K.T.G. Ayurvedic Medical Institution Vs the Union of India

K.T.G. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL INSTITUTION AND HOSPITAL MANAGED AND RUN BY K.T.G. EDUCATIONAL TRUST (R) SITUATED AT No.93, SRIGANDADAKAVAL HEGGANAHALLI CROSS BANGALORE-560 091 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL DR. VEDAMURTHY HIREMATH

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. S. AJESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DILEEP C.G., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF AYURVEDA, YOGA, UNANI, SIDDA AND HOMOEOPATHY-AYUSH 'AYUSH BHAWAN', 'B' BLOCK G.P.O. COMPLEX, INA NEW DELHI-110 023 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶16

THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINES MINISTRY OF AYUSH GOVERNMENT OF INDIA T-19, 1^ST & 2^ND FLOOR

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:4965-DB WP No. 29487 of 2024

¶19

BLOCK-IV, DHANWANTRI BHAVAN ROAD No.66, PUNJABI BAGH (WEST) NEW DELHI-110 026 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶20

THE PRESIDENT MEDICAL ASSESSMENT AND RATING BOARD FOR INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE (MARBISM) T-19, 1^ST & 2^ND FLOOR, BLOCK-IV DHANWANTRI BHAVAN, ROAD No.66 PUNJABI BAGH (WEST), NEW DELHI-110 026

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT ROOM No.104, I FLOOR VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶22

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH (AYURVEDA YOGA AND NATUROPATHY, UNANI, SIDDHA AND HOMOEPATHY) DHANWANTRI ROAD, NEAR ANAND RAO CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 009

¶23

KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY 18^TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD MALLESWARAM, BENAGLURU-560 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

¶24

THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, 4^TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 041 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. MADANAN PILLAI R., CGC FOR R1;

¶27

SMT. MANASI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R4 & R5; SRI. N.K, RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R6; SRI. B.S. KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R7)

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4965-DB WP No. 29487 of 2024

¶29

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (i) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT/ORDER/DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER UNDER REF.No.26-52/MARB/RJ/2024 (AY) DATED 29.08.2024 PASSED BY RESPONDENT No.3 DENYING CONDITIONAL PERMISSION TO PETITIONER INSTITUTION FOR THE ACADEMIC SESSION 2024-25 UNDER ANNEXURE-A (IMPUGNED HEREIN) AND ETC.

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and

¶32

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶35

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner as well as the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, the learned

¶36

Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.4 and 5 and also the learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2, 3, 6 and 7.

¶37

It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner that the petitionerInstitution had been granted provisional permission to admit students in 42 seats as per the order dated

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4965-DB WP No. 29487 of 2024

¶39

28.11.2024. Considering this aspect of the matter, this Court had also by an order dated 28.11.2024, permitted the petitioner- Institution to make admissions as against 42 seats. The operative portion of the interim order of this Court dated 28.11.2024 reads as follows;

¶40

"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since conditional permission has been now granted, the Directorate of Medical Education as well as Karnataka Examination Authority are to be directed to include the petitioner-medical Institution with intake capacity of 42 seats in the counseling process for the on going admissions for the year 2024-25. It is submitted that the copy of the order has also been made available to the learned Government Advocate as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Karnataka Examination Authority.

¶41

Having considered the contentions advanced and in view of the order passed by the third respondent on 28.11.2024, there will be a direction to respondent No.5 to prepare the seat matrix including the 42 seats for which

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4965-DB WP No. 29487 of 2024

¶43

admission has been permitted by the order dated 28.11.2024 also in the counseling process."

¶44

Respondents No.6 and 7 shall also take appropriate steps to see that counseling is provided for admission in respect of seats which have now been accorded with conditional permission by the order of the third respondent dated 28.11.2024."

¶45

However, it is submitted that thereafter, an order has been passed by the Central Government which is produced as Annexure-B in IA No.2/2025, by which, the second appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Government of India, Ministry of Ayush had been rejected by order dated 28.11.2024.

¶46

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner that the order passed by the Central Government is to be set at naught. Further it is submitted that the writ petitioner could make admissions only against 38 of the sanctioned 42 seats and that in respect of four unfilled seats, the writ petitioner is

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:4965-DB WP No. 29487 of 2024

¶49

to be granted permission and extension of time to conduct admissions.

¶50

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶51

the parties and considered the contentions advanced, we notice that by Annexure-A the order dated 28.11.2024 produced along with IA No.2/2025, the National Commission for Indian System of Medicines ('NCISM' for short) had granted permission to the petitioner- Institution to make admissions to 42 seats instead of 60 seats for the academic year 2024-25. It is obviously without noticing this fact, Annexure-B order has been passed by the Central Government.

