Permission Granted For Medical Admissions For Subsequent Year Cannot Be Deemed To Be Permission For Earlier Year : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, on Monday, held that permission granted for undertaking admission of students for a subsequent academic year cannot be deemed to be permission granted for earlier academic year when the Ayurveda Medical College was not fulfilling the criteria of minimum standard as per the Indian Medicine Central Council (Post Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2016. In the...
The Supreme Court, on Monday, held that permission granted for undertaking admission of students for a subsequent academic year cannot be deemed to be permission granted for earlier academic year when the Ayurveda Medical College was not fulfilling the criteria of minimum standard as per the Indian Medicine Central Council (Post Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2016. In the said terms it clarified the effect of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal and Another v. Union of India and Others (2013) 16 SCC 696.
A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai allowed appeals filed by the Central Council for Indian Medicine assailing the orders of the Karnataka High Court, which had permitted Karnataka Ayurveda Medical College to admit students for the academic year 2018-2019 in view of the permission granted for the year 2019-2020.
Factual Background
Karnataka Ayurveda Medical College ("KAMC") had applied to the State Government, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and the Central Council for Indian Medicine ("CCIM") for permission to start Postgraduate courses from academic year 2014-2015. Permission was granted by CCIM granted in terms of Indian Medicine Central Council (Post-Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2012, which was later superseded by the Indian Medicine Central Council (Post Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2016 ("2016 Regulations''). The 2016 Regulations required the institution to possess a Central Research Laboratory and an Animal House. KAMC collaborated with Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara College of Ayurveda, Udupi to use their Animal House, which was permitted under the Regulations. Before permission was granted for the academic year 2018-19, the Union of India directed CCIM to conduct an inspection and submit its recommendation. Relying upon the report of CCIM, on 03.08.2018, the Union of India issued a notice pointing out deficiencies. After hearing KAMC, on 05.09.2018, it rejected permission to admit students into the Postgraduate course for the academic year 2018-19.
KAMC preferred Writ petition before the Karnataka High Court. In the meanwhile, the Union of India granted permission to admit students to its PG course for academic year 2019-20. The Single Judge of the High Court relied on its Division Bench judgments in Bahubali Vidyapeeths JV Mandal Gramin Ayurvedic Medical College v. Union of India And Ors. and Central Council of Indian Medicine v. Union of India And Ors. to observe that permission when granted for the subsequent year, the benefit would accrue for the previous year as well. CCIM challenged the same before the Division Bench, which refused to interfere with the order of the Single Judge.
Contentions raised by the appellant
At the outset, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati appearing for CCIM assured the Court that the admission in the PG Ayurveda courses for the academic year 2018-19 would not be disturbed, but beseeched it to consider the question of law involved. She submitted that the 2016 Regulations prescribe the requirements of minimum standard, which has to be met with by the institutions for grant of permission. It was averred that because the permission for subsequent year was granted, would not absolve KAMC of the deficiencies that came up during the inspection in 2018. It was pointed out that the High Court had not considered the judgment of the Apex Court in Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal and Another v. Union of India and Others (2013) 16 SCC 696. Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Madhavi Divan appearing on behalf of the Union of India, supported the submissions made by Ms. Bhati.
Contentions raised by the respondents
Advocate, Mr. Chinmay Deshpande appearing on behalf of KAMC asserted that the judgment of the Single Judge affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court did not suffer from any perversity.
Analysis of the Supreme Court
The Court noted that the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 was enacted in a backdrop wherein there was no central legislation to regulate the practice of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy. The Act was amended in 2003. Section 13A of the Act inserted by the amendment, stated that medical colleges cannot be established without the permission of the Central Government. Therefore, any college desirous of seeking permission ought to submit a scheme to the Central Government. Section 13(5) confers the power on the Central Government to disapprove the scheme after following the principles of natural justice. Referring to Section 22, the Court noted that the Central Council is entitled to prescribe minimum standards of education in Indian medicine. Under Section 36, the Central Council is empowered to make regulations with previous sanction of the Central Government. The Court was of the view -
"It could thus clearly be seen that Section 13A read with Sections 22 and 36(1)(j) of the said Act provides a complete scheme for establishment of medical college, opening a new or higher course of study or training, including a postgraduate course of study or training, and also increasing the admission capacity."
"It could thus be seen that the finding that the permission granted for a subsequent academic year would also enure to the benefit of earlier academic year though the said institution was not fulfilling the criteria of minimum standard, is totally erroneous."
The Court was of the opinion that the High Court had not considered the scheme of Section 13A of the Act while passing the impugned judgment. It stated that the High Court had also erred in interpreting the judgment in Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal (supra) by stating that the Apex Court had not considered the contention that since the deficiencies stood removed and permission was granted for subsequent academic year, permission would be construed for the earlier one. The Court held that from a conjoint reading of the judgment it is clear that it had refused to accept the said contention. In view of the same, the Court remarked -
"We are at pains to say that though the judgment in the case of Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal (supra) was specifically relied on by the appellant herein, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka have chosen to rely on the earlier judgments of the Division Bench of the same High Court rather than a judgment of this Court."
Case Name: Central Council for Indian Medicine v. Karnataka Ayurveda Medical College And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 365
Case No. and Date: Civil Appeal No. 2892 of 2022 | 11 April 2022
Corum: Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai
Headnotes
Section 13A Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 - Permission for establishment of new medical college, new course of study, etc. - Section 22 Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 - minimum standards of education in Indian medicine - Section 36 Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 - Power to make regulations - Section 13A read with Sections 22 and 36(1)(j) of the said Act provides a complete scheme for establishment of medical college, opening a new or higher course of study or training, including a postgraduate course of study or training, and also increasing the admission capacity.
Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal and Another v. Union of India and Others - Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal had approached the Bombay High Court aggrieved by the refusal by the Government of India to grant permission to the colleges to admit students for the academic year 2011-12 due to some deficiencies - Bombay High Court rejected the writ petition - Apex Court refused to interfere - In the present matter, Supreme Court noted that from conjoint reading of various paragraphs of the judgment it can be stated that it had rejected the contention that if deficiency is removed for subsequent academic year, permission would be construed for previous years.