Medicine Central Council Act,1970:s. 13A – Permission for establishment of new Medical College, new course study, etc. – On facts, Union of India rejected the permission to respondent no. 1State Ayurvedic Medical College to admit students for the PG course for academic year 2018-19 on the ground of non-availability of Central Research Laboratory and Animal House, however, granted permission to admit students to Under Graduate (BAMS) Course with an intake of 50 seats for the academic year 2018-19 subject to it fulfilling the deficiencies mentioned therein – Writ petition by respondent no. 1 – Meanwhile, Union of India granted permission to admit students for the Post Graduate course for academic year 2019-2020 – Single Judge allowed the writ petition – Said order upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court – On appeal, held: Statutory scheme is clear that no medical college can open a new or higher course of study or training, including a post-graduate course, except with the previous permission of the Central Government – Prior to such a permission being granted, the procedure as prescribed u/s. 13A has to be followed – Furthermore, as per Reg 3(1)(a), it is clear that in order to be eligible for grant of permission for undertaking admissions in a particular academic session, the institution must fulfill the requirements of minimum standard as on 31st December of the earlier year – It cannot be said that the permission granted for a subsequent academic year would also enure to the benefit of earlier academic year though the said institution was not fulfilling the criteria of minimum standard – Single Judge as well as the Division Bench erred in not taking into consideration the scheme of the Act as also the judgment of this Court in Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal’s case, thus the order of the Single Judge and the Division Bench quashed and set aside – Medicine Central Council (Amendment) Act, 2003 – Medicine Central Council (Post-Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2012 – Medical Central Council (Post-Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2016 – Precedent.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 13A read with Sections 22 and 36(1)(j) of the Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 Act provides a complete scheme for establishment of medical college, opening a new or higher course of study or training, including a postgraduate course of study or training, and also increasing the admission capacity. From the perusal of the scheme of the said provisions, it is clear that no person is entitled to establish a medical college except with the previous permission of the Central Government. Similarly, no medical college can open a new or higher course of study or training, including a postgraduate course of study or training without the previous sanction of the Central Government. Likewise, no medical college can increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training, including a post-graduate course of study or training. Sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 13A of the said Act prescribe a detailed procedure for submitting a scheme and consideration thereof by the Central Council and the Central Government. It also provides for in-built safeguards inasmuch as the principles of natural justice are provided at two stages, one before the Central Council and another before the Central Government. The second proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 13A of the said Act also enables a person or medical college whose scheme has not been approved by the Central Government, to again submit a fresh scheme, which is required to be considered as if the same is made for the first time under sub-section (2) of Section 13A of the said Act. Sub-section (6) of Section 13A of the said Act provides that when no order is communicated within a period of one year from the date of submission of the scheme, by a deeming provision, such scheme shall stand approved and it w ill be deemed that the permission of the Central Government as required under subsection (1) of Section 13A of the said Act has been granted. Sub-section (7) of Section 13A of the said Act provides for exclusion of the period for the time taken by the person or medical college concerned to furnish any particulars called by the Central Council, or by the Central Government. Subsection (8) of Section 13A of the said Act provides the factors to be taken into consideration. Sub-section
(9) of Section 13A of the said Act provides for the communication of the order approving or disapproving the scheme, to the person or medical college concerned. [Para 27][1139-D-H; 1140A-C]
1.2 The statutory scheme is clear that no medical college can open a new or higher course of study or training, including a post-graduate course, except with the previous permission of the Central Government. Prior to such a permission being granted, the procedure as prescribed under Section 13A has to be followed. [Para 28][1140-D]
