Skip to content


Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia Vs. the Union of India and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
AppellantCoram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia
RespondentThe Union of India and Others
Excerpt:
cwp no.23288 of 2013 -1- **** in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh cwp no.23288 of 2013. reserved on :30. 1.2014 date of decision:17. 02.2014 shree lakshmi narayan ayurvedic college ...petitioner vs. the union of india and others ...respondents coram: hon’ble mr.justice gurmeet singh sandhawalia ***** present: mr. arjun pratap atma ram, advocate for the petitioner. mr. sukhdeep s. sandhu, sr. standing counsel for uoi. mr. puneet kumar bansal, advocate for respondent no.2. none for respondent no.3. **** g.s.sandhawalia, j.(oral).1. challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 30.8.2013 (annexure p/6) whereby respondent no.2-the central council of indian medicine (hereinafter referred to “the ccim”.) decided not to grant conditional permission for.....
Judgment:

CWP No.23288 of 2013 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.23288 of 2013. Reserved on :

30. 1.2014 Date of decision:

17. 02.2014 Shree Lakshmi Narayan Ayurvedic College ...Petitioner Vs. The Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA ***** Present: Mr. Arjun Pratap Atma Ram, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhdeep S. Sandhu, Sr. Standing Counsel for UOI. Mr. Puneet Kumar Bansal, Advocate for respondent no.2. None for respondent no.3. **** G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

(Oral).

1. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 30.8.2013 (Annexure P/6) whereby respondent no.2-the Central Council of Indian Medicine (hereinafter referred to “the CCIM”.) decided not to grant conditional permission for Under Graduate course (hereinafter referred to “ UG”.) for the session 2013-14 due to the shortcomings of total number of OPD patients which were 33196 against the requirement of 36320. Challenge is also laid to the communication of respondent no.1-Union of India dated 5.9.2013 (Annexure P/7) wherein show cause notice was issued to the petitioner-college for hearing on account of the said shortcomings during the assessment period (i.e.1.1.2012 to 31.12.2012) and consequential order dated 9.10.2013 (Annexure P/13) whereby permission was denied for making admission to the Bachelor of Ayurveda Medicine Surgery ( hereinafter referred to “the BAMS') course for 50 UG seats for the academic year 2013-14 under Section 13C of the Kumar Pardeep 2014.02.20 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.23288 of 2013 -2- **** Indian Medicine Central Council (IMCC) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”.). The policy decision dated 11.6.2013 (Annexure P/4) which provides for the calculation of OPD patients from 1.1.2012 to 31.12.2013 has also been challenged apart from praying for the relief that respondent no.3-University should include the name of the petitioner-college in the second counselling to be conducted and to allocate 50 students to the petitioner-college for admission to BAMS course.

3. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital is located at Amritsar and is set up by the Durgiana Education Foundation (Regd.) (a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860). Shree Durgiana Education Society is running the petitioner Ayurveda College, a Sanskrit College and Tailoring School ( Vocational) at Amritsar. Permission had been granted for running a Medical College and Hospital by the CCIM and the college started functioning with effect from the year 1976 with intake capacity of 50 students for the BAMS course. The college was affiliated earlier with the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar till 1999 and thereafter the petitioner-college was affiliated to Baba Farid University of Health Science, Faridkot since 2011. The petitioner-college has requisite infrastructure and facilities and attached 100 bedded hospital. Till 18.7.2012 the college used to be recognized for intake capacity of 50,60 and 100 seats as the case may be and for the purpose of bed occupancy and OPD attendance the previous calendar year was taken into consideration with students/patients ratio required being 1 :

2. in the OPD( i.e. for intake capacity of 50 students :

100. patents per day). The Kumar Pardeep 2014.02.20 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.23288 of 2013 -3- **** OPD attendance was to be calculated taking into consideration 300 working days in a calendar year. Thus, the total requirement from 1.1.2012 to 31.12.2013 was 30,000 patients in the OPD. New norms were notified on 18.7.2012 which were called the Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standard Requirement of Ayurvedic Colleges and teaching Hospital) Regulations, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as

