to allow the petitioners to appear for the examination.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Health University's notification, imposing a limit on the number of attempts for the first year examination in the BAMS course, was sustainable and in line with the provisions of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, specifically Section 22 and Section 36, to determine the legality of the Health University's notification. It concluded that the notification could not coexist with the amended Regulations of 2012 of CCIM and therefore quashed the notification.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions, quashed the impugned notification, and directed the colleges to allow the petitioners to appear for the first year professional BAMS course examination.
RavindraV. Ghuge, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. Rule.
3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.
4. Since a common question of law is involved in all these matters, we have heard the concerned parties and have taken up these petitions together for final hearing.
5. Before adverting to the question of law involved, we deem it appropriate to note the facts of the case in brief as follows:-
(A) Writ Petition No.3574 of 2013 pertains to the Ayurvedic College at Boradi, Taluka Shirpur, District Dhule, falling under the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nasik (for brevity "Health University" hereinafter). The petitioner therein was admitted to Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery course (for brevity "BAMS" hereinafter) in the year 2006-07. In the period from 2006 till 2012, the petitioner made six attempts to clear his first year of BAMS course. Having failed in said six attempts, he was barred by the Health University from taking seventh attempt in the first year of BAMS course, by virtue of communication dated 5.10.2012. The contention of Health University is that under it's Rule 56.1 of Ordinance No.1/2002 governing the field, a candidate would not be permitted to appear for first year examination after six attempts. As such, said communication dated 5.10.2012 has been impugned in the said petition.
(B) In Writ Petition No.3881, the petitioners were admitted to the D.S.Naik Ayurvedic Mahavidhyalaya, Nagaon, District Dhule, which came under the same Health University, to the first year BAMS in the year 2007 and could not clear the first year examination in six attempts. As such they were barred from taking seventh attempt vide communication dated 5.4.2013, which has been impugned in this petition.
(C) In Writ Petition No.3391 of 2013, the petitioners were admitted to the first year BAMS course in Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj Shikshan Sanstha Sanchalit Ayurvedic Mahavidhyalaya, Kanchanwadi, Aurangabad and Eknath Ayurvedic Mahavidhyalaya, Shevgaon respectively. As like other petitioners, these petitioners also could not pass their first year of BAMS course and were thus prohibited from appearing for the examinations, in view of Rule 56.1. Central Council of Indian Medicine (for brevity, "CCIM" hereinafter) and Health University are common respondents in all these petitions.
(D) In Writ Petition No.3769 of 2013, the petitioners were admitted to the first year of BAMS in the Dhanvantari Ayurvedic Medical College, Taluka Udgir, District Latur. These petitioners could not clear the first year of BAMS in six attempts and were thus prohibited from taking a seventh attempt, in view of Rule 56.1.
(E) In Writ Petition No.8077 of 2013, the petitioner was admitted to he first year BAMS course in Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj Shikshan Sanstha Sanchalit Ayurvedic Mahavidhyalaya, Kanchanwadi, Aurangabad. Having failed to clear the first year in six attempts, he was prohibited from taking a seventh attempt in the light of Rule 56.1.
6. All the above mentioned petitioners are thus aggrieved by Rule 56.1 issued by the Health University, prohibiting them from appearing in the first year of BAMS course, by way of seventh attempt and the communications which they received from their respective Ayurveda Colleges.
7. It has been brought to our notice that similarly situated petitioners have filed Writ Petition Nos.4720 to 4722 of 2012 at Mumbai. These petitions were heard along with similar Writ Petition Nos.3769 and 3781 both of 2013. Vide order dated 25.3.2012, interim relief in the nature of permitting those petitioners to appear for the first year examination of BAMS course, by way of seventh attempt, was granted. This Court has observed in the said order that the learned counsel appearing for CCIM had made a statement that it had recommended to the Union of India a relaxation of the said Rule and for providing the candidates unlimited attempts for clearing the first year examination of
