APOLLO HOSPITAL EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION AND ASSOCIATE OF APOLLO HOSPITAL GROUP Vs. OSMANIA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring that the petitioner institution is entitled for grant of affiliation by the 1 st respondent from the academic year 1994 for running the course in Master of Hospital Administration (for short M.H.A.)

(2.) The facts relevant to the case are narrated hereunder: The 1st petitioner is the Educational and Research Foundation established with a view to develop well trained managers and administrators for the management of health care delivery system in the country. Petitioners No.2 to 26 are the students prosecuting P.G. courses. With a view to start the P.G. Course in the Hospital Administration, infrastructure was raised by the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner approached the 1 st respondent - University in March, 1994 for grant of affiliation. Thereafter it was decided that the University to assess the facilities available for starting such a course. Inspection was made and feasibility report was submitted. There was also a Memorandum of Understanding between the University and the 1 st petitioner foundation on 7-11-1995. Under the said agreement, the 1 st respondent allowed the 1st petitioner to offer M.H.A Course and agreed to recognise the faculty of the 1st petitioner for teaching and guiding the participants. University also agreed to recognise the Master degree in the Hospital Administration. It is also further agreed to award P.G. degree to the successful candidates from the academic year 1994-95. The 1 st respondent by letter dated 9-1 -1995 informed that the course structure was approved by the academic body and the Senate, that the University Inspection Committee also submitted feasibility report. Therefore as and when the permission is received from the Government, the affiliation will be granted. The Dean of the Faculty of Commerce also informed that the syllabus for M.H.A was approved by the Standing Committee. However, since the matters were not immediately moved the petitioner addressed a letter to the 1st respondent in December, 1995 to hasten the process of the affiliation and conduct the semester examinations for 25 students admitted in the course pending the affiliation. The 1st petitioner institution having admitted the petitioners No.2 to 26 has been making every effort to obtain the permission of the Government and consequent affiliation. It is seen that the petitioner, University and the Government were not definite as to which academic body should grant permission. It is only when the University ofHealth Sciences intimated that M.H.A. isnon-medical faculty and permission of Medical Council of India or Health University were not required, the petitioner made an application to All India Council of Technical Education, New Delhi, in December 1995 for grant of permission for the P.G. Course. A team inspected the institution in April, 1996 and expressed satisfaction. However, there was also no response from this Council also. Since the candidates have already commenced their course from 1994-95 and no semester examinations were conducted, the petitioner filed the present writ petition to direct the 1 st respondent to grant affiliation for the course from 1994-95. Pending, the writ petition, an interim direction was also sought to the 1st respondent to conduct examinations to the students admitted for the academic year 1994-95 batch for the first and second semesters of the 1st year of two years course, on the basis of the syllabus approved by the 1 st respondent. This Court by orders dated: 26-4-1996 in W.P.M.P.No. 11036/96 directed the 2nd respondent to finalise the report and consider and dispose of the proposal of the 1 st petitioner institution for starting the P.G. course. The exercise was directed to be completed within a period of one month.

(3.) The learned cour sel for the University also submitted that the University was not avers against the institution, but submits that the approval of the All India Council for Technical Education is necessary under the Central Act 52 of 1987. It was made clear in the said order that the 2nd respondent shall consider that both the 1st petitioner and 1st respondent were in a bonafide impression that the matter fell within the ambit of University of Health Sciences and Medical Council Act and now that it had transpired that the Central Act 22 of 1987 is applicable. The interim direction was given to the 2nd respondent to consider the proposal of the 1 st respondent deeming that the University has no objection.