“201. Regulations”.). As per Regulation 7(2) of the 2012 Regulations there was no column for intake capacity of 50 students and the columns were only for 60 students. Thereafter, the 2012 Regulation were amended vide notification dated 22.4.2013 (Annexure P/3) whereby Regulation 7(2) was substituted and change made was that in table 1 for 365 days the word 300 days were substituted. The Government of India had taken a policy decision on 11.6.2013 (Annexure P/4) whereby calculation of OPD patients was split into two parts i.e. from 1.1.2012 to 18.7.2012 to be calculated at the rate of 300 workings days in an year and from 19.7.2012 to 31.12.2012 at the rate of 365 days in a calendar year and the requirement was for intake capacity of 60 seats.

4. That the petitioner-college premises was inspected on 19/20.6.2013 and inspection report (Annexure P/5) was filled by the visitor of the CCIM which was in two parts, one pertaining to the college and another pertaining to the attached hospital. As per the said report the patients attended in the OPD from January to December, 2012 were 33196 and the report showed no deficiency otherwise regarding teachers, infrastructure, teaching aids etc. The inspection report was never provided to the petitioner-college and was only supplied under the Right to Information Act, 2005. On the basis of the said report, the Kumar Pardeep 2014.02.20 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.23288 of 2013 -4- **** Executive Committee of the CCIM sent the recommendations to respondent no.1 vide letter dated 30.8.2013 (Annexure P/6) showing number of OPD patients 33196 against the requirement of 36320. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on 5.9.2013 (Annexure P/7) and the petitioner was given hearing on 16.9.2013 and an explanation was given that there were two OPDs in the petitioner college and hospital and by mistake the number of patients attended in the college OPD had not been filled in the inspection proforma. The college OPD had been earlier inspected on 22.2.2013 by the respondents and the register of OPD had been signed by the Inspector on the date of inspection. Photocopy of the relevant portion of the register and signatures of the Inspector were appended as Annexure P/8. Accordingly, it was submitted that the college OPD had 3458 patients whereas hospital OPD attendance was 33196 and the total number of patients attended in the year 2012 were 36654 which was more than the requirement of 36320. The calculation was also to be made on the basis of 300 working days and not on the basis of 365 days and number of Sundays and national holidays have to be excluded. Since no order was being passed, the petitioner-college approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No.22820 of 2013 which was disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to take decision on the recommendation of the Committee. Another Civil Writ Petition bearing No.22994 of 2013 on the premises that no final orders had been passed and permission may be granted to make admission was filed. During the pendency of the said writ petition, order dated 9.10.2013 was produced whereby the case of the petitioner college for the session 2013-14 was rejected. The Kumar Pardeep 2014.02.20 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.23288 of 2013 -5- **** said writ petition was accordingly withdrawn to challenge the said order. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed.

5. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent no.1, it was clarified that prior to coming into force of the notification dated 18.7.2012, the criteria for assessing was that the college should have a proper functional hospital and that the OPD attendance was to be of 300 days. Thereafter, new Regulations came into force and the days of OPD were enhanced to 365 days. Vide notification dated 22.4.2013, the OPD days were brought down to 300 days and the amended regulation was come into effect from the date of notification and not retrospectively. Accordingly, communication dated 11.6.2013 (Annexure P-4) had been issued and it was clarified that prior to 18.7.2012, the calculation will be done keeping in mind 300 days and after the said date the calculation will be done keeping in mind 365 days. Vide Annexure P/4, no new criteria was introduced but only a clarification has been tendered as per the norms which were in force before and after 18.7.2012. Respondent no.2 CCIM had conducted the inspection of the colleges including the petitioner-college as per the Minimum Standard Requirements (MSR) of 2012 Regulations and report had been forwarded for processing according to law. However, the Central Government after assessing the recommendations came to the conclusion that as per the new MSR for grant of permission for academic year 2013-14, maximum colleges were not ready with the requirements specified and some relaxations were given vide letter dated 19.8.2013 (Annexure R1-G) for consideration of conditional permission for the academic year 2013-14. The CCIM teams had visited the petitioner-college on 19/20.6.2013 to reassess the Kumar Pardeep 2014.02.20 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.23288 of 2013 -6- **** available facilities and on carefully examination of the recommendation and visitation report of the CCIM in terms of the MSR of 2012 Regulations come to the conclusion that the petitioner-college was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria in respect of genuinely functional hospital with required number of OPD patients i.e. 100 patients per day calculated on the basis of 300 workings day from 1.1.2012 to 18.7.2012 and 365 working days from 19.7.2012 to 31.12.2012. An opportunity of hearing was granted in terms of Ist proviso of Section 13A of the Act and the petitioner-college was directed to produce relevant/ supporting documents and accordingly, the petitioner-college was not permitted to admit students for the academic year 2013-14 due to deficiency which has been noticed above regarding shortage of patients in the OPD. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ayurveda Shashtra Seva Mandal and another Vs. Union of India and others SLP No.31892 of 2012 decided on 6.3.2013. The case of the petitioner-college had been considered in accordance with the provisions of law and relevant requirements and there was no infirmity. Opportunity of hearing had been afforded but the relevant documents had not been produced and certain shortcomings had been noticed. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has firstly submitted that the order dated 9.10.2013 (Annexure P-13) was not justified since the attendance of the patients in the college OPD had not been taken into consideration The finding recorded in the order dated 9.10.2013 was not justified wherein it has been held that the petitioner-college had not produced the college OPD register to the CCIM team nor reflected the patients of Kumar Pardeep 2014.02.20 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.23288 of 2013 -7- **** this register in the central OPD register and that relevant documents were also not produced before the hearing committee which could ascertain authenticity of the patients as reflected in it and the register might have been prepared after the date of registration.

7. The second submission of the counsel was that the requirement of 36320 patients was without any basis as the petitioner- college was having intake capacity of 50 students and, therefore, on the basis of criteria 1 :

2. ratio, it should have been 100 patients per day and that also not for 365 days but for 300 days only in view of the notification dated 22.4.2013 since Regulation 7 (2) of the 2012 Regulations was substituted. The policy decision of the Union of India dated 11.6.2013 could not be contrary to the notification issued under the Act since powers to make rules was there and the executive instructions could not run contrary to the notification issued on 22.4.2013.

8. It was accordingly submitted that once there was a fault with the basis of calculation itself, the petitioner-college could not be denied the right to make admission for the academic year 2013-14. Even though the substantial period had gone by since the course was of 4- 1/2 years and it has to start from the Month of September, it was contended that extra classes could be held for the purpose to make up the deficiency in lectures and to make up deficiency of shortage of classes.

7. Counsel for the Union of India on the other hand vehemently submitted that the register was fabricated and forged and inspected on 22.2.2013 wherein the signatures of Inspector Dr. K. Shankar Rao was taken in the hospital premises and not in the college and the Inspector Kumar Pardeep 2014.02.20 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.23288 of 2013 -8- **** had never gone to the alleged OPD in the college and was not aware of the functioning of the same. An affidavit had been filed by the said official as to in what circumstances the signatures had been taken and, therefore, no reliance could be placed upon the register and benefit of the patients mentioned in the said register could not be granted to make up the deficiency of the patients. Reference was also made to the additional reply as to how cuttings and forgeries have been made by the college. It was further argued that the signatures on the OPD register were of 2013 and the college OPD had never figured earlier and the same was situated on Chhabel Road, village Eban Kalan and the signatures had been got manipulated on the register from the inspection team.

