Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1029 (PAT)

Niteshwar Prasad Singh v. State Of Bihar

2000-08-22

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

body2000
Judgment Shiva Kirti Singh, J. 1. All these three writ applications have been heard together on the hypothesis that they involve common question of law and hence they are being disposed of finally by a common judgment. However, the facts of C.W.J.C.No. 5487/98 are vitally different from those in the other two writ applications and hence first this Court would deal with the facts of C.W.J.C. No. 3729/98 and C.W.J.C. No. 9406/98 which relate to same institution i.e. Niteshwar Bhartiya Chikitsha Vigyan Sansthan, Muzaffarpur which impart medical education in indigenous medicine (Ayurved). C.W.J.C. No. 3729/98 has been filed by Niteshwar Prasad Singh the Secretary of the aforesaid institution while the other writ application has been filed by three students of the said institution. The three students claim to represent their batch mates of their respective sessions studying in the said institution. As per averments in the writ petition, petitioner no.1 belongs to the Sessions 1994-95, petitioner no.2 to the Sessions 1995-96 and petitioner no.3 to the Sessions 1996-97 and accordingly they have prayed that they are entitled to take the first B.A.M.S. Examinations 1995, 1996 and 1997 respectively. The students have prayed for a direction to the University to permit the petitioners to take first B.A.M.S. examination 1997 schedule to be held from 2.2.1999 after accepting their examination fees and forms and thereafter to publish their results. In the writ application filed on behalf of the Secretary of the institution, besides a prayer for asking the University to permit the students of the petitioners institution to take the first BAMS examination 1995-96, a further prayer has been made to direct respondent nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the State of Bihar and its concerned officials to grant permanent recognition to the petitioners institution on the basis of report dated 14.1.98 submitted by the Inspection Committee headed by respondent no.4, a Deputy Secretary in the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna as contained in annexure 25 to the writ application. Since the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 9406/98 have relied upon all the facts and submissions advanced on behalf of petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 3729/98 hence further facts mentioned hereinafter with regard to these two writ applications are on the basis of materials in C.W.J.C. No. 3729/98 only. 2. Since the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 9406/98 have relied upon all the facts and submissions advanced on behalf of petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 3729/98 hence further facts mentioned hereinafter with regard to these two writ applications are on the basis of materials in C.W.J.C. No. 3729/98 only. 2. It has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that the institution (Niteshwar Bhartiya Chikitsha Vigyan Sansthan, Muzaffarpur) was established in the year 1979 and was registered under the Societies Registration Act. In the year 1980 its students appeared in PreAyurved Examination, 1980 conducted by the respondent University in January 1982 in view of permission to that effect granted by the Vice-Chancellor and communicated to the Principal of the Institute through letter dated 15.10.91 (annexure-1). The students of the institution were allowed to appear in the BAMS examination conducted by the University till 1983 and thereafter the University refused such permission on the ground that the State Government had not granted recognition to the institution. A writ application filed by some students of the institution was disposed of by a Division Bench of this court vide order dated 6.3.1985 directing the State Government to take a firm decision in the matter of recognition within three months. A provisional recognition was granted by the State Government on 10.12.1985 (annexure-3) with a stipulation that within six months a final decision would be taken after obtaining concurrence from Central Council of Indigenous Medicines (C.C.I.M.), Respondent no. 7 and the Union of lndia, respondent no.6. On receipt of recommendation of respondent no. 7, C.C.I.M. the State Government in exercise of power under section 6 of Bihar Indigenous Medical Education Institution (Regulation and Control) Act, 1982 granted provisional permission for admitting 20 students as appears from notification dated 3.10.1987 (annexure-5). Another inspection of the Institution was done by a inspecting team of CCIM on 22.4.1988 and the institution was directed to remove some of the deficiency within one year, some within three years and some within five years. This appears from a letter dated 23.4.1988 (annexure-6). By letter dated 21.3.1988 (annexure-7) the State Government again granted provisional permission to the institution for a maximum of 20 students in view of recommendation of CCIM dated 4.3.1987 and 3.10.87. By this letter the institution was directed to be affiliated to Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University. This appears from a letter dated 23.4.1988 (annexure-6). By letter dated 21.3.1988 (annexure-7) the State Government again granted provisional permission to the institution for a maximum of 20 students in view of recommendation of CCIM dated 4.3.1987 and 3.10.87. By this letter the institution was directed to be affiliated to Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University. By another notification dated 15.12.1988 (annexure-8), in view of recommendation of CCIM dated 23.4.1988 provisional permission was granted to the institution for maximum 50 students and the institution was affiliated to the then Bihar University, Muzaffarpur (Now BRA Bihar University) respondent no.8. Thereafter by letter dated 22.2.1993 (annexure-9) it appears that the University refused to allow the students of the institution to take the BAMS examination, 1990 for lack of recommendation by the CCIM and corresponding recognition by the State Government. 3. Thereafter it appears that although by an interim order passed in C.W.J.C.No. 2050/93 on 26.2.1993 (annexure-10) the students of the institution were allowed to take the BAMS examination held in 1993 and on certain conditions etc. the results were also directed to be published as appear from order dated 15.12.94 (annexure-17) passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7361/94 which was filed by this very petitioner, but there was no recommendation in favour of the institution by the CCIM after the year 1988 and in fact, as appears from annexures 11 and 12, C.C.I.M. reminded the concerned officer of the State Government regarding its letter dated 24.7.90 by which a request had been made to cancel the recognition granted to the institution and prohibit the institution from taking new admission. Accordingly by notification dated 31.12.93 the State Government terminated the recognition granted to the institution in view of letter of the CCIM. The adverse decision against the institution contained in annexures 11, 12 and 13 were followed by an important notice dated 31.12.91 issued by the State Government as contained in annexure- 14. From this notice it appears that the State Government