- (1.) WE have heard Sri Ateeq Ahmad Khan for the petitioner, Sri Neeraj Tiwari for the respondent No.3 and the learned State Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
(2.) BY this petition, the petitioner, which is the Committee of Management of Vaidya Yagya Dutt Sharma Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Khurja, a college affiliated to the Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as 'University'), has sought quashing of the order dated 15.9.2012 by which the University has constituted an Admission Committee for admission of candidates to the M.D/M.S (Ayurvedacharya) Courses conducted by various Colleges affiliated to it. In addition thereto, the petitioner has sought a mandamus commanding the University to complete the formalities in respect of the students who were selected by the Committee, appointed by the Director, Ayurvedic Sewayan, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow, for admission to the aforesaid courses conducted by the petitioner's college for the academic session 2012-13. The facts, which are relevant for decision of this case, are that the petitioner's college conducts courses both at the graduate and post-graduate levels of Ayurved and is affiliated to the Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur. By virtue of Section 5(4) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur exercises power conferred on a University in respect of institution and research in the Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine and advancement and dissemination of knowledge thereof throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh and, as such, has other colleges also, like that of the petitioner, affiliated to it within the State of Uttar Pradesh. The admission to a college conferring post-graduate degree in Ayurved of a University or Board or Medical Institution is to be provided as per Regulation 6 of Indian Medicine Central Council (Post-Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2012, which were made by the Central Council of Indian Medicines with the previous sanction of Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Clauses (i), (j), (k) of Sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, notified on 19th March, 2012. As per sub-clause (2) of Regulation 6, the University or any other Committee to be constituted by Government concerned, has to conduct the admission process. The Central Council of Indian Medicine, vide its letter dated 19.01.2011 addressed to the Dean/ Director/ Principal of all Ayurved, Siddha and Unani Colleges, informed/ fixed the cut-off date for admission to P.G Courses. By the said letter, the cut-off date for admission to the P.G. Course of Ayurved, Unani and Siddha was fixed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine as 31st October of the year from the next day of which the academic session is to begin. It transpires that for admission to the P.G. Courses for the academic sesssion 2012-13, the petitioner's college sent letters to the University in the month of April, May, June and July, 2012 for completing the admission process under the assumption that the last date for completing the admission process for P.G. Courses was 30th September 2012. It further appears, that in absence of a response from the University, the petitioner's college proposed a Three Member Committee to the Director, Ayurved, Chikitsa and Shiksha, U.P. and requested him to approve the same for the purpose of completing the admision process to the P.G. Courses conducted by it. It tranpires that the Director, Ayurved Services, U.P., Lucknow, constituted a Committee of Three members, vide its order dated 13.08.2012, with a request to complete the selection process of admission to the P.G. Courses conducted by the petitioner's college by 30th September, 2012. The Selection Committee, so constituted, completed the admission process and prepared a merit-list of candidates for admission to the P.G. Courses in the petitioner's college. The Principal of the petitioner's college, vide letter dated 19.09.2005, forwarded the merit-list of the selected candidates to the University, thereby informing that the admission process has been completed through a Committee constituted under the orders of Director. In the meantime, the University by its order dated 15.09.2012, which is impugned in the present petition, constituted an Admission Committee in exercise of its power under Regulation 6(2) of the Indian Medicine Central Council (Post-graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2012 for selection/admission of candidates to the post-graduate courses conducted by all the colleges affiliated to the University. Thereafter, the University proceeded to issue admission notice/advertisement, carry out the admission process, and after counselling, the University recommended as many as six candidates for admission in the petitioner's college. All this exercise was completed by the University before 31st October, 2012, which was the deadline fixed by the Indian Medicine Central Council for admission to the post-graduate courses. Meanwhile, the University by its order dated 06.10.2012 informed the petitioner's college that the admission process carried out by the petitioner's college was not legally justified as under Regulation 6(2) of the Regulations, notified on 19.03.2012, it was the University that had power to appoint Committee and carry out the admission process.
(3.) CHALLENGING the aforesaid action of the University, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Regulation 6(2) it is either the University or the Government concerned that can constitute a Committee for carrying out the admission process. Since the admission process was completed by the Selection Committee constituded by the Director of Ayurvedic Sewayan, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow, therefore, the University had no jurisdiction to further appoint a Committee so as to recommend candidates for admission to its college. Much reliance was placed on para 136 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P.A. Inamdar and Others v. State of Maharastra and Others reported in 2005 STPL (LE) 34824 SC = AIR 2005 SC 3228 = (2005) 6 SCC 537, so as to contend that the State is empowered to hold a test for selection through an agency and it is not always necessary to have a Common Entrance Test (CET). It was contended that as the State had already appointed a Committee for completing the admission process, and the admission process was completed by the said Committee, there was no justification for the University to appoint a fresh Committee for carrying out the admission process.;