Page 1 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 31892 OF 2012

Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal & Anr. … Appellants

versus

Union of India & Ors. … Respondents

WITH

SLP(C) No.33452 of 2012

SLP(C) No.33455 of 2012

SLP(C) No.33560 of 2012

SLP(C) No.34001 of 2012

SLP(C) No.34020 of 2012

SLP(C) No.34255 of 2012

SLP(C) No.34264 of 2012

SLP(C) No.30156 of 2012

SLP(C) No.30086 of 2012

SLP(C) No.31349 of 2012

SLP(C) No.23715 of 2012

SLP(C) No.33908 of 2012

SLP(C) No.33909 of 2012

SLP(C) No.33897 of 2012

SLP(C)Nos.1118-1119 of 2013

SLP(C) No.35051 of 2012

SLP(C) No.39893 of 2012

SLP(C) No.381 of 2013

Page 2 2

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.

1.These Special Leave Petitions have been filed

against orders passed by the Aurangabad Bench and

the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court involving

common issues. The matters relating to the

Aurangabad Bench arise out of a common order dated

4th October, 2012, in regard to admissions to the

various institutions teaching the Indian form of

medicines such as Ayurvedic, Unani, Siddha, etc.

for the academic year 2011-12.

Special Leave Petition (C) No. 35051 of 2012

has been filed by the Umar Bin Khattab Welfare

Trust against the judgment of the Aurangabad Bench

of the Bombay High Court against an order dated

29th December, 2010, regarding admissions for the

self-same period. The other Special Leave

Petitions relate to the common orders dated 13th

Page 3 3

July, 2012 and 2nd August, 2012 passed by the

Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court regarding

admissions for the year 2011-12. Yet, another

Special Leave Petition regarding admissions for the

year 2012-13, has been filed by the Backward Class

Youth Relief Committee and Another against the

order dated 9th August, 2012, passed by the Nagpur

Bench of the Bombay High Court.

2.The common issue involved in all the Special

Leave Petitions is in regard to the refusal by the

Government of India, in its Department of Ayurveda,

Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy,

hereinafter referred to as "AYUSH", to grant

permission to the colleges to admit students for

the academic year 2011-12, for the BAMS/ Post

Graduate courses. Such permission appears to have

been refused on account of various deficiencies

relating to the infrastructure and teaching staff,

Page 4 4

which had not been rectified and brought into line

with the minimum standard norms.

3.From the materials as disclosed and the

submissions made on behalf of the respective

parties, it appears that in the case of Shri Morvi

Sarvajanik Kelavni Mandal Sanchalit MSKM B.Ed.

College v. National Council for Teachers' Education

and Ors. [(2012) 2 SCC 16], this Court, while

rejecting the prayer of the institutions to permit

students to continue in unrecognized institutions,

observed that mushroom growth of ill-equipped,

under-staffed and unrecognized educational

institutions has caused serious problems with the

students who joined the various courses.

4.As far as medical institutions are concerned,

the procedure relating to the recognition of

medical colleges as well as admission therein was

governed by the Indian Medicine Central Council

Act, 1970, hereinafter referred to as "the 1970

Page 5 5

Act", which was amended in 2003, to incorporate

Sections 13A, 13B and 13C, which provided the

procedure for establishing new colleges and making

provision for seeking prior permission of the

Central Government in respect of the same. The

amendment also attempted to bring in reforms in the

existing colleges by making it mandatory for them

to seek permission from the Central Government

within a period of three years from their

establishment. Having regard to the said

amendments, the Central Council of Indian Medicine,

with the previous sanction of the Central

Government, framed Regulations, in exercise of the

powers conferred on it by Section 36 of the 1970

Act. The said Regulations were named as the

Establishment of New Medical College, Opening of

New or Higher Course of Study or Training and

Increase of Admission Capacity by a Medical College

Regulations, 2003, hereinafter referred to as "the

2003 Regulations". Regulation 6(1)(e) of the 2003

Page 6 6

Regulations provides for applications to be made by

a medical college owning and managing a hospital in

Indian medicines containing not less than 100 beds

with necessary facilities and infrastructure. The

Central Council of Indian Medicine further framed

Regulations in 2006 called as the Indian Medicine

Central Council (Permission to Existing Medical

Colleges) Regulations, 2006, hereinafter referred

to as "the 2006 Regulations". Regulation 5(1)(d)

of the 2006 Regulations provides that the applicant

college would have to be owning and managing a

minimum of 100 beds for undergraduate courses and

150 beds for post graduate courses, which conforms

to the norms relating to minimum bed strength and

bed occupancy for In-patients and the number of

Out-patients.

5.When the 2003 Amendment was effected to the

1970 Act, three years' time was given to the

existing colleges to remove the deficiencies. The

Page 7 7

2006 Regulations provided a further period of two

years to remove the deficiencies and even relaxed

the minimum standards in that regard. Even after

the expiry of two years, the colleges were given

further opportunities to remove the shortcomings by

granting them conditional permission for their

students for the academic years, 2008-09, 2009-10

and 2010-11. It is only obvious that the minimum

standards were insisted upon by the Council to

ensure that the colleges achieved the minimum

standards gradually.

