MANAGER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an aided Ayurveda College which has been imparting courses in Ayurveda right from 1976 in the private sector and from the year 1985 in the aided sector. The petitioner now affiliated to the Kerala University of Health Sciences; had applied for increased intake of students from 40 to 60 for the academic year 2013-14. It is not in dispute that the application for increased intake was made within the prescribed time and that the same was forwarded to the 2nd respondent-the Central Council of Indian Medicine, who in turn conducted an inspection of the College and forwarded their recommendations. On consideration of the application as also the recommendations of the 2nd respondent by Ext. P6 the 1st respondent decided to permit the petitioner to increase the admission capacity in the undergraduate course from 40 to 50 for the academic session 2013-14 in accordance with the policy decision of Government of India for the year 2013-14. The petitioner is aggrieved by the restriction of additional intake to 10 students as against the 20 students sought for and challenges the same on the ground that the regulation prescribed by the Central Council notified on 18.7.2012 took into account an intake of either 60 students or between 61 to 100. The said document has been produced by the Central Council as Document No. 2 along with a memo dated 9.9.2013 and the same is termed the Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standard Requirements of Ayurveda Colleges and attached Hospitals) Regulation 2012. The said regulations, according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, makes it clear that the restriction of seats to 50 students made in the case of the petitioner was not permissible since the minimum students permissible as per the Regulation is 60.

(2.) The learned Senior Counsel would point out that, in fact, no deficiency was noticed by the Central Council nor is any deficiency projected in Ext. P6. Ext. P6 only speaks of the policy of the Government, which, according to the officer who passed Ext. P6, permitted only undergraduate students of 50 to be taken in the academic year 2013-14.

(3.) I have heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General for the 1st respondent and the Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Central Council would contend on the basis of the document produced as Document No. 1, that the Minimum Standards Required for the Ayurveda Colleges and Attached Hospitals which came into force in the year 2003, is applicable in the instant case. When the application was made by the petitioner the said Regulations were in force and the inspection was conducted on the basis of the said Regulations. Regulation of 2012, in fact, came into force only from 18.7.2012 by which time the process for consideration of applications by the Ayurveda Colleges had commenced and had been continued to a certain extent. In such circumstances, it was the Regulation of 2003 that was applied in consideration of the petitioners application. The learned Assistant Solicitor General would seek to support Ext. P6 on the ground of the declared policy of the Government.