AYURVED SHASTRA SEVA MANDAL & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                         [2013] 4 S.C.R. 1098


A         AYURVED SHASTRA SEVA MANDAL & ANR.
                                   v.
                    UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
        (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31892 of 2012)
                          MARCH 06, 2013
B
          [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI., ANIL R. DAVE AND
                  VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.]

       Education/Educatinal Institutions - Admission - To
C medical institutions - In Graduate and Post Graduate courses
  - Refusal by the Department of 'A YUSH' to grant permission
  to the medical institutions to admit students for the academic
  year 2011-12 - On the ground of deficiencies in the
  infrastructure and teaching staff - Held: It is for the experts and
D not the Court to judge the eligibility of an institution to conduct
  classes - Since the experts opined that the institutions in
  question were not eligible to conduct classes and also
  because more than half of the session for first year course is
  over, the petitions dismissed - Indian Medicine Central
E Council Act, 1970 - Establishment of New Medical College,
  Opening of New or Higher Course of study or Training and
  Increase of Admission Cpacity by a Medical College
  Regulations, 2003 - Indian Medicine Central Council
  (Permission to Existing Medical Colleges) Regulations, 2006.
F      Department of 'AYUSH' refused to grant permission
  to the medical institutions teaching Indian form of
  medicines, to admit students for the academic year 2011-
  12, on the ground of deficiencies in the infrastructure and
  teaching staff. As the institutions did not remove the
G deficiencies, notices were sent to shut down the
  institutions. The institutions approached High Court and
  their petitions were dismissed. Hence the present
  petitions.

H                                1098
 AYURVED SHASTRA SEVA MANDAL v. UNION OF 1099
                  INDIA

    Dismissing the petitions, the Court                          A
     HELD: 1. It is not for the Court to judge as to whether
a particular Institution fulfilled the necessary criteria for
being eligible to conduct classes in the concerned
discipline or not. That is for the experts to judge and
                                                                 B
according to the experts, the Institutions were not geared
to conduct classes in respect of the year 2011-12. [Para
14] [1105-H; 1106-A]

    Shri MoNi SaNajanik Kelavni Manda/ Sanchalit MSKM
B.Ed. College vs. National Council for Teachers' Education       C
and Ors. (2012) 2 SCC 16: 2011 (13) SCR 555 - referred
to.

     2. It is no doubt true, that applications have been filed
by a large number of students for admission in the               0
Institutions imparting education in the Indian form of
medicine, with the leave of the Court, but it is equally true
that such leave was granted without creating any equity
in favour of the applicants. Those who chose to file their
applications, did so at their own risk and it cannot now         E
be contended that since they have been allowed to file
their applications pursuant to orders passed by the
Court, they had acquired a right to be admitted in the
different Institutions to which they had applied. The
privilege granted to the candidates cannot now be
transformed into a right to be admitted in the course for        F
which they had applied. More than half the term of the first
year is over. Though it has been contended on behalf of
the Institutions concerned that extra coaching classes
would be given to the new entrants, it is practically
impossible for a student to pick up the threads of               G
teaching for the entire first year when half the course had
been completed. [Para 13] [1105-D-G]
                     Case Law Reference:
    2011 (13) SCR 555           referred to         Para 3       H
    1100    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013) 4 S.C.R.


A       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No.
    31892 of 2012.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 04.10.2012 of the High
    Court of Bombay at Aurangabad in WP No. 7854 of 2011.
B                                WITH
    S.L.P. (C) Nos. 33452, 33455, 33560, 34001, 34020, 34255,
    34264, 30156, 30086, 31349, 23715, 33908, 33909, 33897
    of 2012 1118-1119 of 2013, 35051, 39893, 381of2012.

c      Sidharth Luthra, ASG, R.N. Dhorde, Huzefa Ahmadi,
  Mahendra Singh Singhvi, M.Y. Deshmukh, Yatin M. Jagiap,
  Shrikant R. Deshmukha, Shree Prakash Sinha, Nawalendra
  Kumar, Shekhar Kumar, Janme Jay, Uday B. Dube, Gagan
  Sanghi, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Siddhesh Kotwal,
D Nirnimesh Dube, Satyajit A. Desai, Somnath Padhan, Anagha
  S. Desai, Shirish K. Deshpande, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari,
  Vijay Kumar, Vishwajit Singh, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Prity Kunwar,
  Shoeb Alam, Ashok Panigrahi, Apporva Bhivnesh, Ashok
  Kumar Gupta II, S. Mahale, Kuldip Singh, Mohana, Aditya
E Singla, Gargi Khanna, Vanshika, Sushma Suri, T.k. Joseph,
  Heman!, Dr. Kailash Chand, Sanjay V. Kharde, Asha Gopalan
  Nair, Anuradha Mutatkar, Gaurav Agrawal for the appearing
  parties.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
        ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI. 1. These Special Leave Petitions
  have been filed against orders passed by the Aurangabad
  Bench and the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court
  involving common issues. The matters relating to the
G Aurangabad Bench arise out of a common order dated 4th
  October, 2012, in regard to admissions to the various
  institutions teaching the Indian form of medicines such as
  Ayurvedic, Unani, Siddha, etc. for the academic year 2011-12.