has taken a decision that all the Ayurvedic Colleges operating within the State should approach the CCIM for inspection and decision with regard to desirability of granting them recognition/affiliation. In view of such decision, with an exception of Government Ayurvedic College, Patna, a ban was imposed upon admission in all other colleges with effect from the sessions 1994-95. In view of such decision, with an exception of Government Ayurvedic College, Patna, a ban was imposed upon admission in all other colleges with effect from the sessions 1994-95. For such colleges which had necessary recognition from the State Government from before a special recognition was granted only for a period of one year to enable only the old students of such institution to take the examination in question. Even for claiming such special recognition on the basis of earlier provisional recognition by the State Government, all interested colleges were directed to furnish all the details in a prescribed proforma to the Director, (Indigenous Medicines),Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna so that their claims may be examined by a Committee and final decision may be taken with regard to such recognition. The notice also contains a direction to the University not to allow students admitted for the sessions 1994-95 to take prescribed examination. The notice even contains warning that if inspite of such notice students are admitted in the concerned Colleges then legal action will be taken against the institution concerned. The decision of the State Government as contained in annexure-14 was challenged by the petititoner as well as some others. Some batches were allowed to take the examination as appears from order of this court contained in annexure-17 but the results were made subject to final decision for which time limit was fixed by this court by a final order in those cases dated 10.5.95 (annexure-19). It appears that the CCIM which was to take a final decision, for some reason could not take a final decision within time. It has been felt by the petitioner on the basis of annexure-18 that the committee constituted by the State Government for granting recognition decided to take a favourable decision with regard to the petitioners institution but the report of the committee was cancelled by the Government so far as it related to non-Governmental Colleges. The aforesaid decision dated 23.6.1995 (Annexure 20) was communicated to CCIM on 5.9.1995 vide annexure-21 and the CCIM was requested to specify the norms or the criteria for grant of recognition in such cases and it was also requested to send specialists for holding proper inspection. It appears that the Government Colleges were permitted to admit students for the sessions 1994-95. It appears that the Government Colleges were permitted to admit students for the sessions 1994-95. For such admission the State Government constituted a Committee as appears from resolution dated 25.3.1995 (annexure-22). The said resolution also provided that from sessions 1995-96, Government Ayurvedic/Homeopathic and Unani Colleges shall admit students on the basis of a competitive examination to be held along with PMDAT. Thus, the earlier orders with regard to admission into Govt. colleges imparting education in Indigenous Medicines were cancelled by the resolution contained in annexure-22. Thereafter it appears by an order dated 26.6.1995 the concerned Directorate in the Health Department allowed the students of one Smt. Krishna Ayurvedic College and Hospital, Arrah to appear in the examination held by the respondent/University. This appears to have been done provisionally on the basis of an inspection and pending final decision by the State Government. 4. Petitioner filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C.No. 107/96 against the decision of the State Government dated 23.6.95 (annexure 20) by which the earlier constituted inspection committee and its report with regard to non- Government Colleges was respectively dissolved and cancelled. That writ application was finally disposed of by order of this court dated 1.9.1997 (annexure-24). In that order this Court noticed the statutory provisions contained in annexure 5 and 6 of the Bihar Indigenous Medical Education Institutions (Take over and Control) Act 1982 which provide for inspection of the concerned college and its recognition as per permission of the CCIM and the Central Government and held that considerable delay in taking these steps was causing considerable hardship, harassment and loss to the petitioner. Hence this court directed the State Government to take a final decision on the question of grant of recognition to the institution without any delay and in accordance with law. The State Government and the CCIM were directed to have the institution inspected by a team of experts constituted by the C.C.I.M. and this team was directed to submit its inspection report within two months and thereafter within six weeks, the State Government was to forward the matter to C.C.I.M. and the Central Government with its own recommendation for permission as provided under section 6 of the Act. Within two months from the date of receipt of the State Governments recommendation along with the report the Central Government and the C.C.I.M. were directed to intimate to the State Government their decision on the question of granting permission to the petitioners institution to run a course in Indian Medicines. It is quite apparent that the spirit of the final order of this court dated 1.9.97 (annexure 24) was same as that of earlier final order dated 10.5.1995 (annexure 19). Pursuant to Annexure-24 the institution was again inspected by a team of three persons on 30th December, 1997 which submitted its report on 14.1.1998 (annexure-25) but thereafter the State Government did not act in the matter and no final decision in the matter was communicated to the petitioner. On 11.4.98 vide annexure 26 the respondent issued a communique regarding dates of first BAMS examination 1995-96 in which only the students of Government Ayurved Colleges were permitted to appear. In such a situation the petitioner preferred this writ application on 14.5.98 asking for the two reliefs already noticed earlier. Through supplementary affidavit petitioner has brought on record a report of inspection dated 9.6.98 (Annexure-27) by the visitors appointed by CCIM. A perusal of annexure-27 shows that the visitors from CCIM made no recommendation for granting recognition to the institution but instead, after noticing the pendency of this case recorded that in the interest of students direction may be given to State Government regarding conduct of examination for the students. This observation was given after noticing the fact that in the year 1994 the State Government had stopped admission from sessions 1994-95. 