AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok B. Hinchigeri
The petitioners have called into question the first respondent''s order, dated 7.9.2011 (Annexure-M) directing them not to make any admissions to BAMS Course and to Post Graduate Course for the academic year 2011-2012. The second petitioner No. 2 is the Trust running the first petitioner College. The first petitioner started the BAMS Course in the year 1998 and M.D. Course in ''Rasashastra'' in the year 2005 after obtaining the necessary clearances and approvals from the authorities. The respondent No. 1 issued notice to the petitioners regarding certain deficiencies in the infrastructure. The proceedings culminated in the issuance of the impugned order, dated 7.9.2011 (Annexure-M) directing the petitioners not to make admissions to the said Courses for the academic year 2011-2012. The petitioners removed all the deficiencies and submitted the compliance report on 12.12.2011. As the students admitted for the academic year 2011-2012 were not approved and were not permitted to appear for the examination, these petitions came to be filed. Subsequently, the Central Government reconsidered the matter and granted permission for the academic year 2012-2013. The same is discernible from the status report, dated 22.6.2012.
Sri Udaya Holla, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s. Holla and Holla Associates for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have created rich infrastructure and are imparting quality education. The first petitioner has obtained the ISO 9001/2000 certification. It has been conducting the research extensively. It has obtained the Certificate of Registration of Trade Marks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in respect of a number of research products. He submits that the deficiencies pointed out by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are readily removed by petitioners. He submits that the respondent No. 1 has indeed granted the permission for the subsequent year, that is, 2012-2013. In view of this subsequent development, the deficiencies pointed out stand removed.
To advance the submission that the permission granted for the subsequent year would be efficacious for the previous year also, he relies on the Division Bench''s judgment of this Court in the case of CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, reported in ILR 2011 KAR 5105. The Division Bench has this to say in para 10:-
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, at least 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.
Sri Holla also has a grievance over the matter being heard by one functionary and the decision being taken by another functionary of the Central Government. Relying on the Apex Court''s judgment in the case of Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and Others Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Another, , wherein it is held that the Secretary hearing the matter and the Chief Minister deciding the matter is destructive of the concept of judicial hearing. If one person hears the matter and the other person decides, then the personal hearing becomes an empty formality offending the very principle of judicial proceedings. He submits that the'' petitioners have been making admissions uninterruptedly from the year 1998 to the BAMS Course and from the year 2005 to M.D. Course in ''Rasashastra''. The respondents'' raising the objection to the alleged shortfall in the infrastructure for one year is putting the students admitted for 2011-2012 in doldrums.
Sri Veerendra Sharma, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 submits that the minimum standard norms for conditional admission to 2011-2012 are enumerated in the policy document, dated 18.3.2011(Annexure-R3). He would therefore contend that the petitioners cannot feign ignorance of the requisite infrastructural facilities. He submits that, if the parameters are relaxed for the succeeding year, such relaxation cannot be demanded for the preceding year too.
Sri Sharma submits that once the C.C.I.M. Inspectors hold the inspection of a college and submits the report thereon, it has some consequences Even if the deficiencies are removed, the institution may take advantage of the creation of requisite infrastructure only for the next academic year.
He submits that under the Government of India [Allocation of Business Rules], the officers of the Department of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy can hold the hearing. As the matter is of a technical nature, it is heard by the Committee consisting of experts in the Indian System of Medicine and the decision is taken by the Secretary of the Department. Viewed in this perspective, there is no infirmity or irregularity in the decision-making process, so submits the learned counsel.
He has also relied on the following authorities:-
Order dated 28.9.2011 in W.P. No. 15444/2011 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur (Rajeev Gandhi Ayurvedic College and Hospital v. Union of India).
Order dated 28.9.2011 in W.P. No. 15444/2011 passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court Jabalpur (Rajeev Gandhi Ayurvedic College and Hospital v. Union of India).
Order dated 1.2.2012 in S.L.A. (Civil)28689/2011 (Medical Council of India v. JSS Medical College & Anr.).
Order dated 11.1.2012 in Civil Appeal No. 274/2011 (Medical Council of India v. JSS Medical
The submissions of the learned advocates have received my thoughtful consideration. The impugned order is passed on 7.9.2011. The show cause notice, on the basis of which it is issued, itself is dated 1.7.2011, by which time good number of admissions may have already taken place. If the respondents want that no admissions should be made by the petitioner institution on account of the infrastructural deficiencies, they are required to pass the orders and send them before the commencement of the academic year. In this regard, it is profitable to refer to the considered view of the Division Bench in C.C.I.M.''s case (supra) at the risk of repetition also.
... 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, at least on or before the month of June, for the next following academic year.
It is not in dispute that for the subsequent academic year (2012-13), the Central Government has already accorded the permission to the petitioner College, as is evident from the status report, dated 22.6.2012. The Division Bench has taken the considered view in C.C.I.M.''s case (supra) that once the 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 to the year for which the permission had been withdrawn. Following the said decision and the granting of the permission for 2012-13, I hold that the deficiencies pointed out for 2011-12 stand complied with.
For yet another reason too, I have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order is absolutely unsustainable. The order is passed by the authority which has not heard the petitioner in the matter. Annexure-M reveals that the petitioner is heard by a hearing Committee Based on that hearing, the impugned order is passed by the Central Government.
Section 13A. (5) and the first proviso thereto read as follows:
13A.(5) The Central Government may, after considering the scheme and recommendation of the Central Council under sub-section (4) and after obtaining, where necessary, such other particulars as may be considered necessary by it from the person or medical college concerned and having regard to the factors referred to in sub-section (8), either approve the scheme with such conditions, if any, as it may consider necessary or disapprove the scheme and any such approval shall constitute as a permission under sub-section (1):
Provided that no scheme shall be disapproved by the Central Government except after giving the person or medical college concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
No doubt the matter is of technical nature. But, that does not mean that the Central Government can allow the Committee of experts to hear the petitioners. Even assuming that the petitioners could have been heard only by the Committee, then the decision has to be taken by the same Committee. Alternatively, it was open to the Central Government to confront the petitioners with the report containing the proceedings of the hearing Committee, hear the petitioners on the report and then take a decision in the matter. It was also open to the Central Government to hear the petitioners but by taking the assistance of the medical experts. The decision-maker may elect any of these courses. But it is necessary that a party is required to be heard by the decision-making authority.
Under more or less similar circumstances, the order passed by the Central Government, dated 30.10.2009 in the case of Atreya Ayurveda Medical College, refusing the permission to the petitioner to admit the students to BAMS Course for the academic year 2009-2010 is quashed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 35070/2009 and other connected petitions. The C.C.I.M. challenged the learned Single Judge''s order by filing W.A. No. 736/2011. The Division Bench passed an order dated 31.10.2011 dismissing the appeal by upholding the learned Single Judge''s order.
The fate of the students admitted for the academic year 2011-12 cannot be kept hanging in balance in an ever-lasting manner.
For all the aforesaid reasons, I allow these petitions by quashing the impugned orders. Needless to observe that it is open to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to insist for and direct the petitioners to create the infrastructural facilities. The respondent No. 3 is directed to accord approval to the admissions of the students of the first petitioner College - 38 students admitted to first year BAMS Course and 3 students admitted to M.D. Course in ''Rasashastra'' for the academic year 2011-2012, subject to the petitioners meeting the eligibility criteria in all other respects.
Now that the main matter itself is disposed of, nothing survives for consideration of I.A.1/12 for direction. The same stands dismissed as having become unnecessary. No order as to costs.