       Special Leave Petition (C) No. 35051 of 2012 has been
H filed by the Umar Bin Khattab Welfare Trust against the
 AYURVED SHASTRA SEVA MANDAL v. UNION OF 1101
         INDIA [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
judgment of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court            A
against an order dated 29th December, 2010, regarding
admissions for the self-same period. The other Special Leave
Petitions relate to the common orders dated ·13th July, 2012
and 2nd August, 2012 passed by the Nagpur Bench of the
Bombay High Court regarding admissions for the year 2011-            B
12. Yet, another Special Leave Petition regarding admissions
for the year 2012-13, has been filed by the Backward Class
Youth Relief Committee and Another against the order dated
9th August, 2012, passed by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay
High Court.                                                          c
      2. The common issue involved in all the Special Leave
Petitions is in regard to the refusal by the Government of India,
in its Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani,
Siddha and Homeopathy, hereinafter referred to as "AYUSH",
to grant permission to the colleges to admit students for the        D
academic year 2011-12, for the BAMS/ Post Graduate courses.
Such permission appears to have been refused on account of
various deficiencies relating to the infrastructure and teaching
staff, which had not been rectified and brought into line with the
minimum standard norms.                                              E

     3. From the materials as disclosed and the submissions
made on behalf of the respective parties, it appears that in the
case of Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavni Manda/ Sanchalit
MSKM B.Ed. College v. National Council for Teachers'                 F
Education and Ors. [(2012) 2 SCC 16], this Court, while
rejecting the prayer .of the institutions to permit students to
continue in unrecognized institutions, observed that mushroom
growth of ill-equipped, under-staffed and unrecognized
educational institutions has caused serious problems with the        G
students who joined the various courses.

    4. As far as medical institutions are concerned, the
procedure relating to the recognition of medical colleges as well
as admission therein was governed by the Indian Medicine
                                                                     H
    1102    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A Central Council Act, 1970, hereinafter referred to as "the 1970
  Act", which was amended in 2003, to incorporate Sections
  13A, 138 and 13C, which provided the procedure for
  establishing new colleges and making provision for seeking
  prior permission of the Central Government in respect of the
B same. The amendment also attempted to bring in reforms in
  the existing colleges by making it mandatory for them to seek
  permission from the Central Government within a period of
  three years from their establishment. Having regard to the said
  amendments, the Central Council of Indian Medicine, with the
c previous sanction of the Central Government, framed
  Regulations, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by
  Section 36 of the 1970 Act. The said Regulations were named
  as the Establishment of New Medical College, Opening of New
  or Higher Course of Study or Training and Increase of
  Admission Capacity by a Medical College Regulations, 2003,
0
  hereinafter referred to as "the 2003 Regulations". Regulation
  6(1 )(e) of the 2003 Regulations provides for applications to be
  made by a medical college owning and managing a hospital
  in Indian medicines containing not less than 100 beds with
E necessary facilities and infrastructure. The Central Council of
  Indian Medicine further framed Regulations in 2006 called as
  the Indian Medicine Central Council (Permission to Existing
  Medical Colleges) Regulations, 2006, hereinafter referred to as
  "the 2006 Regulations". Regulation 5(1}(d} of the 2006
  Regulations provides that the applicant college would have to
F be owning and managing a minimum of 100 beds for
  undergraduate courses and 150 beds for post graduate
  courses, which conforms to the norms relating to minimum bed
  strength and bed occupancy for In-patients and the number of
  Out-patients.
G
        5. When the 2003 Amendment was effected to the 1970
  Act, three years' time was given to the existing colleges to
  remove the deficiencies. The 2006 Regulations provided a
  further period of two years to remove the deficiencies and even
H relaxed the minimum standards in that regard. Even after the
 AYURVED SHASTRA SEVA MANDAL v. UNION OF 1103
         INDIA [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
expiry of two years, the colleges were given further opportunities   A
to remove the shortcomings by granting them conditional
permission for their students for the academic years, 2008-09,
2009-10 and 2010-11. It is only obvious that the minimum
standards were insisted upon by the Council to ensure that the
colleges achieved the minimum standards gradually.                   B

      6. It may be noted that there was little or no response from
the institutions concerned in regard to removal of the
deficiencies in their respective institutions and it is only when
the notices were given to shut down the institutions that they       C
woke up from their slumber and approached the courts for
relief.

     7. In many of these cases, permission was given by the
Courts to the institutions concerned to accept admission forms,
but they were directed not to pass any orders thereupon ti.II the    D
decision of this Court in these Special Leave Petitions.