4A. When the University published a communique dated 19.9.99 for holding fresh BAMS examination then the petitioner made a grievance against not permitting the students of petitioners institution to take the said examination. Prima facie satisfied with the allegation that the students of similar institution were being permitted to take the examination while no decision was being given with regard to petitioners institution even after holding of necessary inspection, this court by order dated 13.1.1999 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9406/98 directed that BAMS examination scheduled to be held from 2nd February, 1999 shall not be held till further order. The said interim order still continues save and except a partial modification in favour of students of Government Ayurved College, Patna vide order dated 18.5.99. The said interim order still continues save and except a partial modification in favour of students of Government Ayurved College, Patna vide order dated 18.5.99. This writ application was thereafter admitted for hearing on 20.7.1999. Subsequently interlocutory applications were filed on behalf of some students of Ravindra Nath Ayurved Medical College and Hospital, Motihari for a further modification of the interim order dated 13.1.1999 on the ground that the concerned students had taken admission in the said college when it was recognized and these students had earlier appeared in the concerned B.A.M.S. examination and hence their bona fide could be ascertained by the University and they belonged to Sessions earlier to 1994-95 and hence were not covered by the conditions imposed by the State Government on 31.12.93. Those interlocutory applications were disposed of with a direction to the University to consider their representation and if their all contentions were found correct then the University could take a decision to allow them to take further examination and in that case the interim order of this court dated 13.1.99 would not stand in the way of the University. This small opening, however, appears to have caused some problem for the University on whose behalf it has been submitted that a large number of such representations have been filed. Some further interlocutory applications of similar nature were also filed at the fag end of hearing of these cases but since the students belonged to different institutions hence the petitioners objected to any further delay in hearing on account of such interlocutory applications and hence those applications have not been entertained further. Moreover it is expected that the final judgment and order in these cases shall itself obviate the necessity of any modification in the interim order dated 13 .1.1999. 5. Further subsequent developments relating to case of the petitioner were brought on record through three supplementary affidavits enclosing annexures 29, 30, 31 and 32. Annexure-29 is a communication dated 17.6.99 issued by CCIM addressed to the concerned Director of the State Govt. containing a list of 11 Colleges/Institutions imparting teaching in Indian Medicines. The said list discloses which are the colleges that have been granted/not granted permission for teaching in Ayurved by the CCIM. On the basis of inspection dated 9.6.98 the petitioner institution is shown to have been denied such permission. containing a list of 11 Colleges/Institutions imparting teaching in Indian Medicines. The said list discloses which are the colleges that have been granted/not granted permission for teaching in Ayurved by the CCIM. On the basis of inspection dated 9.6.98 the petitioner institution is shown to have been denied such permission. Annexure-30 is a notification of the University dated 25.8.1999 containing list of four Government Ayurved Colleges which have been granted temporary affiliation by the University for the period 1998-99 and in the case of Government Ayurvedic College Patna for the period 1999-2000. The petitioner has raised a grievance that except Government Ayurvedic College, Patna none of the three other Government Ayurvedic Colleges mentioned in annexure-30 have been granted permission by CCIM and even then the University has granted affiliation which shall enable their students to take their examination to be conducted by the University. Annexure-31 is the letter dated 29.2.2000 sent by the Additional Secretary of the department, Health Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna, requesting the Chairman of Education Committee of C.C.I.M. to consider the representation received from the petitioner for grant of recognition and for permission to its students of the Sessions 1994-95 to 1998-99 to take their examination. Annexure-32 is a letter from C.C.I.M. dated 27.3.2000 in response to annexure-31 by which the University was permitted to hold examination for the students of the institutions for the Sessions 1994-95 to 1998-99 on the condition that in future without permission of C.C.I.M. no students will be admitted in the institution and for further study of students of the aforesaid batches all the amenities for further studies and training shall be made available. 6. In this case the consistent stand of the C.C.I.M. as apparent from its two counter affidavits is that for initial two years i.e. till 1989-90 the petitioner institution was permitted to conduct Ayurvedacharya course but after inspection dated 4.8.89 to assess the progress made by the institution, the C.C.I.M. did not agree to grant further permission to the college and a communication was accordingly sent to the concerned University. The inspection report of 4.8.89 (Annexure-A) shows lack of basic necessities and infrastructure and the recommendation was that the institution should not be allowed to continue; no further admission should be allowed; existing students should not be allowed to appear in the University exam further unless their training is arranged in a recognised standard institution; the BAMS degree awarded to the students of college in question be derecognised from 1987-88 onwards; the Councils decision be communicated to all concerned and the University, State Govt. and State Ayurved Council be also intimated not to register the Graduates of the college in question. The C.C.I.M. has further taken a stand that the college/institution in question thereafter did not approach the C.C.I.M. for inspection and recognition and never reported to CCIM that the shortcomings had been removed. The C.C.I.M. expressed surprise that such institution is admitting students every year without their approval. It has disclosed that a decision has been taken by the C.C.I.M. to hold a high- level meeting with the authorities of the State Government and the University as early as possible so that a collective view can be formed and decisions may be taken for the college in question as well as other such colleges in Bihar. Anxiety has been expressed in the counter affidavit dated 11.3.99 to hold such meeting at the earliest but even the subsequent counter affidavit dated 26.6.2000 does not disclose that any such meeting has been held so far. 7. The second counter affidavit of C.C.I.M. dated 26.6.2000 was filed when anguish was expressed over ad hoc and un-principled decision with regard to only the petitioner institution as contained in annexure 32, was brought on record. 