Disposed

Jayoti Vidyapeeth Womens University v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC10 Dec 2024CW/14864/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench provided temporary relief against a penalty order by directing the petitioners to file an appeal within two weeks. The Court reinstated admission permissions subject to bank guarantee stipulations to facilitate student counseling pending the appeal outcome.

What did the court decide?

Directions to file appeal within two weeks; restoration of admission permissions upon furnishing bank guarantee during appeal pendency.

Jayoti Vidyapeeth Womens University Vs Union of… — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:50777]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14864/2024

¶4

Jayoti Vidyapeeth Womens University, Vedaant Gyan Valley, Village Jharna, Mahala Jobner Link Road, Nh-8, Jaipur-Ajmer Express Way, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its Registrar Dr. Hema Bafila, D/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh Bafila, Aged About 33 Years.

¶5

Faculty Of Ayurvedic Science, Constituent College Of Jayoti Vidyapeeth Womens University, Vedaant Gyan Valley, Village Jharna, Mahala Jobner Link Road, Nh-8. Jaipur Ajmer Express Way, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its Authorised Signatory Dr. Hema Bafila, D/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh Bafila, Aged About 33 Years

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Ayush, Government Of India, Ayush Bhawan, B-Block, Gpo Complex, Ina, New Delhi-110023

¶9

National Commission For Indian System Of Medicine, Ministry Of Ayush, Government Of India, Plot No. T- 19, 1St And 2Nd Floor, Block-Iv Dhanwantari Bhawan, Road No. 66, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi-110026.

¶10

The President, Medical Assessment And Rating Board For Indian System Of Medicine (Marbism), Plot No. T- 19, 1St And 2Nd Floor, Block-Iv, Dhanwantari Bhawan, Road No. 66, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi-110026.

¶11

Rajasthan Ayush Ug-Pg Counseling Board, Through Its Chairman, Ayush Bhawan, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Pratyushi Mehta Mr. Vedant Agrawal

¶14

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonia Shandilya with Mr. Akshat Sharma Ms. Manjeet Kaur Ms. Harshita Sharma for Dr. Mahesh Sharma

(2 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JP:50777]

[CW-14864/2024]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

¶19

Order

¶20

10/12/2024

¶21

This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 21.06.2024, imposing penalty of Rs.1,75,00,000/- on petitioner No.2.

¶22

The brief facts are that petitioner No.1 is a University established by the State of Rajasthan by promulgation of Jayoti Vidyapeeth Women’s Univeristy, Jaipur, Act 2008. The Ministry of Ayush granted permission to the University for establishing institute (petitioner No.2) for running course of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medical Science (B.A.M.S.) with an intake capacity of sixty students. On 20.09.2023, respondent No.3 granted permission to petitioner No.2 for admitting fifty four students by making 10% deduction in the intake capacity.

¶23

A show-cause notice (SCN) was issued on 16.02.2024 by respondent No.3 alleging that petitioner No.2- institute was not having requisite number of faculty members and the faculty was on papers only. The proceedings culminated in passing of the impugned order imposing penalty of Rs.1.75 crores. Consequent to representation made by faculty members in subsequent proceedings the penalty was ultimately reduced to Rs.1 crore. Petitioners filed two writ petitions challenging the penalty and order refusing to grant permission for admission for Session 202425 was stayed. Hence, the present petition.

¶24

Learned Single Judge vide order dated 22.10.2024, stayed impugned order subject to petitioner furnishing bank guarantee from a Nationalized Bank to the tune of fifty lakhs rupees within

[2024:RJ-JP:50777]

[CW-14864/2024]

(3 of 5)

fifteen days and furnish written undertaking to fulfill the deficiency of faculties, if any. The interim order was challenged in appeal by the respondents and order of Single Judge was stayed. On 05.12.2024, the Division Bench gave liberty to the counsel for the parties to make a request for final disposal of writ as counselling would close on 20.12.2024.

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondents raises a preliminary objection that the petitioner has remedy of appeal under the National Commission for Indian System of Medicines Act, 2020 (for short ‘the Act of 2020’).

¶30

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners relies upon the contents of the impugned penalty order to submit that the penalty was imposed after approval from the Commission, hence, the remedy of appeal before Commission is futile.

¶31

The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners lacks merit.

¶32

Section 10 of the Act of 2020 stipulates power and functions of the Commission. As per Clause (g), the Commission exercises appellate jurisdiction with respect to decision of Autonomous Board. There is no dispute that the penalty order has been passed by the Autonomous Board. The contention that the impugned order is not of Board as the order passed after approval from Commission, does not debar the petitioner from availing the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 9(6) of the Act of 2020.

¶33

Section 9(6) of the Act of 2020 is reproduced below:“ 9.Meetings of Commission (1) xx xx xx (2) xx xx xx (3) xx xx xx (4) xx xx xx (5) xx xx xx

(4 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JP:50777]

[CW-14864/2024]

(6) A person who is aggrieved by any decision of the Commission, except the decision rendered under sub-section (4) of section 31, may prefer an appeal to the Central Government against such decision within fifteen days of the communication of such decision.”

¶38

Taking the case of the petitioner at the highest that the penalty order is assumed to be passed by the Commission, the appeal shall lie to the Central Government within fifteen days of the communication of the order.

¶39

At this stage, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that as per penalty order, the case of the petitioner seeking permission for counseling for Session 2024-25 and the subsequent session shall be kept pending till the amount is deposited. On instructions from the client it is submitted that the petitioner has already furnished the bank guarantee of rupees fifty lakhs and shall furnish another bank guarantee of rupees fifty lakhs within four weeks from today and the recovery of penalty be stayed.

¶40

The writ petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to remedy of appeal. 13. Taking into account pendency of this petition, in the eventuality of petitioner filing an appeal within two weeks, the same shall be considered on merits by the Appellate Authority. 14. On furnishing bank guarantee on or before 07.01.2025 and keeping both the bank guarantees alive, during pendency of the appeal, the direction in the penalty order to keep the permission for Session 2024-25 and for the subsequent sessions, pending shall not be considered as an impediment for grant of permission subject to fulfillment of other conditions.

[2024:RJ-JP:50777]

[CW-14864/2024]

(5 of 5)

Considering that the matter involves future of the students and time is essence, it would be appreciable in case the appellate authority makes a sincere endeavor to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within three months from filing of the appeal.

¶45

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

¶46

Riya/ Simple Kumawat /55

¶47

Whether Reportable: Yes

Jayoti Vidyapeeth Womens University v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayoti Vidyapeeth Womens University v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Richa and Company, through Proprietor Rajeev Sharma Vs Indusland Bank Ltd. through Its Regional Manager

Kogta Financial (India) Limited Vs Harlal Samota S/O Shri Balbeer Singh

Adarsh Vidya Mandir Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Rajpura Gram Sewa Sahkari Andors Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Asha Ram Barwar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Green Valley Shiksha Samiti Vs State Education Departmentanr