ASHWINI AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE & P G CENTRE Vs. UNION OF INDIA; CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE; RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has made the following prayer:

(2.) Sri Vinod Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner College was started in 1992-93 after obtaining the necessary statutory clearances from the concerned bodies. He submits that, as of now, the petitioner College is imparting BAMS Course for 50 students and Postgraduation Course in Ayurveda for 10 students. He submits that the petitioner's immediate grievance is that the petitioner College is not included in the brochure as a recognized institution. He submits that the first respondent's order dated 16.08.2011 (Annexure-B) refusing to grant the permission to the petitioner College for making the admissions for the academic year 2011-12 was stayed by this Court, by its order, dated 28.10.2011 in W.P.No.39869/2011. He submits that the said writ petition was allowed by this Court, by its order, dated 16.10.2012 (Annexure-D) quashing the order, dated 16.08.2011. He further points out from the said order that this Court has observed that the Central Government cannot mechanically decline to grant the permission, inspite of the recommendation for the approval of admission to 2011-12 by the Central Council of Indian Medicines ('CCIM' for short). The Court has also observed that the deficiencies are to be removed by the petitioner.

(3.) The learned counsel submits that this Court, by its order, dated 11.10.2012 passed in W.P.Nos.28662 and 41692-730/2012 c/w 30227/2012 (Annexure-E) had directed the petitioner to comply with the deficiencies by calling upon the CCIM to inspect its College. Pursuant thereto the inspection took place on 25.03.2013. Without informing the outcome of the inspection held on 25.03.2013, the CCIM conducted one more inspection on 28.06.2013 and 29.06.2013. He submits that the Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standard Requirements of Ayurveda Colleges and attached Hospitals) Regulations, 2012 are not being followed by the respondents. He submits that the only two grounds raised are that there is shortage of one teacher and that the petitioner hospital has become dysfunctional, the petitioner College cannot be ordered to be closed as it has appointed the teacher to the subject in question subsequently and as the hospital has been functioning.