7. The second counter affidavit of C.C.I.M. dated 26.6.2000 was filed when anguish was expressed over ad hoc and un-principled decision with regard to only the petitioner institution as contained in annexure 32, was brought on record. Since there was a general ban imposed by the State Government with regard to further admission by private Ayurvedic Colleges in the State as per notice dated 31.12.93 (annexure-14), this court had directed the respondent to take a final decision with regard to recognition for petitioners institution and as per different inspection reports some institutions in similar situation had been granted provisional recognition leading to an interim order of this Court dated 13.1.99 directing that BAMS examination shall not be held till further order, it was expected that a final decision with regard to recognition of the petitioner institution and other similar private colleges adversely affected by annexure-14 would be taken by the respondents including the C.C.I.M. on the basis of lawful criteria and norms but unfortunately no such decision was placed before this court in course of hearing and instead an apparent ad hoc decision contained in annexure 32 was issued. In such circumstances the C.C.I.M. was directed by this Court to file a supplementary counter affidavit disclosing its policy with regard to the entire matter in controversy. 8. As per the supplementary counter affidavit of C.C.I.M. there are 13 Ayurvedic Colleges in the State of Bihar. Examinations of eight such colleges including that of petitioner institution is conducted by the respondent University and for remaining five colleges the concerned University is Kameshwar Singh Sanskrit University, Darbhanga. The C.C.I.M. has disclosed a list of Ayurved Colleges including petitioner college/institution which have not been permitted to admit students during the year 1998-99 and 1999-2000. With regard to another college i.e. Ayurved College, Madhubani it has been stated that as per information available with the Council this college has not admitted students since last two years as this college was also not permitted by the C.C.I.M. to admit students in the aforesaid two years. About the remaining six colleges there is an averment that the C.C.I.M. has no authentic information about these remaining colleges. With regard to the petitioners institution the earlier stand of CCIM that the institute was not permitted to admit students during the year 1989 on the basis of inspection report has been reiterated. About the remaining six colleges there is an averment that the C.C.I.M. has no authentic information about these remaining colleges. With regard to the petitioners institution the earlier stand of CCIM that the institute was not permitted to admit students during the year 1989 on the basis of inspection report has been reiterated. It has further been stated that pursuant to judgment of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 736/94 the visitors from C.C.I.M. visited the institute in 19.10.98 and as per their report contained in annexure 27 the council found the facilities for teaching inadequate and hence it communicated to the institute as well as the concerned University and Bihar Government that permission for admitting fresh students cannot be granted for the academic year 1999-2000. Regarding Annexure 32, the stand of the C.C.I.M. is that the same was issued on the request of the Government of Bihar as contained in annexure-31 only in the interest of already admitted students and upon conditions mentioned in annexure 32. 9. The anguish of C.C.I.M. with regard to the present state of affair in the State of Bihar in relation to teaching of Ayurved is evident from paragraph-9 of the said counter affidavit which is as follows : "That it is also to be mentioned in this connection, that similar situation will arise with the students already admitted in the colleges and institutes of Ayurved where even after refusal of admission by 1999-2000 admission have been made. Many of these colleges are run by Government of Bihar like colleges at Begusarai, Bhagalpur, Buxar and Darbhanga. It is absolutely necessary that minimum standards prescribed by CCIM for graduate and Postgraduate courses in Ayurved be implemented in the State of Bihar also like being implemented in other States of the country. Government of Bihar, both the Universities of Bihar State conducting examinations for Ayurved students namely Dr. It is absolutely necessary that minimum standards prescribed by CCIM for graduate and Postgraduate courses in Ayurved be implemented in the State of Bihar also like being implemented in other States of the country. Government of Bihar, both the Universities of Bihar State conducting examinations for Ayurved students namely Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Muzaffarpur and Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga as well as Heads of the Management of Ayurvedic institutes run in private sector in the Bihar State should come to an agreement that the minimum standards required for Graduate and Postgraduate courses in Ayurveda will be maintained in all Ayurvedic institutes in Bihar State and from the academic year 2000-2001 onwards no college either in private sector or Government run institutes will admit any fresh students in these colleges without prior approval of the Central Council of Indian Medicine and also that the required minimum facilities for teaching and practical training of admitted students will be maintained by the concerned institution. Then Central Council of Indian Medicine will be agreeable for examination of already admitted students in these institutes. It is to be made clear from the Central Council of Indian Medicine that if, in future, without this agreement and without prior approval of the Central Council of Indian Medicine, if students are admitted in Ayurvedic Institutes and degrees are awarded by the concerned Universities then the Council will have no option but to take appropriate action as per provisions of section 21 of CCIM Act, 1970 for withdrawal of recognition of degree awarded by these Universities." 10. So far as the State Government and its officials are concerned, their stand in this case is that the CCIM is supreme body in the matter of granting recognition to an institution imparting teaching of Ayurved and since the C.C.I.M. has cancelled the permission for running of the petitioner institution by letter dated 24.7.90 (Annexure-3A to counter affidavit of respondent nos. 1 to 5) followed by a reminder dated 15.1.1992 (Annexure-A/1) hence the State Government had no option but to issue the notification dated 31.12.93 (Annexure-11). 1 to 5) followed by a reminder dated 15.1.1992 (Annexure-A/1) hence the State Government had no option but to issue the notification dated 31.12.93 (Annexure-11). Their further stand is that the institute alone is responsible for admitting students in absence of permission and recognition from C.C.I.M. and that the inspection report dated 14.1.98 (Annexure-25) was forwarded by the State Government to the Secretary of C.C.I.M. vide letter dated 25th April, 1998 and reminder was also sent but no decision in the matter has been taken by them as yet. 11. After annexures 31 and 32 were brought on record, another supplementary counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5 stating that after the recognition of the petitioner institution was cancelled by CCIM vide letter dated 24.7.98, the C.C.I.M. in its subsequent inspection never found this institution fit for recognition. Thereafter for the first time the petitioner made an application before Commissioner on 16.11.99 for considering his institution for recognition and by annexure-31 the State Government only intended to forward the said application for consideration by the C.C.I.M. on its merit but due to misunderstanding created by the letter dated 29.2.2000 (annexure-31) the C.C.I.M. recommended the institution for recognition (actually only for holding of examination) for the sessions 1994-95 to 1998-99 without examining the institution as per norms laid for recognition. With regard to one Ravindranath Mukherji, Ayurved College, Motihari it has been stated on behalf of the State Government that this institution was recognized prior to the year 1993 and after inspection the C.C.I.M. recommended to grant of recognition to this institution and allow admission by the institution in the year 1996-97 and hence the Government granted recognition/permission to this institution for the year 1993-1994 and 1994-95. The State Government has also disclosed that general uniform decision with regard to such institutions is being decided by the Government so that only those colleges can be recognised which possess atleast minimum requirement for proper teaching and training and such institution must have their own land, building, laboratory facility and all necessary equipments. The State Government is also considering the judgment of the Apex Court in Unni Krishnan case reported in [ 1993 (1) SCC 645 ] in order to control admission and capitation in such institutions on uniform basis. 