10. Regarding the legal issue as to whether the requirement of college having intake capacity of 50 students, the same has to be seen against 60 seats. Reference was made to Clause 6 of the notification dated 18.7.2012 to contend that college having intake capacity of 50 students had to comply with the requirements of the college having intake capacity of 60 seats or 100 seats as there was no provision for reducing the ratio. Notification dated 22.4.2013 itself provided that the infrastructure available was to be seen on the date of inspection and the said notification could not be with retrospective effect. Annexure P/4 policy decision was only clarificatory in nature and was as per notifications dated 18.3.2011 and 21.3.2011 which provided that minimum 100 bedded hospital was required and the students bed ratio was to be 1 :

2. Daily average OPD attendance had to be on an average of 100 patients per day from 1.1.2012 to 31.12.2010. Kumar Pardeep 2014.02.20 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.23288 of 2013 -9- **** 11. Since the dispute pertains to whether the entries in the register are to be taken into consideration or not, a coordinate Bench of this Court had passed order dated 14.11.2013 directing the inspectors who carried out the inspection and signed the OPD registers to verify the authenticity of their signatures to be present in Court. However, the case could not be taken up on various dates and due to which affidavits were filed regarding the factum of signatures by Dr. Jageshwar Prasad Chaurasia and Dr. K. Shankar Rao and the original register submitted by the petitioner was made part of the paper book.

12. After hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The reasons for the said view is that there is no denying to the fact that the premises of the petitioner-institute were visited by the team on 19/20.6.2013 (Annexure P/5) at Sant Tulsi Dass Marg, Lohgarh Gate, Amritsar. The purpose of visitation was to examine the sufficiency or insufficiency with regard to teaching facilities, teaching and hospital staff, occupancy including the training facilities in the hospital provided for trainee students in medical education in the field of Ayurveda and whether the college meets the minimum requirements. The proforma was filled up by the visiting team on the strength of the records produced by the college authorities wherein total number of teaching staff, numbers from the attendance register and the details of OPD all were mentioned from January to December, 2012 in all the specialties. The said table whereby grand total of the said OPD patients examined in different fields is mentioned as 33196 reads as under:- Kumar Pardeep 2014.02.20 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.23288 of 2013 -10- **** 1 2. 3 4 5 6 7 8 Sha lakya Sr. Months Kaya Panc- Sha- Ne- Mukh Prasuti Kaumar Swastha Aatyayik No.Chik- ha lya tra Nasa & Stri bhrittya vrutta & a itsa Kar- & Roga Bal Yoga casualty ma Dant Roga 1. January 569 416 324 367 375 248 57 01 2. February 673 468 427 429 423 338 81 02 3. March 645 451 428 460 470 378 85 02 4. April 596 396 367 406 388 337 60 01 5. May 740 457 419 447 464 379 68 06 6. June 652 436 454 410 441 423 74 01 7. July 667 424 438 412 448 399 60 01 8. August 588 396 444 451 430 423 60 03 9. September 576 429 437 451 443 447 53 02 10. October 569 427 388 441 388 423 49 00 11. November 557 373 414 405 409 415 46 02 12. December 658 313 486 484 442 434 51 01 Total 7490 4986 5026 5163 5121 4644 744 22 Grand Total 33196 Note : Patients of Medical Camp conducted outside the campus should be included.”. 13. At the time of inspection by the said visitors, the fact of other patients who were allegedly examined in the college OPD was never included by the petitioner institute themselves. Rather there is a specific note in the proforma which had to be filled up that patients of Medical Camp conducted outside the campus should not be included. Kumar Pardeep 2014.02.20 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.23288 of 2013 -11- **** Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on 5.9.2013 pointing out the shortcomings in the petitioner-college and for giving personal hearing and for supplying supporting documents regarding the deficiency of the OPD for the whole reporting year 2012. In pursuance of the hearing given on 16.9.2013, it was specifically put to the college authorities that whether the register was produced and why they had not included the patients of the college OPD into central OPD register and only excuse was that there was a human error and they would do so in the future. Various other discrepancies like total number of patients have been calculated in the register and not been added to the central OPD