IMPORTANT POINT
An un-recognised institution cannot impart education and students thereof cannot appear in the examination held by the government, university or Board.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 226 – In a writ petition or in the counter affidavit, not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it – Unless the pleadings are complete Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. (Para 11)
       AIR 1988 SC 2181; AIR 1998 SC 1608; AIR 1998 SC 2779; (1999) 1 SCC 141; AIR 2001 SC 1237; AIR 2001 SC 1298; AIR 2001 SC 1684; (2003) 1 SCC 18; (2005) 7 SCC 653; (2005) 8 SCC 252 – Relied upon
       (b) Medical Education – Affiliation and Recognition – Purpose of affiliation is only to prepare and present the students for public examination – Recognition is for the other statutory purposes – Unless the institution is recognized it cannot be amenable to any other provision of the Statute applicable in this regard – It is always open to the State or the Statutory Authority to lay down conditions for recognition of an educational institution – Students of a un-recognised institution cannot legally be entitled to appear in any examination conducted by any government, university or board. (Paras 16 and 17)
       AIR 1978 SC 344; AIR 1958 SC 956; (2002) 8 SCC 481; AIR 2007 SC 458 – Relied upon
       (c) Words and Phrases – Recognition – Recognition signifies an admission or an acknowledgement of something existing before – It implies an overt act on the part of the person taking such cognizance. (Para 19)
       AIR 1963 SC 1227 – Relied upon
       (d) Constitution of India – Article 226 –Court cannot grant any relief to students of un-recognized institutions only on humanitarian ground. (Para 20)
       (1991) 3 SCC 87 – Relied upon
       (e) Medical Education – Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag had no recognition after 1967 – Students obtaining certificates thereafter not entitled to practice medicine – a (Para 24)
       (2003) 4 AWC 3016; (1999) AWC 1783; (1999) 2 UPLBEC 1063; 2003 (2) Mah.LJ 64; AIR 2004 All. 373 – Cited with approval
       (f) Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 – Schedule II, Entry 105 – Conscious decision taken by Authorities not to recognize the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag courses any more – The Society never making an attempt to get recognition by getting the Entry No.105 in Second Schedule of the Act, 1970, modified – The cut-off date of 1967 when the recognition lapsed cannot therefore be termed as arbitrary. (Paras 2 and 33)
       (g) Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 – Schedule II, III and IV – Recognised degree can only be awarded by University constituted/ established under the provisions of University Grants Commission Act or Rule or any State Act or Parliament Act – Person not possessing qualifications prescribed in the Act, 1970 do not have a right to practice – Central Legislation will proceed over State Act if there is any repugnancy between the two. (Paras 35 and 36)
       (2008) 7 SCC 153; AIR 1998 SC 67; SLP (C) No. 22124 of 2002 – Relied upon
       AIR 1999 SC 468 – Distinguished
       (h) Constitution of India – Article 19(1)(g) and (6) – Right to practice is not absolute – Reasonable restrictions can be imposed. (Para 42)
       (2007) 10 SCC 306; Civil Appeal No. 1337 of 2007 – Relied upon
       (i) Entry 105 – Validity of cut-off date – 1967 not a date fixed by statutory authorities but one after which qualification not recognised by default of the organization itself – Question of the validity of the cut-off date therefore does not arise.(Para 42)
       (j) Constitution of India – Article 254 – Provisions of State legislation will not prevail if repugnant to central legislation to the extent of repugnancy. (Para 42)
       Facts of the case:
       1.The core question in these appeals is whether persons who hold either the degree or diploma of “Vaidya Visharad” or “Ayurved Ratna” from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag/Allahabad which are not included as recognized qualification in Schedule II of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 have a right to practice in medical sciences.
       2.The allied question is whether restriction imposed under the Central Act from practicing, unless names appear in the Central Register, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India with reference to the State Act.
       Finding of the Court:
       Certificates awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag/Allahabad do not entitle anybody to practice medicine.

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. —

1.Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 21043/2008, 20912/2009 and 3986/2010. In all the aforesaid Civil Appeals, common questions of law are involved and, therefore, they are heard together. Questions involved in all these cases are as under:

(i) As to whether persons who hold either the degree or diploma of “Vaidya Visharad” or “Ayurved Ratna” from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag/Allahabad which are not included as recognized qualification in Schedule II of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as the `Act 1970) have a right to practice in medical sciences.

(ii) As to whether cut off date i.e. 1967 as per Entry No.105 in the Second Schedule of the Act,1970 is arbitrary and thus, liable to be quashed.

(iii) As to whether restriction imposed under the Central Act from practicing, unless names appear in the Central Register, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India with reference to the State Act.

2.Facts and circumstances giving rise to Civil Appeal Nos.5324-5325 of 2007 and appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.21043/2008 are that Section 32 of the Rajasthan Indian Medicine Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1953’) provided that persons who had obtained degree of “Vaidya Visharad” or “Ayurved Ratna” from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag were recognized as having sufficient qualification for practicing as Vaidyas in Rajasthan and they were permitted to get themselves registered as Vaidyas in the register maintained under the said Act 1953. Section 17(2) of the Act 1970 provided that persons who possessed the qualifications as laid down in Second, Third and Fourth Schedule of the Act 1970 would be permitted to practice. Section 17(3) however, carved out an exception for those Vaidyas who had been practicing prior to the commencement of the Act 1970. Different provisions of the Act 1970 were enforced throughout the country but on different dates. In Rajasthan, Section 17 came to be enforced w.e.f. 1.10.1976. One Ved Prakash Tyagi filed Writ Petition No.733 of 2000 before the High Court of Rajasthan for seeking large number of reliefs including the restrain order to those who obtained the degree/certificate of “Vaidya Visharad” or “Ayurved Ratna” from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag after 1967 to practice as Vaidyas and further to delete their names from the register so maintained under the Act 1953. The High Court considered the matter elaborately and came to the following conclusions:

(1) Persons who did not possess requisite qualification prescribed under Schedule II, III and IV of the Act 1970 were not eligible to contest the elections notwithstanding they were enrolled in the State Register and were covered by the exception clause under Section 17(3)(b) and were permitted to practice medicines;

(2) Qualification prescribed under the Act 1953 to the extent it was repugnant to the Act 1970, would not confer any person a right to practice or seeking enrolment in the State Register;

(3) Section 17 of the Act 1970 came into force in Rajasthan w.e.f. 1.10.1976. Thus, a person who has acquired the diploma/certificate from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, subsequent thereto would not be eligible to be enrolled in State Register; and

(4) Any person who acquired such certificate/diploma after 1.10.1976 would not have any right to practice or participate in election.

3.Hence, Civil Appeal Nos. 5324-25 of 2007 have been filed by Vaidya’s Samiti and Chikitasak Sangh being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court that persons who acquired qualification from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan after 1.10.1976 were not eligible and entitled to practice. Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.21043 of 2008 has been filed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine (hereinafter referred to as ‘CCIM’) challenging the order of the High Court to the extent that persons who acquired certificates between 1967 and 1.10.1976 have also been permitted to practice.

4.Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 3986 of 201

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 488

IMPORTANT POINT An un-recognised institution cannot impart education and students thereof cannot appear in the examination held by the government, university or Board.

Cases Referred (24)

IMPORTANT POINT
An un-recognised institution cannot impart education and students thereof cannot appear in the examination held by the government, university or Board.