12. The State Government is also considering the judgment of the Apex Court in Unni Krishnan case reported in [ 1993 (1) SCC 645 ] in order to control admission and capitation in such institutions on uniform basis. 12. In course of arguments the stand of the learned counsel for the CCIM with regard to annexure 32-was clear and specific that the decision contained in that letter was not on consideration of merit of the petitioners claim and the inspection reports but only upon a misunderstanding that the State Government was desirous of such a decision to protect the interest of admitted students. 13. The stand of the respondent University is that as per provisions in the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 specially section 4(19) and proviso to section-21 (2), the prior approval of the State Government is necessary for a decision by the authority of the University to grant affiliation to any college as per its statutes and hence after completing the necessary formalities of consultation with the C.C.I.M. and the Central Government the State Government should communicate to the University its approval for affiliation of the petitioner institution and until that is done the University should not be directed to grant affiliation to the petitioner institution or to hold examination for its students. It has further been submitted that after the approval of the Government for affiliation, the concerned institution is required to make an application for affiliation as per Chapter Xll-B of the statutes of the University. According to the University the provisional permission/affiliation granted by State Government to such institutions is strictly speaking, without jurisdiction. It has further been submitted that some of the decisions of the C.C.I.M. like granting permission to the students to take University examination is due to an erroneous impression of C.C.I.M. that such colleges in Bihar have approval of the Government and affiliation from the University as per requirement of law and lastly it has been submitted that even as per latest instructions adequate qualified teaching staff and several other essential facilities have been found to be lacking in such private Ayurvedic Colleges hence the prayer made by the writ petitioner is against the statutory requirements with regard to recognition and affiliation. 14. 14. The argument advanced on behalf of petitioner is that the petitioners right to have their claim for recognition finally decided by C.C.I.M. in accordance with law and on the basis of relevant inspection report of the State Government dated 14.1.98 (annexure 25) should be accepted in view of earlier direction of this court in the judgment dated 1.9.97 (annexure-24). It has further been submitted that since the report by the visitors of C.C.I.M. dated 9.6.98 (annexure-27) does not contain any recommendations for grant or refusal of recognition hence final decision by the C.C.I.M. should be taken not on the basis of report contained in annexure 27 but on the basis of report dated 14.1.98 contained in annexure 25. Further submission on behalf of the petitioner is that annexure-29, a communication from CCIM, dated 17.6.99 is only with regard to permission for the students of the concerned institutions to take the BAMS examination and the comment in that communication to the effect that no permission is granted, should not be accepted as a decision by the C.C.I.M. refusing recognition to the institution. Lastly, it is submitted that a decision of C.C.I.M. contained in annexure 32 directing the University to allow the students of the petitioners institution of the Sessions 1994-95 to 1998-99 to take examination should be accepted as a final decision of C.C.I.M. with regard to recognition of petitioners institution for those sessions taken on the basis of inspection reports available with the C.C.I.M. 15. On the pleadings and stand of the parties noticed above it is clear that since 1989 the petitioner institution has no permission/recognition from C.C.I.M. which according to the State Government as well as the petitioner is the supreme authority in this regard. By annexure-A the C.C.I.M. expressely refused permission for continuance of the institution in question and also directed not to allow its students to take the University examination unless arrangement be made for their teaching in a standard institution. Consequently by annexure-11 the State Government cancelled recognition and imposed ban contained in annexure-14. No doubt in the meantime students of the institution appeared in the University examination and subsequently also one batch was allowed to take examination under interim order of this court and keeping in view future prospectus of such students their results were also declared subject to conditions vide annexure-17. No doubt in the meantime students of the institution appeared in the University examination and subsequently also one batch was allowed to take examination under interim order of this court and keeping in view future prospectus of such students their results were also declared subject to conditions vide annexure-17. As per inspection by visitors of C.C.I.M. also the institution has not been found fit for recognition. The moot question, therefore, to be decided in this writ application is whether in such circumstances this court should issue a writ/order or direction to grant recognition to the petitioner institution and direct the University to allow its students to take the B.A.M.S. examination or not. The other controversies noticed above relate to procedural matter and are therefore secondary in nature. 