     8. Appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. R.N. Dhorde, learned
Senior Advocate, tried to impress upon us that the deficiencies
had already been removed and that is why permission was              E
subsequently given for the admission of students for the year
2012-13. Mr. Dhorde submitted that since the deficiencies had
been removed, there could be no reason for permission for the
academic year 2011-12 to be withheld, since a large number
of applications had been received from students intending to
obtain admission for the said year. It was submitted that,           F
although, the academic year had come to an end, the college
authorities would make all arrangements for the applicants to
be able to complete the course for the entire year within six
months so as to bring them up to the level of the second year.
Mr. Dhorde also submitted that in the event such permission          G
was not granted, the continuity of the courses would be
disrupted. Giving examples of how the deficiencies had been
removed, Mr. Dhorde contended that the Department of AYUSH
had taken a prior decision to reject the application for
permission to admit students for the year 2011-12. It is pursuant    H
    1104     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A to such decision that all the applications were rejected.

         9. However, there is one matter (SLP(C) No. 31892 of
    2012) filed by the Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal and Another,
    wherein the prayer of the Petitioner-Institution had been rejected
    only on the ground that instead of recording the presence of
8
    100 patients each day in the Out-Patient Department, the
    average had been found to be 98.55%.

       10. Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned Senior Advocate,
  who had appeared with Mr. Dhorde, had submitted that the
C said figure was not absolutely accurate since the calculation
  had been based on 300 days and not 292 days, on account of
  certain holidays which had gone unnoticed. In the fact situation
  of the case, the said institution could be treated on a different
  level from the other institutions, whose applications had b~en
D rejected for various other deficiencies.

       11. At this juncture, it may be noticed that we had occasion
  to dismiss SLP(C) No. 35367 of 2012, on 4th January, 2013,
  on the ground that orders as prayed for therein would have the
  effect of problems being created for the completion of
E semester, which was to end in the month of June, 2013, since
  more than six months had elapsed since the semester had
  begun.

        12. The prayer made on behalf of the Petitioners was
F strongly opposed by Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Additional
  Solicitor General, who pointed out that despite a moratorium
  of five years since the amendment of the 1970 Act in 2003 and
  the framing of the 2006 Regulations in 2006, the institutions had
  failed to remove the deficiencies, as pointed out by the Council.
G The learned ASG submitted that the practice of medicine, in
  whatever form, which was recognised by the Central
  Government and was regulated by the 1970 Act and the
  Regulations framed thereunder, could not be compromised by
  lowering the standards required to maintain the excellence of
H the profession. The learned ASG submitted that once the
 AYURVED SHASTRA SEVA MAN[)AL v. UNION OF 1105
         INDIA [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]

deficiencies had been removed, permission was once again              A
granted to admit students for the academic year, 2012-13. The
learned ASG submitted that the sympathy towards the students,
who had been allowed to file their application forms, could not
be a ground to grant permission where more than half the
period of study was already over. The learned ASG submitted           B
that where a certain degree of professionalism was required,
there was no scope of conducting bridge courses to enable the
students for that particular year to catch up with the students of
the subsequent semester. The learned ASG submitted that in
the interest of the medical profession and those who are the          c
beneficiaries of the system, the Special Leave Petitions were
liable to be dismissed.

      13. It is no doubt true, that applications have been filed by
a large number of students for admission in the Institutions
imparting education in the Indian form of medicine, with the          D
leave of the Court, but it is equally true that such leave was
granted without creating any equity in favour of the applicants.
Those who chose to file their applications did so at their own
risk and it cannot now be contended that since they have been
allowed to file their applications pursuant to orders passed by       E
the Court, they had acquired a right to be admitted in the
different Institutions to which they had applied. The privilege
granted to the candidates cannot now be transformed into a
right to be admitted in the course for which they had applied.
Apart from anything else, one has to take a practical view of         F
the matter since more than half the term of the first year is over.
Though it has been contended on behalf of the Institutions
concerned that extra coaching classes would be given to the
new entrants, it is practically impossible for a student to pick
up the threads of teaching for the entire first year when half the    G
course had been completed.

      14. It is not for us to judge as to whether a particular
Institution fulfilled the necessary criteria for being eligible to
conduct classes in the concerned discipline or not. That is for       H
    1106     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A the experts to judge and according to the experts the Institutions
  were not geared to conduct classes in respect of the year 2011-
  12. It is also impractical to consider the proposal of the colleges
  of providing extra classes to the new entrants to bring them upto
  the level of those who have completed !he major part of the
B course for the first year.

         15. We are not, therefore, inclined to interfere with the
    orders of the High Court impugned in these Special Leave
    Petitions and the same are, accordingly, dismissed.

C       16. Having regard to the facts involved, the parties will
    bear their own costs.

    K.K.T.                                        SLPs dismissed.