Allowed

Jayoti Vidyapeeth Womens University v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC11 Dec 2024CW/15064/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order by the Medical Assessment & Rating Board denying conditional permission for the 2024-25 academic year and reducing the BAMS intake capacity, citing violation of natural justice. The Board failed to consider the petitioner's submission on faculty biometric attendance and rejected the explanation without reason. The Court remitted the matter to the Board for fresh d

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to Board for fresh decision afresh after providing opportunity of hearing; students to be offered counseling at alternative institutions.

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

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:50849]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15064/2024

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

(2 of 8)

[2024:RJ-JP:50849]

[CW-15064/2024]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

¶18

Order

¶19

11/12/2024

¶20

This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 23.08.2024 passed by the Medical Assessment & Rating Board for Indian System of Medicine (for short 'the Board'). 2. The brief facts are that petitioner No.1 is a University promulgated under Jayoti Vidyapeeth Women’s Univeristy, Jaipur, Act 2008. The University set up an institute (arrayed as petitioner No.2) for course of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medical Science (B.A.M.S.). The petitioner was permitted an intake facility of sixty students. The dispute in the present petition relates to academic year 2024-25 and subsequent years. The institute was inspected through hybrid mode on 22/23.02.2024. The inspection team was of the opinion that required faculty of thirty members for the intake capacity of sixty students were not there and seven faculty members were only on papers. Pursuance to the inspection, showcause notice (SCN) dated 07.08.2024 was issued, to show-cause (i) that the institute was running with only fourteen teachers; (ii) the Outdoor Patient Department (OPD), Indoor Patient Department (IPD) and Panchkarma Ksharsutra were nonfunctional and (iii) no delivery was conducted in the Gynae Department as the number of patients attended was zero. The petitioner responded to the SCN and submitted Bio-metric attendance, group photographs of the faculty. The Board vide impugned order relying upon Schedule V of the Indian Medicine (Requirements of Minimum Standard) Regulations, 2016 (for short 'Regulations of 2016) made reduction of 130% in the intake

[2024:RJ-JP:50849]

[CW-15064/2024]

(3 of 8)

capacity of the institute. Further 30% reduction was made on account of non-functionality of three departments. The conditional permission for academic year 2024-25 was denied but on fulfillment of deficiencies, on receiving a compliance report, permission for academic year 2025-26 was to be considered.

¶25

On 22.10.2024, learned Single Judge granted stay subject to petitioner furnishing bank guarantee from a Nationalized Bank to the tune of fifty lakhs rupees within 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 writs as counselling would close on 20.12.2024.

¶26

Learned Single Judge by an interim order permitted counseling to petitioner No.2 and the Court has been apprised that before the order was stayed by the Division Bench of this Court, more than thirty students have already been admitted.

¶27

After hearing arguments at some length on 10.12.2024 following order was passed:-

¶28

"1. The dispute in the present petition pertains to admission in Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medical Science (B.A.M.S.) course for academic year 2024-25. On the basis of the inspection held on 22-23.02.2024, the Authorities came to the conclusion that out of required thirty faculty members, only fourteen were available. As per Schedule (V) of Indian Medicine (Requirements of Minimum Standard) Regulations, 2016, (for short 'Regulations of 2016') reduction of 130% i.e. 10% for each missing faculty was made from intake capacity and 30% reduction was made on account of not having proper functionality of the infrastructure provided.

(4 of 8)

[2024:RJ-JP:50849]

[CW-15064/2024]

Learned Single Judge by an interim order permitted counseling to petitioner No.2 and the Court has been apprised that before the order was stayed by the Division Bench of this Court, thirty students have already been admitted.

¶33

Inter-alia contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that as per Regulations of 2016, attendance of the faculty members is to be marked by bio-matric. Duly maintained record was produced to substantiate that on the day of inspection, missing faculty members were actually on leave. Without considering this aspect 130% reduction was ordered as insistence of the respondent was on Google Map, Google Timeline and the CCTV footage which is neither provided in the Act or in the Regulations.

¶34

The Counseling for the academic Session 2024-25 is ending on 20.12.2024 and as a result of pendency of the petition, future of thirty students are at stake. To ensure that the admission seeking students are not at suffering end, the workable solution would be that the respondents permit the alternative counseling colleges to thirty students admitted by the petitioner college and in case of success, these students would be allocated to the petitionerinstitute.

¶35

At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to have instructions.

¶36

Put up tomorrow i.e. 11.12.2024, as a 'first case'."

[2024:RJ-JP:50849]

[CW-15064/2024]

(5 of 8)

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 on specific instructions received submits that considering that future of the students is involved, the Board shall ensure that the students admitted by the petitioner institute are given counselling for the alternative institute to ensure that students are not sufferer in case the conditional permission for academic year 2024-25 is denied to the petitioner institute.

