Union Of India @APPELLANT@Hash Rajasthan Vikas Sansthan

These intra court appeals are directed against a common order dated 16.2.18 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, whereby the writ

petitions preferred by the respondentsinstitutes and other connected petitions, seeking a direction to the appellants herein for consideration of their

applications for establishment of new Ayurveda/Homeopathic college for the Academic Session 2018-19 stand disposed of with the directions in the

following terms:

“Resultantly, the present writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Central Government to forward the applications of the

petitioner-institutes to the Central Council of Indian Medicine within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order and the Central Council of Indian

Medicine thereafter shall hold the inspection within two weeks of the receipt of the applications so forwarded by the Central Government. On receipt

of the said inspection report, the requisite approval/recognition, shall be, accordingly, accorded in favour of the petitionerinstitutes for the academic

session 2018-19 or else a speaking order shall be passed, as the case may be.â€​

Precisely, the case of the respondents-institutes before the learned Single Judge was that the application seeking sanction for establishment of new

Ayurveda/Homeopathic college were required to be accompanied by “No Objection Certificate†(NOC) issued by the State Government. The

NOC was issued to the respondents by the State Government on 30.5.17 and thereafter, the respondents-institutes immediately submitted their

application seeking sanction for establishment of Ayurveda/Homeopathic college on 31.5.17. However, their applications were declined to be

considered inasmuch as, the same were submitted beyond the prescribed time schedule. The stipulated date for submission of the application for grant

of sanction was 30.4.17. It was contended on behalf of the appellants before the learned Single Judge that the recognition has to be granted as per the

statutorily prescribed conditions and their strict adherence by all concerned is mandatory. It was contended that admittedly, the respondentsinstitutes

had submitted the applications beyond the cut off date and therefore, rejection thereof cannot be faulted with.

The learned Single Judge noticed that the applications preferred by some of the institutes which were not accompanied by NOC issued by the State

Government were considered and forwarded by the Central Council of Indian Medicine (C.C.I.M.) for further consideration for academic session

2018-19 and thus, one of the statutory requirement that the application should be accompanied by NOC was overlooked, but the applications of such

applicants were entertained only because they were received before 30.4.17. The learned Single Judge observed that the respondents-institute

bonafidely waited till such time they received NOC and thereafter, immediately sent their applications duly accompanied with the NOC and thus, non

consideration of their applications was not justified moreso when the meeting of the C.C.I.M. for consideration of the application was held on 31.7.17

and 1.8.17 and admittedly, the applications of the respondents-institutes although sent after 30.4.17 were received much before 31.7.17 i.e. before

the scheduled meeting. The learned Single Judge opined that the applications preferred by the respondents-institutes were on a better footing than

those whose applications received without NOC. The learned Single Judge also noticed that the State Government had requested the Central

Government to extend the time for considering the delayed applications vide their communication dated 27.5.17 inasmuch as, there was no fault on the

part of the respondents-institutes in any manner as the delay was caused at the behest of the State Government. Accordingly, while relying upon a

single Bench decision of this court at Jaipur Bench in similar set of circumstances in S.B.C.Writ Petition No.330/17 (Maharishi Arvind University,

Mundiarmsar vs. Central Council of Indian Medicine & Ors.), the petitions were disposed of with the directions in the terms indicated above.

Learned counsel for the appellant while reiterating the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant before the learned Single Judge, submitted that

the entire process for grant of sanction for establishing the colleges has to be completed within the time schedule and therefore, the applications

preferred by the respondents-institutes beyond the cut off date were rightly not considered. Learned counsel submitted that sanctity of the cut off date

fixed for submission of the application forms has to be maintained and the same cannot be relaxed merely because the NOC was issued by the State

Government to the respondentsinstitutes with inordinate delay. Learned counsel submitted that even if the NOCs were not available with the

respondentsinstitutes, nothing prevented them from making the applications within the stipulated time inasmuch as, after scrutiny, an opportunity is

granted by the appellant to the applicant-institute to remove the deficiency, if any.

On the other hand, the counsels appearing for the respondents-institutes submitted that it is the requirement under the Regulations that the

application preferred seeking sanction for establishment of the college must be accompanied by the NOC issued by the State Government and thus,

the respondentsinstitutes bonafidely waited till such time they received NOC. Learned counsel submitted that it would be absolutely unfair to deny the

consideration of the applications of the respondentsinstitutes when the applications preferred by other institutes, which did not receive NOC as on the

date of submitting the applications are being considered. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the NOC was issued by the State

Government to all the institutes on the same day and thus, the respondentsinstitutes cannot be differently treated moreso when they had already

submitted the application form alongwith the NOC before the scheduled date of meeting of the C.C.I.M. for consideration of the application.

Drawing the attention of the court to the communication dated 1.9.17 (Annexure 11) issued by the Director, Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga &

Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH), learned counsel submitted the fact that taking into consideration that the process of

consideration of the application and granting sanction is cumbersome and time consuming, the date for receipt of the applications by the Central

Government has been extended from 1st July to 31st August (both days inclusive) of any year and thus, it is absolutely incorrect to state that the cut

off date cannot be altered in any circumstances.

We have considered the submissions of the counsels appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.

Indisputably, the respondents-institutes had applied for grant of NOC to the State Government well in advance, however, their applications were not

considered by the State Government expeditiously and thus, issuance of NOC to the respondentsinstitutes was delayed. This fact stands fortified from

the communication sent by the State Government to the Central Government for extending the cut off date for submission of the applications seeking

sanction for establishment of Ayurveda/Homeopathic college. It is not disputed before us that as per the Regulations, eligibility for making an

application includes requirement of obtaining NOC from the State Government for establishing new college at the proposed site and thus, if the

appellants bonafidely waited till such time the NOC is received by them, they cannot be penalised for no fault on their part. Admittedly, the

applications preferred by the applicants though without NOC but before the scheduled date has been considered for grant of sanction for

establishment of the college and thus, the respondents-institutes which submitted the application forms after fulfilling the eligibility criteria, cannot be

treated less favourably. It is true that the time schedule fixed for proceeding the applications preferred for establishing new Ayurveda/Homeopathic

college must be strictly adhered to. But the fact remains that taking into consideration, the difficulty faced in completing the process within the

stipulated time, the Government of India has chosen to extend the schedule date for receipt of the applications by the Central Government, may be for

a different academic session. In any case, the date fixed for the receipt of the application by the Central Government is not treated so sacrosanct by

the appellants, which cannot be altered. In this view of the matter, to meet the ends of justice, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge for

consideration of the applications of the respondents-institutes do not warrant any interference by us in intra court appeal jurisdiction.

At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the respondentsinstitutes submitted that in compliance of the directions issued by the learned Single

Judge, their applications have not been forwarded by the Central Government to the C.C.I.M. till this date and thus, if no further directions are issued

for consideration of the applications of the respondents-institutes within time frame, they shall stand deprived from allotment of the students for the

academic session 2018-19.

Accordingly, we direct that the applications preferred by the respondents-institutes shall be forwarded by the Central Government to the Central

Council of Indian Medicine within one week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the Central Council of Indian Medicine

thereafter shall hold the inspection of the respondents-institutes within two weeks of the receipt of the applications so forwarded by the Central

Government. On receipt of the inspection report, the requisite approval/recognition shall be accorded in favour of the respondents-institutes for

academic session 2018-19 within two weeks thereafter, else a speaking order shall be passed.

It is made clear that order passed in the instant cases taking into consideration peculiar facts & circumstances, shall not be treated to be a

precedent.

The intra court appeals stand disposed of accordingly.