AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant on the issue.
The matters relate to admission of students to Homeopathy Courses for the academic year 2017-18. Challenging the order of stay granted by
the learned Single Judge against the impugned order which denied permission to the Colleges concerned for taking admission of the students for
the academic year 2017-18, the present writ appeals have been filed.
Para 5 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge reads thus:
When the counselling is to be conducted soon, all of a sudden, without even providing the so called inspection report, the petitioner
has been directed not to admit the students. Moreover, the short comings could not be invented this year alone, as the institution has
been functioning for the past 17 years. If the petitioner is not included in the counselling, opportunity of getting meritorious students to
the institution would be lost. That apart, 65% of the seats are only going to State Government and if the institution is not included, the
students under the Government quota would be deprived of getting admission in the Homeopathy College. Therefore, the impugned
order is liable to be stayed and accordingly, it is stayed. There shall be a direction to the respondents 3 and 4 to include the petitioner
college for counselling which is going to be started from tomorrow (11.10.2017). Post the matter after four weeks.
The stand of the learned Additional Solicitor General is that without there being compliance of deficiencies pointed out by the Central Council of
Homeopathy, the learned Single Judge has proceeded to grant stay and directed for inclusion of the colleges concerned for counselling with regard
to the admission for the ensuing academic year and therefore, it is ultra vires and illegal.
On perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it appears that having observed that prima facie there cannot be any lack of
infrasture in the institution and had there been any lack of infrastructure in the in the previous years, then approval would not have been granted,
proceeded to pass the interim order. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the impugned order came to be passed without even
providing the inspection report to the Colleges concerned, based on which the Colleges were denied permission to take admission of the students.
It further appears that the learned Single Judge has considered the fact that the dispute which has arisen based on the report of the Committee
should not put the students at stake. Further, in para 3 of the order, the learned Single Judge has observed that only on satisfaction of the
availability of the infrastructure, based on the report, the Central Government has been granting approval to the Colleges for the past 17 years and
also observed that prima facie it would show that there is no lack of infrastructure in the institution.
It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Colleges that when the inspection committee visited the colleges
14/15.7.2014, hearing notice was issued only on 21.8.2017 that too without any copy of the inspection report prematurely, they proceeded to
deny permission to the Colleges to admit the students for the academic year. Accordingly, he sought to contend that such a decision taken without
giving opportunity of hearing to the colleges concerned would not only jeopardize the interest of the colleges in conducting the courses, but, also
jeopardize the interest of the meritorious students getting admitted in the colleges. He would further contend that certain of the deficiencies pointed
out viz., there is no infrastructure available are only minor in nature which are being capable of being explained or being complied with had they
been given sufficient opportunity by given reasonable time. It is further contended on behalf of the colleges concerned that certain defects have
already been complied with as found in page 4 of the typed set of papers.
In view of the observation made by the learned Single Judge and the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also the
fact that the institution is running for more than 17 years, we are of the view that the grievance expressed by the learned Additional Solicitor
General has to be placed before the learned Single Judge once again and the learned Single Judge can revisit into the decision taken at the earliest
directing the Medical University or the Central Council of Homoeopathy to afford an opportunity, having regard to the fact that nature of
deficiencies pointed out appear to be not so vital and not coming in the way of the admission of the students for the academic year especially, when
the last date of admission for the academic year happens to be 31st October 2017. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is only an
interim order. Such being the case, we feel it is proper that the matter has to be re-considered by the learned Single Judge, after affording an
opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned to arrive at a decision so that the interest of the institutions and that of the ensuing students can
be protected without putting them into jeopardy. We also direct the authorities concerned to appear before the learned Single Judge on 31st
October 2017 and raise their contentions.
Accordingly, these writ appeals are disposed of. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.