1.3 The legislative intent is further clarified by the provisions made in Section 13B of the said Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 13B of the said Act provides that where any medical college is established without the previous permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 13A of the said Act, medical qualification granted to any student of such medical college shall not be deemed to be a recognized medical qualification for the purposes of the said Act. Likewise, sub-section (2) of Section 13B of the said Act provides that where any medical college opens a new or higher course of study or training including a post-graduate course of study or training without the previous permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 13A of the said Act, medical qualification granted to any student of such medical college on the basis of such study or training shall not be deemed to be a recognised medical qualification for the purposes of the said Act. Likewise, sub-section (3) of Section 13B of the said Act provides that where any medical college increases its admission capacity in any course of study or training without the previous permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 13A of the said Act, medical qualification granted to any student of such medical college on the basis of the increase in its admission capacity shall not be deemed to be a recognised medical qualification for the purposes of the said Act. [Para 29][1140-E-H; 1141-A]
1.4 It could further be seen that the legislature itself has taken care of a situation, where any person has established a medical college or any medical college has opened a new or higher course of study or training, or increased the admission capacity prior to the commencement of the Indian Medicine Central Council (Amendment) Act, 2003. It has provided that such person or medical college, as the case may be, shall seek, within a period of three years from the said commencement, permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 13A of the said Act. [Para 30][1141-B-C]
1.5 The impugned judgment of the Division Bench and the Single Judge of the High Court, so also the other judgments of the High Court, which are relied on by the Division Bench, do not take into consideration the scheme of Section 13A of the Act. [Para 31][1141-C-D]
1.6 Regulation 3(1)(a) of the 2016 Regulations specifically provides that the Ayurveda colleges established under Section 13A and existing under Section 13C of the said Act and their attached hospitals shall fulfill the requirements of minimum standard for infrastructure and teaching and training facilities referred to in the Regulations 4 to 11 up to 31st December of every year for consideration of grant of permissions for undertaking admissions in the coming academic session. It is thus clear that in order to be eligible for grant of permission for undertaking admissions in a particular academic session, the institution must fulfill the requirements of minimum standard as on 31st December of the earlier year. For example, if the institution is seeking grant of permission for undertaking admissions for the academic session 2022-23, it must have fulfilled the requirements of minimum standard as on 31 st December 2021. It could thus be seen that the finding that the permission granted for a subsequent academic year would also enure to the benefit of earlier academic year though the said institution was not fulfilling the criteria of minimum standard, is totally erroneous. [Para 32, 33][1141-G-H; 1142-A-B]
1.7 The High Court erred in not correctly applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal’s case. This Court in Ayurveda Shastra’s case had specifically observed that the petitioner therein tried to impress upon that the deficiencies had already been removed and that is why permission was specifically given for the admission of students for the academic year 2012-13. It was therefore urged that there was no reason for withholding the permission for the academic year 2011-12. This Court specifically noticed that a large number of students had applied for admission for the academic year 201112 and that too with the leave of this Court. However, this Court found that the privilege granted to the candidates could not be transformed into a right to be admitted in the course for which they had applied. It can be seen from the conjoint reading of various paragraphs of the said judgment that the contention that since the deficiencies stood already removed and the permission granted for the academic year 2012-13, the said permission should also be construed as having been granted for the academic year 2011-12, was not accepted by this Court. [Para 34-36][1142-C, D-F; 1143-B]
1.8 The Court is at pains to say that though the judgment in Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal’s case was specifically relied on by the appellant, the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court have chosen to rely on the earlier judgments of the Division Bench of the same High Court rather than a judgment of this Court. The Single Judge as well as the Division Bench grossly erred in not taking into consideration the scheme of the said Act so also the judgment of this Court in Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal’s case. The judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, and the Single Judge are quashed and set aside. [Para 39, 40][1144-G-H; 1145-A-B] Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal and Another v. Union of India and Others (2013) 16 SCC 696 : [2013] 4 SCR 1098 – relied on.
Bahubali Vidyapeeths JV Mandal Gramin Ayurvedic Medical College v. Union of India and Others Writ Petition No. 107076/2018 (EDN-ADM) dated
01.07.2019; Central Council of Indian Medicine v. Union of India and Others Writ Appeal No. 736/2011 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.