Shri Dhanwantry Educational Society vs Punjab University and Others

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.

CM No. 5052 of 2013

The appellant is permitted to place the affidavit on record and the application is allowed.

L.P.A. No. 1915 of 2013

The University has carried out the inspection and has still found some infirmities. A copy of the inspection report has been handed over to the learned counsel for the appellant, though learned counsel for the University states that this report is still to meet the approval or objection of the Syndicate followed by the Senate.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the University is unnecessarily endeavouring to play an expansive role which is not envisaged and in this behalf has relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of U.P. and Others, . In this behalf, reference has been specifically made to Paras 47, 48 and 57 of the said judgment to contend that it is the CCIM which is the authority constituted under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), which has the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. It is the opinion of the CCIM which is of utmost importance and would take precedent over the views of the State as well as that of the University. It has been clarified that the concerned department of the State and the affiliating University have a role to play but it is limited in its application and they cannot lay down any guidelines or policy which would be in conflict with the Central Statute or the standards laid down by the Central body. The Court also emphasised that the affiliating body/examining body does not have any discretion to refuse affiliation with reference to any of the factors which have been considered by the CCIM while granting recognition.

Learned counsel for the appellant, thus, submits that the inspection report really infringes this judicial view as it seeks to go into the matters qua which there has to be finality as per the inspection of the CCIM which has received the approval of the Central Government.

We put to learned counsel for the appellant that the aforesaid is really not the issue before us as the appeal directed against the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, which granted relief to the appellant, was only qua the requirement of an inspection by the University. On this issue, we had passed a detailed order while issuing notice on 12.11.2013 and thereafter when the learned counsel for the respondents entered appearance, the issue was debated at length on 19.11.2013. We, however, were of the view that the inspection by the Panjab University for continued affiliation for the year 2014 was mandatory and not a mere formality. We may add that this finding was based on scrutiny of the material on record and the judicial pronouncements, especially taking into consideration the stand of the learned counsel for the Central Government that the condition of affiliation with the University had not been waived by the letter issued at Annexure P34 dated 24.10.2013 granting conditional permission for the academic year 2013-14 as the same was subject to the condition that the College can admit students in the first professional course for the Session 2013-14 only if the affiliation by the University concerned is continued for this Session. We, in fact, found ourselves in agreement with this submission of the learned counsel for the Central Government that their role was confined to scrutinising the report of the CCIM, which they had approved but that did not waive the affiliation with the University.

Learned counsel for the appellant, faced with aforesaid position, submits that the Panjab University has, in one manner or the other, been obstructing the affiliation of the appellant for some collateral motive qua which even allegations were made by the appellant in other legal proceedings. He submits that the appellant is quite exasperated with this position as again and again it is driven to seek inspection from the Panjab University which endeavours to find some fault or the other, a position naturally disputed by the learned counsel for the Panjab University. He submits that he has instructions to put a quietus to this issue by no more seeking affiliation with the Panjab University and to make an endeavour to seek affiliation with some other University. He submits that there can be no impediment to this in view of the fact that it is the own case of the Panjab University that such affiliation is granted on year-to-year basis and has denied the suggestion of the appellant that there is a process of permanent affiliation and, thus, the action of de-affiliation by the Panjab University has come to an end on approval of the report of the CCIM by the Central Government.

Learned counsel for the appellant, in addition, submits that the appellant has also some apprehension even if he seeks affiliation with the Panjab University on account of Section 2(k) of the said Act, which reads as under:--

Definitions.-(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

(a) to (j) xxxx

(k) "University" means any University in India established by law and having a Faculty of Indian Medicine and includes a University in India established by law in which instruction, teaching, training or research in Indian medicine is provided.

It is submitted that the Panjab University does not have any faculty in Indian Medicine nor does it have an instruction, teaching, training or research in Indian Medicine and, thus, may not even be treated as a University to which voluntary affiliation can be sought under the said Act, an issue which may crop up at some stage, to be raised even by the Central Government. He, thus, submits that he would seek affiliation with a University as defined under the said Act to put an end to this controversy.

The only apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the Central Government in this behalf arises from the letter issued on 24.10.2013 as in terms of this letter, the conditional permission granted by the Central Government is subject to the continued affiliation by the University concerned for the Session 2013-14. We, however, see no reason for such an apprehension as we are of the view that even if this affiliation is with some other University as defined under the said Act, this permission should apply as the scope of scrutiny by the Central Government is qua the report of the CCIM, but the permission is subject to an affiliation. That affiliation can be either of the Panjab University or any other University falling within the definition of the "University" as defined under the said Act.

The result of the aforesaid is that the appellant would exercise the option to seek such an affiliation in accordance with law and as per terms aforesaid and the controversy qua affiliation with the Panjab University comes to an end because of the own stand taken by the appellant. The appeal, thus, stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.