2021 Supreme(Del) 440

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
Anil Kumar Singh Bhadoria – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Another – Respondents
W.P. (C) Nos. 837, 1113, 1155, 1158, 1214, 1215, 1226, 1271, 1339, 1352, 1373, 1855, 1870, 1881, 2351, 2621, 2762, 3396, 3452, 4167, 4234, 4263, 4518 of 2021, C.M. Nos. 2139-2140, 3103, 3272, 3275, 3393, 3539, 3759, 3796, 3884, 5366, 5400-5401, 5472, 5473, 6873-6874, 7768, 8311, 9482, 12680, 12970, 13802 of 2021
Decided On : 26-07-2021

Point of Law: Employment and Service matter - Ayurveda Teacher - There is no provision disqualifying any Ayurveda Teacher from practice of teaching on ground that his registration as a medical practitioner is from another State, different from where he is where he is serving as a faculty of teaching. Since, such provisions pertaining to norms and standards can be made only by way of duly notified and gazetted Regulations under Section 36 of CCIM Act and not otherwise.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 and Article 19 - Regulations of 2016 - Regulation 3(1)(f) - Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 - Section 3 (ii) and 36 - Indian Medicine (Standards of Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Code of Ethics) Regulations, 1982 - Regulation 26 and - Ayurvedic colleges - Teaching faculties - Petitioner No. 1 herein that he obtained his BAMS Degree in 2011 and M.D. (Panchkarma) in 2019. He is registered with Bharatiya Chikitsa Parishad, Uttarakhand in 2012. It is also stated that petitioner No. 1 submitted an Application for Central Registration to the CCIM along with his detailed particulars which is pending till date - Impugned orders record that CCIM was faced with complaints about ‘On Paper Teachers’ i.e. that a number of teachers in Ayurveda Colleges are not in fact teaching in colleges in question, and are shown as faculty members merely on paper whereas they are physically practicing and working for gain at a different venue/place. It appears that a decision was taken by the Board of Governors of CCIM against several faculty members of Ayurveda Colleges to the effect that the presence of said teachers at concerned college was not proved. An order dated November 24, 2020 was thereafter passed withdrawing the teacher’s code of concerned persons including the petitioners for a period of 10 years - Whether teaching was being undertaken by them in the college, impugned orders, however are passed on a different issue i.e., whether they are teachers in different colleges and it cannot be certified that they are not working in any other college.

Finding of the Court:

It may be true that separate show-cause notices were not issued to the petitioners notifying the impugned action, but it cannot be said that no hearing was given to them. The hearing was given to them by Grievance Redressal Committee wherein the petitioners have participated and relied upon, materials/documents in support of their stand that they were actually working in college. Ms. Dave has on the basis of difference in particulars of petitioners available in the State Board/Council/Central Council and the OTMS/affidavits submitted by petitioners, justified the impugned action. The plea of Counsel for petitioners was also that non-compliance of Regulation 26, cannot disprove physical presence of teachers at college. It is made clear that status quo as prevailing today with regard to each of petitioners shall continue. It goes without saying if the petitioners are aggrieved by the orders to be passed by the respondents/CCIM, they are at liberty to seek such remedy as available in law - presence of the teachers at the college. It is made clear that status quo as prevailing today with regard to each of petitioners shall continue. It goes without saying if the petitioners are aggrieved by the orders to be passed by the respondents/CCIM, they are at liberty to seek such remedy as available in law - matters are remanded back to the respondent No. 2/CCIM with a direction that they should pass fresh orders by considering all material available with the including material submitted by the individual petitioner and pass a reasoned order with a period of 12 weeks from today. It is made clear that the status quo as prevailing today with regard to each of the petitioners shall continue. It goes without saying if the petitioners are aggrieved by the orders to be passed by the respondents/CCIM, they are at liberty to seek such remedy as available in law.

Result: Writ Petitions are disposed of.