16 So far as the moot question noticed above is concerned, there is no difficulty in deciding the same because it is a settled proposition of law that unless a college or institution is recognized/affiliated in accordance with law, there can be no question of allowing its students to take the examination conducted by University only for the students of recognized/affiliated college/institution. On this issue a related but relevant question may arise as to whether denial of recognition/affiliation is fair and in accordance with law or not. With regard to such a question also. the law is settled that when a decision in such matter is taken by statutory authority or the University having expertise and technical knowledge to assess and decide relevant issues like standard of teaching, adequacy of proper teaching and non-teaching staff and other related infrastructural facilities, then this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction is always reluctant to interfere with the decision of statutory authority and autonomous body like the University. Generally the interference in such matters is only to the extent of directing the statutory authority or the University to consider or reconsider such matters fairly and in accordance with law and that too if the earlier consideration is found to be arbitrary, mala fide or in violation of some material or mandatory provision of law. 17. In the light of aforesaid proposition of law this court finds no good ground to interfere with the decision of the C.C.I.M. by which it has refused permission for further continuation of petitioner institution or with the impugned decision of the State Government as contained in annexure 14 dated 31.12.93. 18. 17. In the light of aforesaid proposition of law this court finds no good ground to interfere with the decision of the C.C.I.M. by which it has refused permission for further continuation of petitioner institution or with the impugned decision of the State Government as contained in annexure 14 dated 31.12.93. 18. The facts on the record, specially the supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of C.C.I.M. a relevant part of which has been extracted earlier in this judgment disclose a disturbing fact that even the C.C.I.M. is finding itself helpless in view of a trend on the part of colleges/institutions imparting teaching in Ayurved to admit students for which they do not have even temporary permission/recognition from the C.C.I.M. It also appears that there is a deliberate or otherwise, lack of communication between the C.C.I.M. the State Government and the concerned University and the concerned Colleges/Institutions apparently derive advantage of this situation by continuing to take admission even after lapse of temporary permission/affiliation on account of their failure in removing shortcomings in their colleges and institutions. Subsequently the admitted students are generally allowed to appear in the examination on account of sympathy or for the sake of their future prospect and this allows a vicious circle to continue indefinitely. In such a situation the decision of the State Government on the basis of recommendation of the C.C.I.M. as contained in annexure-14 deserves to be appreciated though it may appear to be harsh. 19. The different contentions advanced on behalf of petitioner are based upon a wrong premise that the CCIM has not taken a final decision with regard to claim of recognition of the petitioner institution. The facts on record including annexure-A and A/1 to the counter affidavit of respondent 1 to 5 and annexure-29 leave no manner of doubt that the petition of the petitioner institution has been rejected by the C.C.I.M. the apex body under the Central Act, i.e., The Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. The grievance of the petitioner that such consideration should be on the basis of report contained in annexure 25 and not on the basis of inspection report contained in annexure-27 is misconceived. The grievance of the petitioner that such consideration should be on the basis of report contained in annexure 25 and not on the basis of inspection report contained in annexure-27 is misconceived. A perusal of annexure-14 shows that information in the prescribed form was asked from all the Ayurvedic Colleges irrespective of the fact whether they have provisional recognition from before or not so that a committee of the State Government may scrutinise the information for the purpose of obtaining recommendation from C.C.I.M. regarding their prayer for recognition and a final decision thereafter may be taken for the purpose of affiliation. This notice definitely enabled all the Ayurvedic Colleges in the State to submit their particulars in the prescribed form for consideration by a Committee. According to the State Government the Committee has submitted its report as contained in annexure-25 and the same was forwarded to CClM on 20th April, 1998 with a reminder on 19.5.1998. Thereafter the C.C.I.M. being the apex technical body obtained an inspection report dated 9.6.98 (annexure- 27) from its own visitors and annexure-29 was issued on 17.6.1999. A perusal of annexure-29 shows that decision with regard to 11 Ayurvedic Colleges/Institutions have been taken on the basis of inspection report mentioned in column 2 of the list against each college/institution. With regard to petitioner institution the date of inspection is mentioned as 9.6.98 which is the date of inspection report contained in annexure-27. It further appears from annexure-29 that the decision of the C.C.I.M. is comprehensive with regard to status and claim of all the concerned Colleges/Institutions mentioned therein. Although in the report contained in annexure-27, there was a sort of recommendation to the effect that inspite of ban by the State Government against admission in the year 1994 the institution has gone to the High Court and the college Administration took admission hence in the interest of students the C.C.I.M. should give direction regarding conduct of examination of the students but the C.C.I.M. by annexure-29 did not grant permission. From the last two paragraphs of annexure-29 it is further clear that permission granted or refused by C.C.I.M. as per annexure-29 related to right of the Colleges/Institutions to admit students for imparting teaching for the course of Ayurvedacharya and the C.C.I.M. by the said letter conveyed its anguish and displeasure to the State Government that even such Colleges which were not granted permission to conduct courses for Ayurvedacharya were continuing with admission of students and the University was taking their examinations. Considering all the aforesaid facts this court is of considered view that there does not remain any pending claim of the petitioner for permission/recognition for decision by C.C.I.M. and there is nothing to vitiate the decision already taken by C.C.I.M. with regard to petitioners claim. 20. Certain materials were referred to and relied upon by the petitioner to submit that some of the Government Ayurvedic Colleges in the State have also been refused permission but in fact the State Government has permitted them to take admission and the University is conducting examination for their students. Similarly with regard to some private Ayurvedic Colleges also it has been submitted that the enquiry report with regard to such colleges showed that those colleges were similar to the petitioners institution or even worse but still C.C.I.M. or the State Government have granted permission to continue with admission and teaching for the course of Ayurvedacharya. No doubt, the aforesaid submission has some force so far as the action of the State Government is concerned. The C.C.I.M. has also expressed its anguish and displeasure on account of such a situation prevailing in the State of Bihar. To meet such situation the C.C.I.M. has decided to convene a high level meeting between itself, the State Government and the University and has also decided that from the academic year 2000-2001 onwards no college either