¶52

In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Annexure-A the order of NCISM dated 28.11.2024 and to make admissions to the 42 seats for which, permission had been granted. Annexure-B order, which is passed without noticing the modification of the original order by Annexure- A is unsustainable. However, we further notice

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4965-DB WP No. 29487 of 2024

¶54

that though permission had been granted for making admissions to 42 seats and the said 42 seats had admittedly been uploaded in the seat matrix as well, admission could be made by the petitioner- Institution only in respect of 38 seats. Though reasons have been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the inability of the petitioner to make admissions to four seats, we are of the opinion that the relief as sought for extension of time to make admissions to the four seats cannot be granted to the petitioner- Institution.

¶55

Learned counsel for the NCISM has placed reliance on the decision of this Court dated 22.02.2024 in W.P.No.28897/2023 c/w W.P.27566/2023. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said decision was in respect of a new Institution and it was because the admissions stood closed in November, 2023 and that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that permission and extension of time could not be granted in the third week of February, 2024.

¶56

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4965-DB WP No. 29487 of 2024

¶57

8. It is submitted that in the instant case, time

¶58

had been extended till 13^th of January, 2025 to make admissions by the authorities in question and that classes had started only thereafter and therefore, the petitioner is liable to be granted permission to make admissions to the four vacant seats as well. However, we notice that this Court in the judgment relied on by the learned counsel appearing for NCISM, has considered the relevant aspects of the matter and has held as under;

¶59

"12. The issue involved in these writ petitions is that the seats in petitioner Institutions are not filled up and they have approached this Court seeking extension of the counselling process and last date for admission.

¶60

13. The fact that there are many seats left unfilled in the Institutions is undisputed. The question as to whether extra rounds of counselling can be held due to the unfilled seats has been answered by the Apex Court in the case of Neelu Arora and Anr Vs.

¶61

9 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:4965-DB WP No. 29487 of 2024

¶63

Union of India and Ors¹ , relied upon by Ms. Mansi. It was held that:

¶64

“6.….Out of about 1600 seats, if 250 seats are not filled up for various reasons, we do not think it should result in the third round of counselling. If that process is to be adopted then there will be again vacancies and further filling up of the seats falling vacant will have to be undertaken. In that process, it will become endless until all the seats under the All-India Quota are filled up. ….. Even if seats are unfilled that cannot be a ground for making mid-session admissions and there cannot be telescoping of unfilled seats of one year with permitted seats of the subsequent year.”

¶65

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶66

14. In Dr. Subodh Nautiyal v. State of U.P. and Ors² , the Apex Court has observed that in respect of a technical course, to admit a student four months after the commencement would not at all be correct. The relevant Para reads thus:

¶67

"Considering from this point of view, to maintain excellence the courses have to be commenced on schedule and be completed within the schedule so that the students would have full opportunity to study full course to reach their excellence and come at par excellence. Admission in the mid- stream would disturb the courses and also work as a handicap to the candidates themselves to achieve excellence. Considering from this

¶68

1 (2003) 3 SCC 366

¶69

2 1993 supp. (1) SCC 593, para 14

¶70

10 -

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:4965-DB WP No. 29487 of 2024

¶72

pragmatic point of view we are of the considered opinion that vacancies of the seats would not be taken as a ground to give admission and direction by the High Court to admit the candidates into those vacant seats cannot be sustained."

¶73

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶74

15. It is important to note that no student has approached this Court seeking extension. It is only the institutions. Ms. Mansi is right in her submission that there are not many takers for the seats in the course offered by the petitioner institutions and hence, the seats have been remained unfilled.

¶75

16. Another important point is that the classes have commenced from November 2023. At this juncture, if the admission process is extended, it cannot be limited only to petitioner institutions excluding other Ayurvedic Institutions across the State. This would result in discontinuance of the academic schedule and the newly admitted students would not be able to cope up with the course."

¶76

9. Having considered the contentions advanced

¶77

and the admitted facts of this case, we are also not

¶78

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:4965-DB WP No. 29487 of 2024

¶79

inclined to hold that the petitioner- Institution is entitled to extension of time to make admissions to the four vacant seats.

¶80

In the above view of the matter, the dismissal

¶81

order issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Ayush dated 28.11.2024, is quashed. However, the further prayer made in IA No.1/2025 to direct the respondents to extend the last date of admission till filing up of the four vacant seats in the petitioner's college, is rejected.

¶82

The writ petition is disposed of recording that the petitioner has made admissions to 38 seats out of 42

¶83

seats, for which, permission had been granted.

¶84

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶85

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶86

PN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

K.T.G. Ayurvedic Medical Institution v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.T.G. Ayurvedic Medical Institution v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Brahmananda Sagar Jaggery Industries Vs the Government of Karnataka

Bengaluru Electricity Vs H.M. Kotresh

Sri. Murugeshan K Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. Akshay U Thuppad Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.N.C.Shashikala Vs Sri C.S.Chandrashekaraiah

Sri Rajanna Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer