Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Ayurvedic Medical College vs Govt. of India

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner which is said to be an Ayurvedic Medical College Hospital and Post-Graduate Centre, and is said to have been established in the year 1992. At inception, it was permitted to have an intake of 25 students in Under-Graduate courses which was increased to 40. At present, it is 50 for the under-Graduate courses in Indian Medicine.

In the year 2010, the Post-Graduate course in four subjects was commenced, namely 1) Kaya Chikitsa, 2) Pancha Karma, 3) Shalya Tantra and 4) Rasa Shastras with five seats each. The College therefore had a strength of 50 students in respect of the under-Graduate courses and 20 students in the Post-Graduate courses. It is claimed that the petitioner had made an application seeking enhancement of the intake capacity from 50 to 60 students for Bachelor of Ayurveda, Medicine and Surgery (B.A.M.S.), as per an application dated 22.04.2013, enclosing all necessary documents, to the Central Government, who in turn had forwarded the application to the Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM), which is the apex body to certify whether an institution is eligible to start any additional courses.

It is claimed that the CCIM had sent a team to inspect the College and make a report. The said team had accordingly recommended the starting of three new Post-Graduate courses namely 1) Ayurveda Siddhantha, 2) Shareer Rachana and 3) Shareer Kriya with five seats in each subject, but did not recommend the Post-Graduate course in Roga Nidana and Prasuthi Tantra, observing that the College did not fulfill the minimum space requirement and also did not recommend the Post-Graduate course in Koumara Britya observing that the State Government had not issued a ''no objection certificate''. However, it had recommended that the intake be increased from 50 to 60 students in respect of the Under-Graduate courses.

In this background, the State Government had given its ''no objection'' to the commencement of all six additional Post-Graduate courses, notwithstanding that the CCIM had opined otherwise. The Central Government in turn, however rejected the application in entirety on the ground that since all the six subjects which the petitioner intended to start were not approved by the CCIM, it could not be considered. However, the Central Government has overlooked the circumstance that the CCIM had however recommended commencing of three new Post-Graduate courses for which there should be no impediment and that there was also a recommendation permitting the intake of students being increased from 50 to 60 in the under-Graduate course. Therefore, the rejection by the Central Government of the application in its entirety, is inexplicable, when it is permissible for the petitioner to commence the new Post-Graduate courses to the extent recommended by the CCIM and in respect of which the State Government has no objection, even regarding the subjects which had not been permitted by the CCIM. It is in this background that the petitioner is before this Court.

The learned Government Advocate would submit that the contention of the State Government having no objection to the petitioner commencing the several courses is to be ascertained and seeks time to obtain instructions

Insofar as the learned counsel appearing for the Central Government is concerned, he would submit that it is a fact that though the CCIM had recommended commencing of three new courses by the petitioner and also increase in intake for the under-Graduate course, the Central Government in its wisdom, has thought it fit to reject the application in all subjects, which is the prerogative of the Central Government.

This contention cannot be accepted. Though it may be the prerogative of the Central Government to reject the application, it ought to be informed with reason as to why it is being rejected. Since the CCIM is the apex body in either permitting or not permitting the commencing of the new courses and since it has categorically stated that three new courses can be started and that the petitioner has got the permission to start the said courses, there can be no impediment for the petitioner to commence such courses and also to enhance its intake with regard to the under-Graduate courses.

Consequently, the petition is admitted to the extent that the petitioner shall be permitted to commence three courses recommended by the CCIM and also to increase its intake for the under-Graduate course from 50 to 60 and is permitted to admit students with effect from 30th November, the current academic year.

The petitioner is also not precluded from making good the shortcomings if any, in seeking a fresh permission to start other courses for which permission has been refused by the CCIM.

The petition is partly allowed in the above terms.