Allowed

Shri.Veerpulikeshi Vidyavardhak v. the Union of India

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2019WP/112224/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench set aside an order rejecting a medical college's admission permission, noting a violation of natural justice where the hearing panel differed from the decision-maker. The petition was disposed allowing temporary admission subject to conditions, remitting the matter for a fresh decision within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejected admitting permission set-aside; petition disposed allowing admission of 60 students subject to conditions of undertaking no equities and fresh adjudication by Respondent No.1 w

Shri.Veerpulikeshi Vidyavardhak Vs the Union of… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.112224/2019(EDN-REG-P)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI.VEERPULIKESHI VIDYAVARDHAK SAMSTHE RURAL AYURVED COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE, OPPOSITE JMFC COURT, RAMDURG ROAD, BADAMI POST, BAGALKOT REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SRI BASAVARAJ S/O MALLIKARJUNGOUDA MULKIPATIL, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O BADAMI, TQ:BADAMI DIST:BAGALKOT

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. G I GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE UNION OF INDIA UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF AYURVEDA YOGA AND NATUROPATHY, UNANI, SIDDA AND HOMEOPATHY) (AYUSH) AYUSH BHAVAN, B BLOCK, GPO COMPLEX, INA NEW DELHI 110023

¶12

THE SECRETARY CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE (CCIM), 61-65 INSTITUTIONAL AREA, JANAKPURI,

¶13

¶14

NEW DELHI 110058

¶15

THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, KARNATAKA, 4^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-1 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. M.B. KANAVI, CGSC FO R1) (SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR & SRI. NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADV. FOR C/R2) (SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., ADV. FOR R3)

¶18

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THIS COURT TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.07.2019 BEARING NO.F.NO.L.14014/130/2019-EP (1) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIOARI OF ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO GIVE PERMISSION TO ADMIT THE STUDENTS FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2019-20 FOR 1^ST YEAR BAMS COURSE WITH INTAKE OF 60 SEATS.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner which is Ayurvedic Medical College

¶22

was granted permission to admit and conduct course

¶23

with respect to provisional Ayurvedacharya Course for the academic year 2012-13. Subsequently, permission

¶24

was granted for the succeeding academic years.

¶25

¶26

The petitioner college had sought for

¶27

permission from respondent No.1 with respect to course for the academic year 2019-20. Permission under Section 13C/13A of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (for short, ‘IMCC Act’) with respect admission in UG BAMS course for 60 seats came to be rejected as per order at Annexure-F dated 5.7.2019. It is stated that the Inspection Committee of the Central Council of Indian Medicine had visited the petitioner college in March, 2019 to assess the available facility and had forwarded the report to the Ministry of AYUSH and had recommended not to grant permission after noticing certain deficiencies.

¶28

It is pointed out that the petitioner subsequently made representation and on the basis of the inspection report, notice came to be issued to the petitioner and hearing as contemplated under Section 13C/13A of the IMCC Act was forwarded to the petitioner. It is submitted that Hearing Committee

¶29

¶30

consisted of Dr. Suresh Kumar, Deputy Adviser (Ay.) and Dr. Banamali Das, R.O. (Ayur.), CCRAS. Before the Committee, the petitioner is said to have pointed out the compliance with the alleged deficiencies that were noticed and the order came to be passed rejecting the explanation of the petitioner as per Annexure-F. It is not in dispute that the order passed consequent to culmination of the proceedings whereby the petitioner who was heard has been passed by the Under Secretary.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention to the order in WP No.111713/2019 whereby the Division Bench of this Court after detailed consideration under similar circumstances has set-aside the order of rejection while observing that the person who hears ought to decide.

¶32

In the light of the admitted facts that the Committee which heard the petitioner was not Committee which has passed the order and in fact the

¶33

¶34

order has been passed by the Under Secretary, on this ground alone, the impugned order at Annexure-F is liable to be set-aside.

¶35

Taking note of the observations made in the aforesaid order, wherein the Division Bench of this Court had noticed the serious consequences that the institution would face, by rejection of the permission for admission, the Court has passed the order putting the petitioner on terms while permitting for admission which would be on fulfillment of conditions.

¶36

Accordingly, taking note of the observations made in WP No.111713/2019, the petition is disposed off on same terms.

¶37

The petitioner is permitted to admit 60 students for UG BAMS course for the academic year 2019-20, which however would be subject to following conditions:

¶38

i) The order at Annexure-F passed by respondent No.1 is set-aside.

¶39

¶40

ii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 to adjudicate the claim of the petitioner for grant of permission for academic year 201920 for taking admission to UG BAMS course with an intake of 60 students.

¶41

iii) The decision would be taken by respondent No1 in accordance with requirement under Section 13C/13A of the IMCC Act expeditiously at a rate not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶42

iv) In the meanwhile, petitioner would be at liberty to admit students for the academic year 2019-20 subject to following conditions.

¶43

a) Petitioner - college shall file an affidavit of undertaking before respondent Nos.1 and 2 that it would not claim any equities in the event of permission for the academic year 201920 being refused or rejected.

¶44

b) Petitioner – Institution shall also intimate the students being admitted to

¶45

¶46

the college for academic year 2019-20 by informing them in writing that their admissions are subject to approval by 1st respondent. Affidavit of each of the students agreeing not to claim equity shall obtained and be forwarded to 1st respondent immediately thereafter, and their admission by petitioner would be subject to grant of permission for the academic year 2019-20.

¶47

v) 1st respondent shall consider the application of the petitioner keeping in mind the observations made herein above and Regulation 3(3).

¶48

Accordingly, petition is disposed off.

¶49

JTR

¶50

SD/JUDGE

Shri.Veerpulikeshi Vidyavardhak v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Veerpulikeshi Vidyavardhak v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Nagalingappa Vs Smt.Basamma

Rekha W/O Tukaram Naik Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Khazasab S/O Hussainsab Tahasildar Vs the State of Karnataka

Hari S/O Mallappa Naik Vs Geeta Alias Laxmibai Appaji Naik

Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit Vs State Bank of India

Pathan Tours and Travels Vs the State of Karnataka