register were also pointed out. It was in such circumstances that the impugned order was passed after taking into consideration the explanation submitted and finding was recorded that the register might have been prepared after the date of visitation and the number of patients could not be increased. Relevant findings read as under:- “Overall observations of the hearing committee:- In view of above observations following conclusion may be drawn: As per submission of College representatives it is observed that neither college has produced college OPD register to CCIM team nor reflected the patients of this register to Central OPD register and they were also unable to produce any relevant documents during the hearing through which hearing committee could ascertain the authenticity of the patients as reflected in it. Certain shortcomings have also been noticed during the examination of college OPD register which indicates that this register might be prepared after the date of visitation. Therefore hearing committee could not consider the patients of college OPD register in to OPD data and thus total number of OPD patients may be treated same i.e. 33196 as Kumar Pardeep 2014.02.20 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.23288 of 2013 -12- **** reported by the CCIM.”. 14. It was in such circumstances permission was denied. The argument that the signatures were made on 22.2.2013 which were prior to visitation on 19/20.6.2013 of the second team is without any basis. In pursuance of the directions of this Court, Dr. K.Shankar Rao and Dr. Jageshwar Prasad Chaurasia filed their affidavits which were taken on record. Dr.K.Shankar Rao has categorically identified his signatures on the register at page 155-A of the present writ petition which also figures at Sr. No.16 of the original register which is part of the Court file. A categorical averment has been made regarding the fact that the said deponent though visited the college premises but had not inspected the college OPD and had never signed the college OPD register and no college OPD was shown by the college authorities at that time. The signatures were part of the hospital OPD register but has been wrongly shown as college OPD register. Relevant paragraph of the affidavit reads as under:- “That the deponent submits that he along with other members of the inspection team though visited the college premises but had not inspected the college OPD and never signed the college OPD register in the college OPD. In fact no college OPD was shown to the deponent by the college authorities at that time. It appears that the page No.155-A of the paper book of the Civil Writ Petition No.23288 of 2013 appears to be paper of hospital OPD register but has been wrongly shown as college OPD register.”. 15. Similar deposition has also been made by Dr. Jageshwar Prasad Chaurasia who had also visited the college on 22.2.2013 along with Dr. K.Shankar Rao. The signatures were taken on the OPD Kumar Pardeep 2014.02.20 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.23288 of 2013 -13- **** register of the hospital and now has wrongly been shown as college OPD register. Thus, in view of this fact no credence can be given to the maintaining of any OPD in the college premises as has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner. It has rightly been pointed out by the counsel for respondent no.1 from the original register that the alleged college OPD or dispensary is situated at Chhabel Road, Ebba Kalan, Amritsar and is not part of the institute situated at Sant Tulsi Dass Marg, Lohgarh Gate, Amritsar. As per note given in the inspection proforma filled up by the inspection team patients of Medical Camp conducted outside the campus are not to be included so no benefit of the patients finding mention can be given. The petitioner institute itself never included the said patients in the central OPD register of the hospital and therefore, it is an after thought by the petitioner-college. Even a perusal of the said register would go on to show that it starts from 1.9.2012 and till end of year 2012 only 176 patients were examined and thus for the last quarter only 176 patients were examined and no details have been mentioned as to who was the treating Doctor and the addresses of patients and the same could not be co-related by the petitioner-college before the authorities to the other OPD register maintained in the college as to whether the said patients took treatment in the hospital or not subsequently. It is also important to note that it is not the case of the petitioner institute that for earlier years also it had been maintaining a college OPD register separately which was subsequently added to the strength of the OPD register of the hospital.

