PARASSINIKKADAVU AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an Ayurveda Medical College and is aggrieved by the restricted sanction awarded in the application to start four Post Graduate Courses in the year 2013 -14. Since the consideration of application for sanction of additional courses takes a period of one year, any application for starting a new course in a particular year has to be made before April 30th of the preceding year. Admittedly the petitioner made an application on 23.04.2012 before the first respondent, upon which proceedings were taken by the second respondent, for inspection of the petitioner's college. The visitation report is produced as Ext.P8. Subsequently it is the contention of the petitioner that the matter was kept pending and an order was passed; sanctioning one Post - Graduate Course alone, that too pursuant to Ext.P6 judgment; by Ext.P14 dated 30.04.2013. Essentially the contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner, by the delay caused on the part of the respondents, has been prevented from making any application for the year 2014 -15, since the earlier year's application was kept pending. The petitioner also assails Ext.P14 which restricted the sanction to one Post Graduate Course being in the subjects of "Rasasastra and Bhaishajyakalpana".

(2.) THE petitioner had infact applied for Post Graduate Courses in the four subjects of Agadantantra, Panchakarma, Rasasastra and Bhaishajyakalpana. The sanction for Agadantantra and Panchakarma were declined for reason of there being no sufficient faculty. In the case of the other two subjects, the first respondent found that the Central Council of Indian Medicine, the second respondent herein, by Ext.P19 combined the two subjects to provide for one PG Course in "Rasasastra and Bhaishajyakalpana". In such circumstances no separate sanction could be accorded for two Post Graduate Courses in the said two subjects and hence sanction was accorded for commencing a PG Course in the said subject of "Rasasastra and Bhaishajyakalpana" with six seats.

(3.) THE next contention is with respect to the denial of PG Courses in Agadantantra and Panchakarma . The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the only reason for declining sanction for the said two courses was the reason of there being shortage of one teaching member in the higher Post - Graduate faculty. For this the petitioner also relies on Ext.R1(d) produced by the first respondent in its counter affidavit. However on looking at Ext.R1(d) as also the visitation report in Ext.P8, it cannot be said that it was merely the lack of one higher faculty that resulted in the PG Courses in two subjects being declined. Ext.R1(d) indicates deficit of one higher faculty in the department Agadantantra and Bhaishajyakalpana. The only presumption can be that there was deficit of one faculty member in each of the said departments.