PATANJALI BHARTIYA AYURVIGYAN AVAM ANUSANDHAN SANSTHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(UTN)-2012-7-6
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on July 06,2012

PATANJALI BHARTIYA AYURVIGYAN AVAM ANUSANDHAN SANSTHAN Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

V.K.BIST, J. - (1.) INSTANT petition has been filed by the petitioner for setting-aside the order dated 26.06.2012 passed by the respondents whereby conditional permission granted to the petitioner institution, for undertaking admission in BAMS course during the academic session 2012-13, has been withdrawn, till final decision is taken after hearing.
(2.) REASONS for withdrawing the permission are mentioned in paragraph-4 of the impugned order in which it is indicated that there are only 27 eligible teachers against the minimum requirement of total number of 32 eligible teachers i.e. 90% of the total requirement of 35 eligible teachers as per the approved relaxed norm for the session 2012-13. It is also mentioned in the order that the college has submitted a list of 32 teachers but 5 teachers are found to be ineligible by the Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM). By the said order, the petitioner institution has also been given opportunity of hearing, scheduled to be held on 09.07.2012 at 11:00 a.m., in terms of the provisions of the first proviso of sub-section 5 of Section 13A of the IMCC Act, 1970, before the designated Hearing Committee in the Department of AYUSH and the petitioner institution has been asked to present its case and to show cause as to why the permission to take admission in BAMS course with intake capacity of 50 seats under Section 13C/A of the IMCC Act for the year 2012-13 should not be denied to the petitioner institution. I have heard Mr. S.K. Agarwal, Senior Advocate and Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Apoorva Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Asstt. Solicitor General with Mrs. Seema Sirohi, Standing Counsel for Union of India/respondent no. 1, Mrs. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 and perused the record. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner drew my attention to the report of CCIM dated 17.04.2012 which the petitioner obtained under Right to Information Act, in which it is mentioned that the petitioner institution has provided copies of appointment letters of all additional faculties of the college. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that even at the time of inspection of the college, the petitioner institution have 32 valid qualified teachers in the institution. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner also referred the letter dated 17.05.2011 by which conditional permission was granted to the petitioner institution for UG Course with 50 seats. In this letter, the respondents had granted conditional permission to the petitioner institution subject to the condition that the college will fulfill the following requirements by 31st August, 2012, which will be verified for granting permission for the subsequent years:- "(i) Full complement of teachers including required number of higher faculty in various teaching departments as peer norms of the CCIM shall be available. (ii) Other staff, infrastructure, equipment, instruments, furniture and essential facilities for various components of an Ayurveda college like hospital, hostel, laboratories, library, herbal garden, teaching pharmacy and quality testing laboratory and other relevant component of the college as per norms of CCIM."
(3.) LEARNED Senior Advocate submitted that while passing the order impugned dated 26.06.2012, the respondents have not considered the fact that copies of the appointment letters of additional faculties have already been provided to the inspection team and the petitioner institution is having all those teachers in the institution. He also submitted that once time upto 31st August, 2012 was granted to the petitioner institution for fulfilling the requirements/removing the shortcomings, the respondents should not have passed the order for withdrawing the permission granted to the petitioner institution. He submitted that this action on the part of the respondents is malafide as well as malice, as 16 students have given admission in the institution under management quota and other students are also going to take admission in the college. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner prayed that in such peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, order impugned may be stayed by passing interim order in favour of the petitioner. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned Asstt. Solicitor General for Union of India vehemently opposed granting of any interim order in favour of the petitioner with the submission that since 9th July, 2012 is already fixed in the matter and the petitioner has opportunity to pursue his case before the Hearing Committee and in case, it is found that the shortcomings of five teachers have already been supplied in that event appropriate order would be passed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.