Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 31892 OF 2012
Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal & Anr. … Appellants
versus
Union of India & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
SLP(C) No.33452 of 2012
SLP(C) No.33455 of 2012
SLP(C) No.33560 of 2012
SLP(C) No.34001 of 2012
SLP(C) No.34020 of 2012
SLP(C) No.34255 of 2012
SLP(C) No.34264 of 2012
SLP(C) No.30156 of 2012
SLP(C) No.30086 of 2012
SLP(C) No.31349 of 2012
SLP(C) No.23715 of 2012
SLP(C) No.33908 of 2012
SLP(C) No.33909 of 2012
SLP(C) No.33897 of 2012
SLP(C)Nos.1118-1119 of 2013
SLP(C) No.35051 of 2012
SLP(C) No.39893 of 2012
SLP(C) No.381 of 2013Page 2
2
J U D G M E N T
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
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 filed by the Umar Bin Khattab Welfare
Trust against the judgment of the Aurangabad Bench
of the Bombay High Court 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
Page 3
3
July, 2012 and 2nd August, 2012 passed by the
Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court regarding
admissions for the year 2011-12. 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.
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 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,
Page 4
4
which had not been rectified and brought into line
with the minimum standard norms.
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 Mandal Sanchalit MSKM B.Ed.
College v. National Council for Teachers' 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
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 Central Council
Act, 1970, hereinafter referred to as "the 1970
Page 5
5
Act", which was amended in 2003, to incorporate
Sections 13A, 13B 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 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 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, hereinafter referred to as "the
2003 Regulations". Regulation 6(1)(e) of the 2003
Page 6
6
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 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 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.
5. When the 2003 Amendment was effected to the
1970 Act, three years' time was given to the
existing colleges to remove the deficiencies. ThePage 7
7
2006 Regulations provided a further period of two
years to remove the deficiencies and even relaxed
the minimum standards in that regard. Even after
the expiry of two years, the colleges were given
further opportunities 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.
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 woke
up from their slumber and approached the courts for
relief. Page 8
8
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 till the 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 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, although, the academic year had come to an
end, the college authorities would make all
arrangements for the applicants to be able toPage 9
9
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 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 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 100
patients each day in the Out-Patient Department,
the average had been found to be 98.55%.
Page 10
10
10. Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned Senior Advocate,
who had appeared with Mr. Dhorde, had submitted
that the 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 been 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
semester, which was to end in the month of June,
2013, since more than six months had elapsed since
the semester had begun.Page 11
11
12. The prayer made on behalf of the Petitioners
was 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. 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 the profession. The
learned ASG submitted that once the deficiencies
had been removed, permission was once again granted
to admit students for the academic year, 2012-13.
The learned ASG submitted that the sympathy towards
Page 12
12
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 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 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 leave of
the Court, but it is equally true that such leave
was granted without creating any equity in favour
Page 13
13
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 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 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
course had been completed. Page 14
14
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 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 the major part of the 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.Page 15
15
16. Having regard to the facts involved, the
parties will bear their own costs.
...................CJI.
(ALTAMAS KABIR)
.....................J.
(ANIL R. DAVE)
.....................J.
(VIKRAMAJIT SEN)
NEW DELHI
DATED: MARCH 06, 2013.
