Dismissed

Assocciation of Minority Unani and Ayurvedic College v. Union of India and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2018WRIC/62752/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an association of minority colleges, sought extension of admission timelines for AYUSH courses after seats remained vacant. The High Court dismissed the prayer, relying on Supreme Court precedents mandating strict adherence to statutory admission schedules without authority to alter them for any reason, thereby prioritizing fairness and merit.

What did the court decide?

Extension of time to complete the admission process was refused; writ petition dismissed.

Assocciation of Minority Unani and Ayurvedic… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 62752 of 2017

¶3

Petitioner :- Assocciation Of Minority Unani And Ayurvedic College Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.

¶4

Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gyan Prakash, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the respondents.

¶6

Entrance examination for Under Graduate courses in Ayush was initiated by the State Government by Government Orders dated 10th July, 2017 and 10th September, 2017 to be conducted by the Lucknow University for the academic session 2017-18. Examinations were held and the last date of admission that was notified was 8th November, 2017. It was found that a large number of seats were remained vacant. The State Government took a decision to lower the percentile from 50% to 30%, based on which, the last date of admission was extended. Even thereafter, seats were remained vacant. The State Government intimated the Union of India, namely, the Ministry of Ayush seeking extension of the last date for admission. This permission was granted by the Union of India and the last date was extended to 29th November, 2017.

¶7

The petitioner, which is an Association of Minority Unaided Recognized and Affiliated Colleges imparting education in Unani, Ayurvedic and Medicine has filed the present

¶8

-2-

¶9

writ petition praying for extension of time to complete the process of admission in Under Graduate courses in Ayush.

¶10

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that insufficient time was given by the Union of India and the intimation sent by the Union of India was received very late by the University of Lucknow and, therefore, sufficient time was not given to complete the admission process.

¶11

Be that as it may. We are of the considered view that the time schedule is required to be strictly adhered to with regard to admissions as has been held by the Supreme Court in a catena of cases, namely, Mridul Dhar (Minor) and another Vs. Union of India and others, 2005 (2) SCC 65 , Medical Council of India Vs. Manas Ranjan Bahera and others, 2010 (1) SCC 173.

¶12

In Priya Gupta Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, 2012 (7) SCC 433 , the Supreme Court reemphasized the strict adherence to the statutory time schedule for admission in various courses. The Supreme Court held:

¶13

"40. The schedules prescribed have the force of law, in as much as they form part of the judgments of this Court, which are the declared law of the land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and form part of the regulations of the Medical Council of India, which also have the force of law and are binding on all concerned. It is difficult to comprehend that any authority can have the discretion to alter these schedules to suit a given situation, whether such authority is the Medical Council of India, the Government of India, State Government, University or the selection bodies constituted at the college level for allotment of seats by way of counseling. We have no hesitation in clearly declaring that none of these authorities are vested with the power of relaxing, varying or disturbing the

¶14

-3-

¶15

time schedule, or the procedures of admission, as provided in the judgments of this Court and the Medical Council of India Regulations."

¶16

The Supreme Court further held:-

¶17

"78.4. With all the humility at our command, we request the High Courts to ensure strict adherence to the prescribed time schedule, process of selection and to the rule of merit"

¶18

Again in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2013 (2) SCC 617 , the Supreme Court held:-

¶19

"81. Lastly, the question which is required to be discussed in light of the facts of the present cases is adherence to the Schedule. Once the relevant Schedules have been prescribed under the Regulations or under the Judge made law, none, whosoever it be, is entitled to carve out exceptions to the prescribed Schedule. Adherence to the Schedule is the essence of granting admission in a fair and transparent manner as well as to maintain the standards of education. The purpose of providing a time schedule is to ensure that all concerned authorities act within the stipulated time. Where, on the one hand, it places an obligation upon the authorities to act according to the Schedule, there it also provides complete clarity to other stakeholders as to when their application would either be accepted and/or rejected and what will be the time duration for it to be processed at different quarters. It also gives clear understanding to the students for whose benefit the entire process is set up as to when their examinations would be held, when results would be declared and when they are expected to take admission to different colleges in order of merit obtained by them in the entrance examinations or other processes for the purposes of subject and college preference.

¶20

82. We are constrained to reiterate with emphasis at our command that the prescribed schedules under the Regulations and the judgments must be strictly adhered to without exceptions. None in the hierarchy of the State Government, University, NCTE or any other authority or body involved in this process can breach the Schedule for any direct or indirect reason. Anybody who is found to be defaulting in this behalf is bound to render himself or herself liable for initiation of proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts

¶21

-4-

¶22

Act, 1971 as well as for a disciplinary action in accordance with the orders of the Court. In the case of Parshavanath Charitable Trust & Ors. V. All India Council for Technical Education & Ors. (Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 26086 of 2012), decided on the same date, this Court held as under :

¶23

"26… Time schedule is one such condition specifically prescribed for admission to the colleges. Adherence to admission schedule is again a subject which requires strict conformity by all concerned, without exception. Reference in this regard can be made to Ranjan Purohit and Ors. V. Rajasthan University of Health Science and Ors. (2012) 8 SCALE 71 at this stage, in addition to the judgment of this Court in the case of Medical Council of India V. Madhu Singh, [(2002) 7 SCC 258]."

¶24

83. Undoubtedly, adherence to Schedule achieves the object of the Act and its various aspects. Disobedience results in unfair admissions, not commencing the courses within the stipulated time and causing serious prejudice to the students of higher merit resulting in defeating the rule of merit.

¶25

84. We may very clearly state here that we adopt and reiterate the Schedule stated by this Court in the case of College of Professional Education (supra) in relation to admission as well as recognition and affiliation. This obviously includes the commencement of the courses in time. However, in order to avoid the possibility of any ambiguity, we propose to state the schedule for recognition and affiliation in terms of the NCTE Regulations 2009 and the judgment of this Court in the case of College of Professional Education (supra):"

¶26

In the light of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, the relief claimed by the petitioner for extension of time to complete the admission process after the cut off date cannot be granted.

¶27

The writ petition fails and is dismissed.

¶28

Order Date :- 3.1.2018 Bhaskar

¶29

(Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.) (Tarun Agarwala, J.)

Assocciation of Minority Unani and Ayurvedic College v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Assocciation of Minority Unani and Ayurvedic College v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Atul Industries Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Laxmi Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hari Shanker Dixit Vs State of U.P. and 2 Othrs.

Saifullah Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sanjeev Tomar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Purushottam Singh and 2 Others Vs Union of India and 4 Others