¶41

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners argues that as per Regulations of 2016 and National Commission for Indian System of Medicines Act, 2020 (for short ‘the Act of 2020’), the attendance of the faculty was to be maintained by Biometric system and the needful was done. The grievance is that response filed by the petitioner along with the documents were not considered. By passing a non-speaking order, conditional permission for academic year 2024-25 has been denied. It is further argued that as per SCN, the Board was insisting for Google Timeline and CCTV Footage to substantiate the number of regular faculties whereas, there is no such statutory provision. The argument is that by Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) the scope of statutory provisions cannot be enlarged.

¶42

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 submits that petitioner has alternative remedy of appeal under Sections 9(6), 10 (g) and 24 of the Act of 2020. It is argued that for maintaining a standard by institute for imparting education to the medical students, time to time inspections are carried out. As per the report submitted by the inspecting team, the petitioner institute was making paper formalities to demonstrate the requisite number of faculty members. Further submission is that decision to

[2024:RJ-JP:50849]

[CW-15064/2024]

(6 of 8)

deny conditional permission for academic year 2024-25 is taken by the expert body and scope of interference is limited. Reliance is placed upon decision of the Supreme Court in Basavaiah (Dr.) vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh reported in (2010) 8 SCC 372 .

¶47

The contention of the counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 that petitioner has alternative remedy is noted to be rejected. The availability of alternative remedy is a self imposed restriction and is not absolute bar. Reliance is placed on decisions of the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai And Ors. reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 and Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority & Ors. reported in AIR 2023 SC 781 . The writ Court is duty bound to interfere in the cases falling within exceptions carved out by Supreme Court and one of it being violation of principles of natural justice.

¶48

From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that inspite of noting that the petitioner filed written submissions along with the documents, these were not considered. The order is bereft of reasoning for rejecting the explanation put forth by the petitioner. 11. During the course of arguments, respondent argued that as per National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (Minimum Standards) Regulations, 2024 (for short 'Regulations of 2024') CCTV footage is mandatory. Suffice to say that Regulations of 2024 came into force w.e.f. 01.05.2024 whereas, the inspection of the institute was carried in February, 2024.

¶49

The contention raised by the petitioner that SOP cannot enlarge the scope of the statutory provision was neither considered nor dealt by the Board.

[2024:RJ-JP:50849]

[CW-15064/2024]

(7 of 8)

It is a cardinal principle of law that principles of Natural Justice are applicable even in cases of administrative decisions having civil consequences. The authority passing the order has to record the reasons and communicate it to the affected party.

¶54

The reduction in intake capacity to the tune of 130% is on the ground of non-availability of requisite number of faculty members. 30% reduction is consequent to non-functional departments. To put it in other words, in case the petitioner succeeds in establishing that there is required number of faculty members and fails on the ground of non-functional departments, the reduction can be of 30% of intake capacity i.e. of eighteen students.

¶55

The non-speaking impugned order passed, does not effect only the admission process of the petitioner institute but also the future of the students.

¶56

There is no quibble with the proposition raised by the counsel for the respondents that scope of interference by the Court in academic matter is limited. The High Court will not convert itself into Appellate authority over the decision taken by an expert body but it is always open in writ jurisdiction to scrutinize the procedure adopted for arriving at a decision. Reliance upon decision of the Supreme Court in Basavaiah (Dr.) (supra) is of no avail. As in the case in hand, the impugned order passed is in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶57

In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Board for decision afresh in accordance with law, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

(8 of 8)

[2024:RJ-JP:50849]

[CW-15064/2024]

Taking into account that counselling for academic year 202425 is ending on 20.12.2024 the time is of essence in this case. To avoid further delay, let representatives of the petitioner remain present before the Board on 13.12.2024 at 11.00 A.M.

¶62

The Board shall make a sincere endeavor to decide the matter expeditiously, if possible before 20.12.2024.

¶63

In order to ensure that the students are not at the receiving end, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall ensure that the students admitted by the petitioner institute are given a counselling chance for an alternative institute as per their merit position. This would ensure that in case of petitioner fails in the litigation, the students admitted by the petitioner institute are not left high and dry.

¶64

It would be for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 to approach and inform the affected students with regard to the arrangement being made in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court to which respondent Nos.2 & 3 have agreed.

¶65

The writ petition is allowed.

¶66

Let copy of the order be supplied dasti to the counsel for the petitioner and respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4.

¶67

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

¶68

Simple Kumawat /106

¶69

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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

J K Synthetics Ltd. Vs State

Girraj Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt Madhu Devi Goyal Vs State of Raj and Anr.