AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—In these appeals, 2nd respondent/appellant herein is assailing the correctness of the order dated 10/10/2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 33838-839/2010. The petitioners/respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein have filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P. Nos. 33838-839/2010 assailing the correctness of the order dated 7/17.9.2010 passed by the 1st respondent herein and seeking directions, contending that, they are the Trust and the Institution running Ayurvedic Course i.e. BAMS course in Indian Medicine. It is their case that, on account of non approval of the admissions for the academic year 2010-11 on the basis of communication of the order dated 7/17.9.2010, by which on suo motu inspection being conducted, their case has been rejected pointing out certain deficiencies which, according to them is without proper notice and without considering the very effect of the permission which had been granted on minimum conditions being satisfied. Further it is their case that, they have obtained interim order permitting them to make admissions to BAMS Course for the academic year 2010-11 and therefore, they approached this Court on the ground that for the previous years, Government of India has granted permission for admission as against the intake capacity acting u/s 13(C) of the Act and therefore, Annexure-A is non-est and cannot be acted upon.
The said writ petitions had come up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 10/10/2012. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the counsel appearing for both the parties, after perusing the materials available on file and placing reliance on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 3877/2009 and connected matter decided on 21.1.2010 (CCIM, New Delhi Vs. Government of India) and noticing that 2nd respondent/appellant has granted permission for the previous period and subsequently, for the year 2010-11 and after having considered the request of the Institution, on inspection certain deficiencies were pointed out and however, the Institution has already admitted students and the prayer is in respect of the academic year 2010-11 certain deficiencies were pointed out by the Health Ministry and since already one year course has been completed by the students and for the previous years, approval has been granted, has allowed the said writ petitions, quashed the impugned order at Annexure-A and directed the concerned respondent authorities to accord approval of admission of students by the Institution and to declare the results, if not already declared with certain observations. Being aggrieved by the said order, the 2nd respondent/appellant herein has presented these appeals.
We have perused the grounds urged by the appellant in these appeals carefully and heard learned counsel for respondents and perused the order impugned.
After perusal of the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any error or material irregularity as such committed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the said petitions with directions. The learned Single Judge, has issued the said directions, following the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 3877/2009 and connected matter decided on 21.1.2010 in the case of CCIM, New Delhi Vs. Government of India, after extracting para-8 of the said judgment.
Further, during the course of the arguments, learned counsel for petitioners/respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein placing reliance upon another judgment of this Court reported in Central Council of Indian Medicine Vs. Union of India and Others has vehemently submitted that, once the permission to continue the course for the academic year was granted, it must be concluded that the deficiencies and short comings notified with regard to the previous year, have been complied with even in respect of the year for which permission had been withdrawn. Therefore, he submitted that in the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in para-8 and 10 in the aforesaid judgment, these writ appeals are liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
After careful consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for appellant, learned counsel appearing for respondents and after perusing the grounds urged by the appellant, the stand taken by the respondents and the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Central Council of Indian Medicine Vs. Union of India and others reported in ILR Karnataka 5113, the relevant paras 8 and 10 of the said judgment reads thus:
It is in this backdrop that the impact of the impugned order has to be appreciated. The Learned Single Judge has adopted a pragmatic approach, which we unequivocally endorse. He has noted that admissions had already been completed much prior to the impugned withdrawal of permission for the academic year 2009-10. The Learned Single Judge further noted that on 23/24.02.2010, the appellant has in fact carried out an inspection of the Respondent-College, in order to re-assess the available infrastructure including the strength of the teaching faculty. Pursuant to the recommendations of the appellant, the Central Government, by order dated 04.10.2010 has granted permission to the Respondent-College for conducting the BAMS Course allowing it to admit (fifty) students for the current academic year namely, 2010-11.
XXX XXX XXXX
In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appeal filed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine is wholly devoid of merit. Firstly, neither the Central Government nor the State Government supports the prayer of the appellant for cancelling the admission of several students for the academic year 2009-10. The Appellant is only a recommendatory Body, and the Central Government is fully empowered not to accept its advice. It cannot be overlooked that the cancellation order dated 31.10.2009 has come in the wake of completion of admission for the relevant academic year. Secondly, the appellant is only a recommendatory body and it cannot arraign the Union Government as a respondent, when the Central Government is desirous of complying the mandamus issued by the Learned Single Judge. Thirdly, we see no justification for the appellant to issue the far reaching cancellation orders, which has the result of wastage of a valuable year in students'' life, it may jeopardize their future irretrievably. We think that recommendations must be given well in advance, atleast on or before the month of June, for the next following academic year. Fourthly, once permission to continue the course for a particular academic year is granted, it must be concluded that the deficiencies and shortcomings notified with regard to the previous year, have been complied with even in respect of the year for which permission had been withdrawn.
In the light of the well settled law laid down by the coordinate bench of this Court and also the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 3877/2009 and connected matter decided on 21.1.2010 as relied upon by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any error or illegally nor any perversity in the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge. Nor the appellant has made out any good grounds to consider the relief sought in these appeals. For the forgoing reasons, the appeals filed by the appellant are dismissed as devoid of merits.
In view of the disposal of the writ appeals, the prayer sought by the appellant in I.A. No. I/2012 does not survive for consideration. Hence, it is disposed off as having become infructuous.