at private institution or Government run institute will admit any fresh student in these colleges without prior approval of C.C.I.M. The C.C.I.M. has also made an averment in paragraph-9 of its supplementary counter affidavit that if any students are admitted without agreement or prior approval of the C.C.I.M. then it shall have no option but to take action under section 21 of the Indian Medicines Central Council Act, 1970 for withdrawal of recognition of degree awarded by the concerned University. The aforesaid stand of C.C.I.M. conveys a satisfying assurance to this Court that the prevailing chaos in the field of teaching of Ayurved in the State of Bihar shall be controlled and taken care of from the academic year 2000-2001. However, the fact that at present the system suffers from ills, in the opinion of this Court cannot be the basis for grant of any relief to the petitioner institution in matters like recognition and affiliation. The petitioner institution must succeed on its own strength and not on account of alleged or apparent weakness in the case of some other similar institution. In the facts of the case as noticed above even the last submission on behalf of the petitioner that the decision of C.C.I.M. contained in annexure-32 be accepted as correct and final decision of C.C.I.M. cannot be accepted in view of clear stand of the State Government as well as the C.C.I.M. that such a decision was a result of confusion created by the letter of the State Government contained in annexure-31 by which the State Government had intended only to forward the representation of the petitioner to C.C.I.M. Further in view of over-all facts relating to the petitioners institution the decision contained in annexure-32 could not have been validly taken unless the C.C.I.M. could come to a different decision with regard to grant of permission/recognition to the petitioners institution on the basis of inspection held after the decision dated 17.6.99 (annexure-26). There is no such case pleaded by the petitioner nor there is any material on record to warrant such conclusion hence the last submission on behalf of petitioner is also not found acceptable. 21. Even considering the matter from the point of view of students like petitioners in C.W.J.C. 9406/98, this court finds no good ground to grant any relief to the petitioners in view of twin facts that the institution in question has not been found fit for permission/recognition by the C.C.I.M. and these students were admitted after the State Government had rightly imposed ban on admission from the sessions 1994-95. The students who have taken admission after such notice by the State Government have obviously opted to take a calculated risk by their volition. Sympathy in such a case would be mispleaded (sicmisplaced ?) and would definitely help the vicious circle to continue. 22. The students who have taken admission after such notice by the State Government have obviously opted to take a calculated risk by their volition. Sympathy in such a case would be mispleaded (sicmisplaced ?) and would definitely help the vicious circle to continue. 22. Before parting with these two writ applications this Court would like to observe that in the matters of technical education like teaching in Ayurved, the CCIM has a great responsibility and a big role to advance the cause of Indian Medicine which may help millions of poverty-ridden citizens of this country. The concerned authority of the State Government as well as of the University should act in close co-operation with CCIM. They should keep the channels of communication with the CClM open and fast so that undeserving institution may not take advantage of delay and may not indulge in exploitation of admission seekers. No doubt during initial period an institution or college may not fulfil all the criteria on account of bona fide limitations such as lack of qualified personnel or materials. Such a situation generally leads to ad hoc decision by way of grant of temporary or provisional permission/recognition/affiliation but ad hocism in such matters has its ill effect such as making the management of the college inactive. Hence it is hoped that in future the CCIM shall specify a fixed time for meeting the short-comings in the institution at the time of grant of initial permission/recognition if it has to be temporary or provisional. In case the shortcomings are not met within the stipulated time frame, prompt action should be taken against the institution concerned and the same should be immediately made public so that innocent students may not suffer the exploitation by undeserving colleges/institutions. 23. Even with regard to petitioners institution it is deemed necessary to observe that as per inspection reports it has created some infrastructures for teaching, though inadequate. Hence if it is capable and desirous of establishing itself in this field, it may fulfil all the requirements that may be pointed out by C.C.I.M. and once it attains the required standard it may apply for fresh permission/recognition and in that situation its claim for recognition/affiliation in future may be considered by the concerned authorities in accordance with law. 24. 24. With the aforesaid observations these two writ applications (C.W.J.C.No.9406/98 and C.W.J.C.No. 3729/98) are dismissed but in the facts of the case without costs. C.W.J.C.No.5487/98 25. The facts of C.W.J.C.No. 5487/98 differ from those in two other writ applications in some vital aspects. Petitioners in this writ application are students of Swami Raghvendracharya Tridandi Ayurved College and Hospital, Karjara, Gaya. Petitioners 1, 2 and 4 are students of the Sessions 1994-95 BAMS course while petitioner no.3 belongs to the sessions 1995-96. Their prayer is to direct the respondents to hold BAMS examination of these two batches. This institution/college was established in the year 1978. By annexure-1 dated 7.7.1988 it was granted provisional permission and affiliation by Department of Health, Government of Bihar. Annexure-1/1 is an order of State Government dated 13.7.89 by which in anticipation of recommendation of C.C.I.M. and permission of Government of India the College was granted provisional permission for admitting maximum of 20 students with effect from sessions 1982-83 of BAMS examination for which it was granted affiliation with respondent Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. Though there is controversy as to whether the State Government could have granted such permission or affiliation by itself or not but the fact remains that such affiliation and permission has not been cancelled till date and the students of this college till the sessions 1993-94 have been permitted to take the BAMS examination conducted by the respondent University. The decision of the State Government contained in notice dated 31.12.93 which was annexure-14 in the earlier writ applications has been annexed as annexure-2. The said notice discloses a decision to impose a ban on admissions in all the Ayurvedic Colleges in the State of Bihar except Government Ayurvedic College, Patna from the sessions 1994-95. This decision war in the background of a policy decision of the State Government to get all Ayurvedic Colleges operating in the State inspected by the C.C.I.M. for the purpose of deciding the propriety of recognition/affiliation granted to them. Annexure-3 dated 30.12.97 is a