PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J. - (1.) In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in an identical issue, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has passed an order in Dr. Bhupinder and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (W.P(C) No.111/2021) on 29.01.2021 which reads as follows:- '1. Issue notice. Notice may be served on the respondent nos. 1 to 3 through Standing Counsel, and upon respondent nos. 4 to 15 by all permissible modes, dasti in addition. 2. Counter affidavits be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. 3. The petitioners are teaching faculty at various Ayurvedic hospitals recognised by the Central Council of Indian Medicine ('CCIM'). They are aggrieved by orders dated 14.01.2021 and 15.01.2021 by which CCIM has decided not to certify them under Regulation 3(1)(f) of the Indian Medicine Central Council (Requirements of Minimum Standard for under-graduate Ayurveda Colleges and Attached Hospitals) Regulations, 2016 [hereinafter 'the Regulations']. 4. The impugned orders [annexed to the writ petition at annexure P13] record that CCIM was faced with complaints that a number of teachers in Ayurveda Colleges are not in fact teaching in the colleges in question, and are shown as faculty members merely on paper. It appears that a decision was taken by the Board of Governors of CCIM on 19.10.2020 against several faculty members of Ayurveda Colleges to the effect that the presence of said teachers at the concerned college was not proved. An order dated 27.11.2020 [annexure P-10A to the writ petition] was thereafter passed withdrawing the teacher's code of the concerned persons for a period of 10 years. 5. Several of the aggrieved teachers thereafter made representations to CCIM which were considered and the impugned orders dated 14.01.2021 and 15.01.2021 have been passed upon those representations. 6. In the impugned order dated 14.01.2021, CCIM has recorded as follows:- 'Thereafter by following the principles of natural justice, a personal hearing was given by the hearing committee headed by the members of Board of Governors (BoG) appointed by Chairperson, BoG CCIM through Video conferencing, to those teachers who had sent the reply of above said E-mail. Further, after detailed discussion on the issue, BoG in its 10th meeting held on 19.10.2020 upheld the decision of hearing committee and BOG also decided that teachers who were absent in hearing/did not reply and whose emails failed to be delivered due to deliberate wrong submission by them will also be barred for teaching and their teacher's code will be withdrawn. Hence in view of above hearing committee/BOG observed that you do not work as regular teacher for the following reasons:- 1. That the Careful examination of the information provided by you indicates that your presence at the concerned college for the purposes of teaching activities is not proved. 2. The record therefore makes it clear that the purpose of your joining the college/institute was only to show or pose yourself to be a teacher engaged in teaching activities at the said college whereas you were otherwise working or practicing at some other place. This activity is not only unethical but illegal and against the whole purpose of regulatory regime of CCIM. 3. It is found that you have worked against the system of teaching of Indian Medicine and contrary to the legal provisions for the same. 4. It is found that your illegal act not only affects the future of the students and quality of education but also opens door for fraud committed with the education system by yourself and in collusion with the concerned college/institute. Such activities, in the opinion of the hearing committee calls for both disciplinary and criminal action against all the involved persons/entities. Thereafter in response to Council's notice of withdrawal of Teacher's code, Council received various representations from the teachers. Therefore, Council vide letter dated 04.12.2020 informed through Email to all teachers whose Teacher Code was withdrawn that Board of Governors, CCIM decided to constitute a Grievance Redressal Committee to examine the representations from the teachers and requested them to send their representations along with relevant documents to substantiate their claim as a regular teacher upto 07.12.2020 on grievance@ccimindia.org only. Thereafter, representation received from you was placed before the Grievance Redressal Committee for the examination of representation and after going through the entire documents submitted by you, the Grievance Redressal Committee has come to a conclusion that the requirement under regulation 3(1)(f) of RMS, 2016 is not fulfilled by you. The regulation 3(1)(f) of RMS, 2016 reads as under:- 'The Central Council shall certify that teaching faculty present in the college is not working at any other place' Thus, after detailed discussion on the issue and in suppression of the previous letter dated 27.11.2020 vide which the decision to withdraw the teacher's code was taken, BoG in its 19th meeting held on 14.01.2020 decided that in terms regulation 3(1) (f) of CCIM RMS no.28- 15/2016 which empowers Central Council to certify that teaching faculty present in the college is not working at any other place; the Council hereby has reached to a conclusion to not certify you for the reasons stated above for the year 2020-21. Further the previous letter 27.11.2020 by which your teacher code was withdrawn for 10 years is stated to be Cancelled. The decision taken by the committee is upheld and approved by the BOG and it is observed that apart from the decision of not certifying under Section 3(1)(f) of RMS, 2016, further appropriate action under law will be initiated which includes registration of a criminal case against all such persons who are engaged in such illegal and fraudulent activities.' 7. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that identical orders have been passed in the cases of several teachers, including the petitioners. He points out that the impugned orders do not provide any basis for the conclusion recorded that the petitioners are not teaching at the hospitals in question. His submission is that, in accordance with the directions of CCIM, each of the petitioners had submitted evidence of their presence at the location of their respective colleges, which has not been considered at all in the impugned orders. According to Mr. Sethi, the observations of CCIM recorded in the impugned orders are the observations based upon which the original order dated 27.11.2020 was issued, and not upon consideration of the petitioners' subsequent representations. It also appears from the impugned orders that the order of 27.11.2020 against the petitioner no. 1 has been cancelled by CCIM. 8. Mr. Sethi has also drawn my attention to Regulation 3(1), which provides as follows:- '3. Requirements of Minimum Standard to grant of permission- (1) (a) The Ayurveda colleges established under section 13A and existing under section 13C of the Act and their attached hospitals shall fulfill the requirements of minimum standard for infrastructure and teaching and training facilities referred to in the regulations 4 to 11 upto the 31st December of every year for consideration of grant of permissions for undertaking admissions in the coming academic session; (b) the Central Council shall visit the college suo moto three months before the expiry of permission; (c) the proforma of visit as prescribed by the Central Council on its website shall be filled online by the colleges and visitors respectively followed by submission of a hard copy of the same as per visitors guidelines issued by Central Council from time to time; (d) the videography and photography of staff and infrastructure during the visit shall be made by the visitors and submitted along with detailed report and observations to the Central Council; (e) after submission of online detailed report and observations by the visitors to the Central Council, the Central Council shall submit its recommendation along with detailed report to the Central Government within a period of one month from the submission of report by the visitors; (f) the Central Council shall certify that teaching faculty present in the college is not working at any other place; (g) the position prevailed on the date of visit to assess the fulfilment of requirements as specified in these regulations except sub-regulation (2) of regulation 7 shall be taken into consideration for grant of conditional permission or permission for a period of five years to the colleges. 9. From a reading of this provision, it appears prima facie that Regulation 3(1) prescribes the standards for grant of permission to a college and lays down the procedure to be followed during a visit by CCIM to the college in terms of Regulation 3(1). The Regulation does not appear to contemplate the consequence that individual faculty members will be denied certification, but that the college will be denied permission if CCIM does not give certification under terms Regulation 3(1)(f). 10. Mr. Sethi has also drawn my attention to an ad interim order passed by the Uttarakhand High Court in WPSB 517/2021 dated 21.01.2021 [Arvind Kumar Dubey and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.] by which the impugned orders have been stayed. 11. Having regard to the above, the petitioners have made out a prima facie case for grant of an ad interim order. The petitioners claim to have been teaching at their respective colleges for substantial periods of time. The balance of convenience is also therefore in favour of granting them interim protection. 12. The impugned orders dated 14.01.2021 and 15.01.2021 are therefore stayed until the next date of hearing. The petitioners will continue as a faculty members at their respective colleges, subject to the result of the writ petition. 13. List on 19.04.2021. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners thus submits that similar relief is being prayed by the present petitioners in identical conditions. Learned counsels for the respondents vehemently oppose the same saying that they need to respond on merits by filing a detailed reply. This Court after looking into the record finds that the impugned orders in question are akin to the orders which are being adjudicated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Dr. Bhupinder (Supra). Thus, on the same reasons as provided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, this Court is also inclined to grant an interim order and hereby direct that the impugned orders dated 14.1.2021 and 15.1.2021 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing. The petitioners shall continue as faculty members in their respective colleges subject to the final outcome of this writ petition. Their continuance shall not create any equity in favour of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents shall be at liberty to move an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of the stay order. List on 19.4.2021 along with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3365/2021. ;