6.It may be noted that there was little or no

response from the institutions concerned in regard

to removal of the deficiencies in their respective

institutions and it is only when the notices were

given to shut down the institutions that they woke

up from their slumber and approached the courts for

relief.

Page 8 8

7.In many of these cases, permission was given by

the Courts to the institutions concerned to accept

admission forms, but they were directed not to pass

any orders thereupon till the decision of this

Court in these Special Leave Petitions.

8.Appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. R.N. Dhorde,

learned Senior Advocate, tried to impress upon us

that the deficiencies had already been removed and

that is why permission was subsequently given for

the admission of students for the year 2012-13.

Mr. Dhorde submitted that since the deficiencies

had been removed, there could be no reason for

permission for the academic year 2011-12 to be

withheld, since a large number of applications had

been received from students intending to obtain

admission for the said year. It was submitted

that, although, the academic year had come to an

end, the college authorities would make all

arrangements for the applicants to be able to

Page 9 9

complete the course for the entire year within six

months so as to bring them up to the level of the

second year. Mr. Dhorde also submitted that in the

event such permission was not granted, the

continuity of the courses would be disrupted.

Giving examples of how the deficiencies had been

removed, Mr. Dhorde contended that the Department

of AYUSH had taken a prior decision to reject the

application for permission to admit students for

the year 2011-12. It is pursuant to such decision

that all the applications were rejected.

9.However, there is one matter (SLP(C) No. 31892

of 2012) filed by the Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal

and Another, wherein the prayer of the Petitioner-

Institution had been rejected only on the ground

that instead of recording the presence of 100

patients each day in the Out-Patient Department,

the average had been found to be 98.55%.

Page 10 10

10.Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned Senior Advocate,

who had appeared with Mr. Dhorde, had submitted

that the said figure was not absolutely accurate

since the calculation had been based on 300 days

and not 292 days, on account of certain holidays

which had gone unnoticed. In the fact situation of

the case, the said institution could be treated on

a different level from the other institutions,

whose applications had been rejected for various

other deficiencies.

11.At this juncture, it may be noticed that we had

occasion to dismiss SLP(C) No. 35367 of 2012, on

4th January, 2013, on the ground that orders as

prayed for therein would have the effect of

problems being created for the completion of

semester, which was to end in the month of June,

2013, since more than six months had elapsed since

the semester had begun.

Page 11 11

12.The prayer made on behalf of the Petitioners

was strongly opposed by Mr. Sidharth Luthra,

learned Additional Solicitor General, who pointed

out that despite a moratorium of five years since

the amendment of the 1970 Act in 2003 and the

framing of the 2006 Regulations in 2006, the

institutions had failed to remove the deficiencies,

as pointed out by the Council. The learned ASG

submitted that the practice of medicine, in

whatever form, which was recognised by the Central

Government and was regulated by the 1970 Act and

the Regulations framed thereunder, could not be

compromised by lowering the standards required to

maintain the excellence of the profession. The

learned ASG submitted that once the deficiencies

had been removed, permission was once again granted

to admit students for the academic year, 2012-13.

The learned ASG submitted that the sympathy towards

Page 12 12

the students, who had been allowed to file their

application forms, could not be a ground to grant

permission where more than half the period of study

was already over. The learned ASG submitted that

where a certain degree of professionalism was

required, there was no scope of conducting bridge

courses to enable the students for that particular

year to catch up with the students of the

subsequent semester. The learned ASG submitted

that in the interest of the medical profession and

those who are the beneficiaries of the system, the

Special Leave Petitions were liable to be

dismissed.

13.It is no doubt true, that applications have

been filed by a large number of students for

admission in the Institutions imparting education

in the Indian form of medicine, with the leave of

the Court, but it is equally true that such leave

was granted without creating any equity in favour

Page 13 13

of the applicants. Those who chose to file their

applications did so at their own risk and it cannot

now be contended that since they have been allowed

to file their applications pursuant to orders

passed by the Court, they had acquired a right to

be admitted in the different Institutions to which

they had applied. The privilege granted to the

candidates cannot now be transformed into a right

to be admitted in the course for which they had

applied. Apart from anything else, one has to take

a practical view of the matter since more than half

the term of the first year is over. Though it has

been contended on behalf of the Institutions

concerned that extra coaching classes would be

given to the new entrants, it is practically

impossible for a student to pick up the threads of

teaching for the entire first year when half the

course had been completed.

Page 14 14

14.It is not for us to judge as to whether a

particular Institution fulfilled the necessary

criteria for being eligible to conduct classes in

the concerned discipline or not. That is for the

experts to judge and according to the experts the

Institutions were not geared to conduct classes in

respect of the year 2011-12. It is also impractical

to consider the proposal of the colleges of

providing extra classes to the new entrants to

bring them upto the level of those who have

completed the major part of the course for the

first year.

15.We are not, therefore, inclined to interfere

with the orders of the High Court impugned in these

Special Leave Petitions and the same are,

accordingly, dismissed.

Page 15 15

16.Having regard to the facts involved, the

parties will bear their own costs.

...................CJI.

(ALTAMAS KABIR)

..................... J.

(ANIL R. DAVE)

..................... J.

(VIKRAMAJIT SEN)

NEW DELHI

DATED: MARCH 06, 2013.