16. The second submission made by the counsel that only 50 seats were allocated to the petitioner college and therefore, on the basis Kumar Pardeep 2014.02.20 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.23288 of 2013 -14- **** of ratio 1 :

2. and keeping in mind 300 days as per the notification dated 22.4.2013, the requisite number of patients should have been 30000 and not 36320 and the petitioner college fulfilled the said requirement having 33196 patients in a year from 1.1.2012 to 31.12.2012 cannot be accepted. That Clause 6 of the notification dated 18.7.2012 (Annexure P-2) provided that the admission capacity in the UG courses are to be in the slabs of 60 and 100 seats. It is further provided if any college has intake capacity of less than 60 seats and 100 seats, it has to comply with the requirements of 60 seats or 100 seats as mentioned in the Schedule I to V. A perusal of said schedules also would go on to show that the requirements of having attached hospital of an Ayurveda College is in slabs of upto 60 students or 61 to 100 students. Similar is the requirement under Schedule II pertaining to requirement of Ayurveda College and as per Schedule III alleged infrastructure requirements of an Ayurveda College and as per Schedule IV requirement of an Ayurvedic College Hospital staff. Thus, 2012 Regulations specifically provided that intake capacity is to be of such slabs and the submission that because the petitioner college had admitted only 50 students, therefore, the calculation had to be done on the said basis is not acceptable. The CCIM in its wisdom has provided for the said slabs and the requirements have been specified in the 2012 Regulations and it is not permissible for this Court to decrease the statutory requirements which have to be fulfilled by the petitioner college. Before the authorities no such plea was ever taken and this plea is being raised for the first time in the writ petition only when the impugned order dated 9.10.2013 was passed. This would be clear from perusal of the said order whereby Kumar Pardeep 2014.02.20 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.23288 of 2013 -15- **** defence of the petitioner college was only on account of the fact that the OPD register of the college had not been taken into consideration. No such plea was earlier taken before the authorities that the ratio should be regarding 50 students. Clause 6 of the notification reads as under:-

“6. Admission Capacity :- The annual intake capacity in under graduate course will be in the slabs of sixty and hundred. If any college has the intake capacity of less than sixty or within sixty one and hundred seats, it has to comply with the requirements for sixty or hundred seats respectively as mentioned in the Schedules-I to Schedule- VII.”. 17. If such benefit is to be given as argued by the counsel, it would lead to an anomalous situation where other institutes would also come up and say that since they have admitted 40 students or less the whole criteria should be re-adjusted. Similar would be the argument for the infrastructure which is to be provided as per the Schedules I to VII and the prescribed norms would be of no use. Thus the said submission cannot be accepted.

18. The submission that the notification dated 22.4.2013 brought the OPD days down to 300 days instead of 365 days as per notification dated 18.7.2012 and that the amendment was retrospective and came into force with effect from 18.7.2012 and would be applicable also cannot be accepted. There is nothing to show from the reading of the notification dated 22.4.2013 that it would also apply to the conditions which had to be satisfied of the petitioner college for the period from 1.1.2012 to 31.12.2012. The Union of India vide communication dated 11.6.2013 has specifically clarified that as per policy norms of 2012-13 from 1.1.2012 to 18.7.2012 minimum 16400 patients have to be there for Kumar Pardeep 2014.02.20 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.23288 of 2013 -16- **** the intake capacity of any slab and from 19.7.2012 to 31.12.2012 minimum 19920 patients have to be there for the intake capacity of upto 60 seats. Thus, respondents were well justified in seeking compliance of the minimum 36320 patients for the intake capacity upto 60 seats for the period of assessment from 1.1.2012 to 31.12.2012. Relevant portion of the letter dated 11.6.2013 reads as under:- Sr. Requirement Approved policy of Central Government on some No.issues for granting conditional permission to ASU colleges for the session 2013-14. (3). Minimum per For Ayurveda Colleges:- day average From 01.01.2012 to 18.07.2012 (164 days out of number of patients in total 200 days @ 300 days in a calendar year) as OPD per policy norms of 2012-13, minimum 100 patients per day (minimum 16400 patients for this period for intake capacity of any slab) and from 19.7.2012 to 31.12.2012 (total 166 days @ 365 days in a calendar year) as per MSR for intake capacity upto 60 seats and 61 to 100 seats, minimum 120 and 200 patients per day respectively (minimum 19920 and 33200 for this period for intake capacity upto 60 seats and 61 to 100 seats respectively) in OPD. Therefore, total minimum 36320 patients for intake capacity upto 60 seats and total minimum 49600 patients in OPD for intake capacity from 61 to 100 seats for the period of assessment of hospital data i.e. from 0.1.01.2012 to 31.12.2012. For Siddha & Unani Colleges:- From 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2012 (total 300 days) as per policy norms of 2012-13, minimum 100 patients per day in OPD for intake capacity of any slab (total minimum 30000 patients in OPD for this period) Kumar Pardeep 2014.02.20 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.23288 of 2013 -17- **** 19. The submission of the counsel that since Regulation 7(2) of the 2012 Regulations was substituted, therefore, 365 days are not to be taken into consideration but 300 days is of no consequence in view of the law laid down in Sri Vijayalakshmi Rice Mills, New Contractors Co. etc. Vs. State of A.P. (1976) 3 SCC37 In the said case, the appellants who were millers, were seeking the enhanced price for milling on the ground that the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control (Third Amendment) Order, 1964 provided that the millers were to be paid at the controlled price regardless of the dates when the supplies were made on the strength of the word "substituted" in Clause 2 of the amendment order. The Hon'ble Apex Court had held that until there was an express word or appropriate language from which the principle of retrospectivity could be inferred, the notification was to take effect from the date it was issued and not from any prior date as it would open the past transactions. The said principle is fully applicable in the present case as well. The relevant observations read thus:- “Mr. Nariman appearing on behalf of the appellants has laid great emphasis on the word "substituted" occurring in clause 2 of the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control (Third Amendment) order, 1964 and has urged that the claim of the appellants cannot be validily ignored Elaborating his submission, counsel has contended that as the prices fixed by the Government are meant for the entire season, the appellants have to be paid at the controlled price as fixed vide the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control (Third Amendment) order, 1964, regardless of the dates on which the supplies were made. We cannot accede to this contention. It is no doubt true that the literal meaning of the word "substitute" is "to replace' but the question before us is Kumar Pardeep 2014.02.20 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.23288 of 2013 -18- **** from which date the substitution or replacement of the new Schedule took effect. There is no deeming clause or some such provision in the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control (Third Amendment) order, 1964 to indicate that it was intended to have a retrospective effect. It is a well recognized rule of interpretation that in the absence of express words or appropriate language from which retrospectivity, may be inferred, a notification takes effect from the date it is issued and not from any prior date. The principle is also well settled that statutes should not be construed so as to create new disability or obligations or impose new duties in respect of transactions which were complete at the time the Amending Act came into force. (See Mani Gopal Mitra v. The State of Bihar (1969) 2 SCR411”.

20. Another aspect which is to be kept in mind by this Court that the decision of the experts regarding the infrastructure which is to be made available is not an issue in which the Court should go into and replace the opinion of the Experts. The observations of the Apex Court in All India Council for Technical Education Vs.Surinder Kumar Dhawan & others (2009) 11 SCC726 wherein it has been held as under: “This is a classic case where an educational course has been created and continued merely by the fiat of the court, without any prior statutory or academic evaluation or assessment or acceptance. Granting approval for a new course or programme requires examination of various academic/technical facets which can only be done by an expert body like AICTE. This function cannot obviously be taken over or discharged by courts. In this case, for example, by a mandamus of the court, a bridge course was permitted for four year Advance Diploma holders who had passed the entry level examination of 10+2 with PCM subjects. Thereafter, by another mandamus in another case, what was a one time measure was extended for several Kumar Pardeep 2014.02.20 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.23288 of 2013 -19- **** years and was also extended to Post Diploma holders. Again by another mandamus, it was extended to those who had passed only 10+1 examination instead of the required minimum of 10+2 examination. Each direction was obviously intended to give relief to students who wanted to better their career prospects, purely as an adhoc measure. But together they lead to an unintended dilution of educational standards, adversely affecting the standards and quality of engineering degree courses. Courts should guard against such forays in the field of education.”. 21. Similarly the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the scope and scope/role of the judicial intervention in academic matters is very restricted and the Courts do not have academic expertise and cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the experts. Reference can be made to the judgment in Basavaiah (Dr.) Vs. DR. H.L.Ramesh & others 2010 (4) RSJ154wherein it has been held that until there was malafide alleged, no interference by the Courts is called for. Paragraph 44 which is relevant reads as under:- “We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters, the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fide has been alleged against the experts constituting the selection committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realize and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters.”. 21. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the decision of the Union of India is not liable to be interfered with since proper Kumar Pardeep 2014.02.20 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.23288 of 2013 -20- **** procedure was followed by issuing show cause notice to the petitioner institute and giving opportunity to justify shortcomings. No fault can be found in the said procedure. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed. 17.02.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) Pka JUDGE Kumar Pardeep 2014.02.20 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //