AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Subramani, J.—In W.P. No. 16079 of 1997, the Petitioner seeks issuance of Writ of declaration, declaring that as per Regulation 4 of the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University Regulations for admission to BPT course, the Petitioner who has secured the diploma in physiotherapy from the institute recognised by the Government of Tamil Nadu, is eligible to undergo the Transitory course for a period of one year without any further or other eligibility criteria or requirement, the course being the final year Bachelor of Physiotherapy course conducted by the 2nd Respondent, to secure the Bachelor degree of Physiotherapy of the 1st Respondent University. In the other two Writ Petitions, the Petitioners seek issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to consider the applications of the Petitioners for admission to the degree of Bachelor of Physiotherapy (B.P.T) Transitory course of one year duration during the academic year 1997-98 and grant admission to the Petitioners to the said course forthwith.
The facts are similar, and, therefore, all these Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common order. Union Christian Association (UCA) Institute of Physiotherapy ,the 3rd Respondent in W.P. No. 16079 of 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ''Institute'') conducted diploma courses in Physiotherapy .The Petitioners completed their course of 3-1/2 years duration. It is their case that as per the Regulations of the Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University, they are eligible to be admitted to the Transitory course referred to in Rule 4 therein, which reads thus:
The candidates who have passed the D.P.T. Course in Physiotherapy are also eligible for admission to this course. The course for these (Transitory course) candidates shall be of one year duration. i.e., they have to undergo only the final B.P.T. course and to write examinations prescribed for final year.
All the Petitioners allege that they have come out successfully in the examinations for Diploma in Physiotherapy conducted by the said Institute, which according to them is a recognised institute. When they applied for Transitory course in the Government institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, they were asked to produce equivalency certificate, and when the same was applied for, they received a reply stating that the University conducted only Bachelor degree course in Physiotherapy, which is of 4-1/2 years duration, for which the Transitory course is not conducted. This according to the Petitioners, is an irrelevant reply, and they have not been given the equivalency certificate, and at the same time their admission to the Govt. Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine is also not considered. It is their further case that every year 20 students are admitted to the said course, out of which 10 seats are for service people and the remaining seats are for the eligible candidates. It is said that there are still 7 seats are vacant for that course, and the Petitioners are eligible to be admitted.
Both the Government as well as the University have filed a separate counter affidavits. The Institute, which has been impleaded in W.P. No. 16079 of 1997 as 3rd Respondent, has also filed a separate counter, of course, supporting the claim of the Writ Petitioners.
In the counter affidavit filed by the University, it is said that this transitory course will apply only to those candidates who have passed the diploma in Physiotherapy before 1982. In 1982, the Bachelor degree for physiotherapy course with a duration of 3-1/2 years was started. Thus, transitory course will not be made applicable to candidates those who passed to diploma course after 1982. It is further said that these Petitioners who claimed themselves to be the students of the ''Institute'' cannot be admitted since the said ''Institute'' is not recognised for that course. The so-called recognition was given by the Social Welfare Department, which has no authority to recognise the para-medical courses. The same is completely under the control of Director of Medical Education, who is to conduct the selection. So long as there is no recognition by the Director of Medical Education, the Petitioners cannot say that they have completed the diploma course in a recognised institute. For that reason, they are not eligible to be considered.
In the counter affidavit filed by the Government, which is sworn to by the Director of College of Physiotherapy, it is said that none of these Writ Petitions is maintainable. It is said that in the meeting of the Board of Studies of the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. University in paraprofessional courses held on 4-4-1997, a resolution was passed stating that the candidates who have passed the diploma in physiotherapy before 1982 alone will be eligible for undergoing transitory course in BPT/BOT course, and candidates who have undergone the course after 1982 are not eligible to be admitted. It is further said that the Government by their letter dated 16-11-1994 have refused to give permission for conducting diploma in Physiotherapy course at the 3rd Respondent (in W.P. No. 16079/97) institute, and also informed the Institute that conducting classes and admitting students without the approval of the Government will be against the policy decision of the Government and the same has to be stopped forthwith. It is further said that G.O. Ms. No. 104, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Dept., dated 9-4-1996, by which recognition is said to have been given to the ''Institute'' is not relevant, since the diploma in Physiotherapy is a para-medical subject and is under the control of the department of Health and Family Welfare. That department has already informed the said Institute that recognition will not be given to it. It is further said that the Petitioners have applied for admission, without getting the equivalency certificate issued either by Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University or by the Madras University. Hence their case has not been taken up for consideration. Even in the recognition alleged to have been given by the Social Welfare Dept., it has not stated the method of recruitment of students as well as the conduct of examinations for awarding diploma in Physiotherapy course. But, in recognised school of Physiotherapy by the Health and Family Welfare Dept., for diploma course the selection of students is done by a Committee consisting of (1) a Chairman, who is the Director of Medical Education; (2) a Deputy Chairman, who is the Dean of Government General Hospital, Madras; and three members viz., the Director, School of Physiotherapy, Govt. General Hospital, Chief Nursing Superintendent Grade I and Instructor of Physiotherapy. Moreover in approved school of Physiotherapy by Health and Family Welfare Dept., a Committee is conducting the State Board of Examination in Physiotherapy to two years/three years diploma course. It is, therefore, said that the diploma in Physiotherapy awarded by the said Institute without following the above method of selection and conduct of examination by the Board constituted for that purposes, cannot be treated as equivalent to the diploma awarded by the institutes recognised by the Department of Health and Family Welfare. It was under these circumstances, the Petitioners were directed to produce the equivalency certificate, which they did not file. Under the above circumstance, it prayed that the Writ Petitions may be dismissed as misconceived.
In the counter filed by the ''Institute'', the 3rd Respondent in W.P. No. 16079 of 1997, it is admitted that they obtained the recognition only from the Social Welfare Department. It is said that the Government wanted to prevent unnecessary mushroom growth of sub-standard private institutions, but at the same time, the Government was permitting private institutions to start para-medical courses after satisfying the infrastructural facilities provided by the institutions and upon the recommendation of the Director of Medical Education. On 11-5-1993, the ''Institute'' moved an application for recognition of the course viz., diploma in Physiotherapy, and under the honest belief that recognition will be granted, the Institute admitted the students. But to their shock and surprise, it was found that the Government has already passed an order on 29-6-1993, stating that there is a total ban for starting para-medical courses by private organisations and the same was intimated to them as per letter dated 26-11-1993. It was, therefore, informed to them that the Director of Medical Education cannot consider their request for starting diploma course in Physiotherapy. The said reply was received by them only when the first semester examination was to be held. It is further said that the Institute came to know that in Central Government, it is the Welfare department which looks after Social Welfare and Rehabilitation matters, and under the honest belief that similar department in the State of Tamil Nadu is the authority for issuing recognition, they applied to the Social Welfare Department, which made an inspection and thereafter granted the recognition on 9-4-1996. It Is their case, that they have acted honestly and with all good faith and they wanted these Petitioners to be admitted to the transitory course.
I heard all the counsel.
From the counter affidavit of the Institute sworn to by its Director, it is clear that it has not obtained recognition to start the diploma course in Physiotherapy till date from the proper authority. It is also admitted by them that an application was made for the said purpose in May 1993. From June 1993 itself, the Government has banned starting para-medical courses by private organisations and this fact was made known to the 3rd Respondent Institute in a communication dated 26-11-1993, which they received in December 1993. Even without getting a valid recognition from the authorities, courses have been started and the students have also been admitted.
Once the institute is fully aware as to the authority, who is competent to grant recognition for starting the course, obtaining the same from Social Welfare Department, which has nothing to do with the admission of students to para-medical course, is not an act with good faith. It is said that inspection was made by the Social Welfare Department, and they granted recognition in April 1996. I do not think that the 3rd Respondent Institute has acted in good faith in obtaining the recognition from the department, which has nothing to do with the para-medical courses. It is not the case, that the Institute was not aware of the rightful authority to grant recognition. It may be further noted that even on 16-11-1994, the department of Health and Family Welfare, which is the proper authority to grant recognition informed the 3rd Respondent Institute, that admitting students to the para-medical courses, without getting permission from the competent authority will be against the policy of the Government and the same should be stopped forthwith. The very same department has also informed the institute that the request for starting the diploma course in Physiotherapy is not feasible of compliance and therefore rejected. This was the second letter which the Institute received from the Health and Family Welfare Department, knowing full well the authority who is competent to issue recognition is the Health and Family Welfare Department and after receiving the two rejection letters, the Institute moved the different authority for the said purpose. I do not think that the institute will get any benefit on the basis of the letter of the Social Welfare Department dated 9-4-1996.
When recognition is not granted to the institute in which the Petitioners have completed their course, it is for the Petitioners to substantiate and prove that they have obtained an equivalency certificate or their qualification is equivalent to the qualification prescribed for admission into Transitory course. The Petitioners have no case that the Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University has represented to them that the diploma obtained from the 3rd Respondent-Institute is a valid diploma. So long as there is no such representation from the University, it will be justified in seeking an equivalency certificate. It is not disputed by any of the Petitioners that they have not produced the equivalency certificate, though they have applied for the same. From the counter affidavit of the Director of College of physiotherapy, it could be further seen that they cannot issue an equivalency certificate and selection for diploma in physiotherapy has to be made by a Hoard consisting of eminent persons who are experts in the field. Even the Institute has no such case that the selection of students to the diploma course was made by the Board. When there is no evidence in this case that these Petitioners are qualified to be admitted in the diploma course and the eligibility conditions have been satisfied by them, the University is justified in refusing to grant equivalency certificate. Without the equivalency certificate, the application cannot be said to be a proper application for being considered by the University.
It is further seen that the transitory course is not available to students from the year 1997-98. As per the resolution of the University, which has been approved by the Syndicate, it is made clear that the University has already started B.P.T. course with 4-1/2 years duration, and the transitory course is made available only to the candidates those who have passed the diploma before 1982. The resolution of the University and the approval of the Syndicate have not been questioned in any of these Writ Petitions. These Petitioners, who claimed themselves qualified, have completed the diploma course in Physiotherapy only in the year 1996-97. Therefore, they cannot be get admitted to I he transitory course, for which they seek admission.
Taking into consideration the rival contentions, I feel that the Respondents are justified in not considering the applications of the Petitioners, for being admitted to the transitory course in the Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine. Consequently, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. The connected W.M. Ps., are also dismissed.