letter from C.C.I.M. to the Principal of the College disclosing that this college is in the list of approved colleges. Annexure-5 is a letter dated 30.1.97 sent by C.C.I.M. to the Principal of the College informing him of the shortcomings found during inspection of the college by the members of the C.C.I.M. on 2.12.96. Annexure-3 dated 30.12.97 is a letter from C.C.I.M. to the Principal of the College disclosing that this college is in the list of approved colleges. Annexure-5 is a letter dated 30.1.97 sent by C.C.I.M. to the Principal of the College informing him of the shortcomings found during inspection of the college by the members of the C.C.I.M. on 2.12.96. That letter further discloses that this college was granted permission for the sessions 1996-97 on the condition that the shortcoming should be removed within a year and compliance report should be sent to C.C.I.M. Annexure-6 is another letter from C.C.I.M. dated 8.12.97 addressed to the Registrar of the respondent University disclosing that this college was inspected on 10.9.97 and on that basis the college was granted permission to admit students for the sessions 1997-98 on the condition that affiliation of this college with Univesity should continue. The Registrar was further requested to ensure that certain shortcomings in the college may be removed by 31st. January, 1998. 26. Annexure-7 is a letter dated 30.5.98 by which the authorities of the State Government, after the imposition of ban by order dated 31.12.93 permitted the students of one Ravindranath Mukherjee Ayurved College, Motihari belonging to sessions 1994-95 and 1995-96 to take the University examination. As noticed earlier the stand of the State Government is that since the aforesaid college at Motihari was recognised prior to the year 1993 and after inspection the C.C.I.M. recommended to grant recognition to that institution and allowed admission in the year 1996-97, hence the State Government granted recognition/permission to that institution for the year 1993-94 and 1994-95. In view of aforesaid stand petitioner institution also claims a right to get permission/affiliation for the sessions 1994-95 and 1995-96 because this college has also been granted permission by the C.C.I.M. for the 1997-98 batch. 27. Annexure-9 is a letter by C.C.I.M. dated 10.6.99 again communicating to the Principal of the college that the college is in the list of approved institutions prepared by C.C.I.M. and hence it was the duty of the University to arrange examinations for such affiliated colleges which are approved by C.C.I.M. A copy of annexure-9 appears to have been sent to the Registrar of the respondent University also. 28. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners in this case is simple. 28. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners in this case is simple. It has been submitted that since the C.C.I.M. is the apex body and it has never cancelled the permission granted to this college under which its students till the sessions 1993-94 were permitted to appear in the University examination and subsequently also the admitted apex body i.e. C.C.I.M. has granted permission to this college hence the State Government and the University are obliged in law to act fairly and in accordance with the opinion and orders of the C.C.I.M. It has further been submitted that under section 21 of the Indian Medicines Central Council Act, 1970 power is vested only in C.C.I.M. to take steps for withdrawal of recognition by making a representation to that effect to the Central Government. In a recent decision in the case of Jaya Gokul Educational Trust etc. V/s. The Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala State and another reported in (2000) 3 SCC 467: 2000(3) PLJR (SC) 159 the Apex Court examined the provisions of All India Council for the Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as AICTE) Act, 1987 and held that since the power of granting approval for establishment of technical institutions vested with AICTE by virtue of section 10(k) of AICTE Act hence any State law requiring approval of State Government for establishing technical institution would be void and the State cannot have any policy out side AICTE Act. Once AICTE granted approval then further approval from Government or any authority under the State Act is not required. The Apex Court reiterated the law laid down in the case of State of Tamilnadu and another V/s. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and others [ 1995 (4) SCC 104 ) that after the Constitutional Amendment (42nd Amendment Act, 1976) the State Law under the Entry 23 of List III would be repugnant to any law made by the Parliament under Entry 66 of List I to the extent of inconsistency. Relevant paragraphs 9.6 and 9.7 of the said Judgment may be usefully extracted below: "9.6 As stated earlier, the above provisions of the AICTE Act, came up for consideration in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute (supra). Relevant paragraphs 9.6 and 9.7 of the said Judgment may be usefully extracted below: "9.6 As stated earlier, the above provisions of the AICTE Act, came up for consideration in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute (supra). 9.7 In the above matter, the State of Tamil Nadu granted permission on 17.4.1984 to all private managements to start private Engineering Colleges without financial commitment to Government but subject to conditions. At that time in 1984, the AICTE Act was not on the statute book. The Government of Tamil Nadu granted permission to the trust for the academic year 1987-88 to start an Engineering college. The University also granted permission on 21.11.87 for the academic year 1987-88. Later on, these permissions were withdrawn by the State after issuing show cause on 16.7.89. So did the University on 26.7.89. But by that date, the AICTE Act, 1987 had come into force. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench held in favour of the Trust and quashed the orders of the Government and the University. The said judgments were affirmed by this Court. It was held that the AICTE Act was referable to Entry 66, List-I of the Constitution of India, relating to Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions." After the Constitutional Amendment (42 Amendment Act 1976) Entry 25 of List III in the Concurrent List read : "Education, included technical education, medical institution and Universities, subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training of labour". Thus, the State law under Entry 23 of List III would be repugnant to any law made by the Parliament under Entry 66 of List-I, to the extent of inconsistency. The Tamil Nadu Act was of 1976 and the University Act was of 1923 and were laws referable to the List III. Whether they were preconstitutional or a post constitutional laws, they would be repugnant to the AICTE Act passed by Parliament under Entry 66 of List I. In the above case this Court referred to the various provisions of the AICTE Act and on the question of repugnancy held (see p.120 SCC) as follows : "Hence on the subjects covered by the statute, the State could not make a law under Entry 25 of List III after Forty-Seond Amendment. If there was any such existing law immediately before the commencement of the Constitution within the meaning of Article 372 of the Constitution, as the Madras University Act, 1923 on the enactment of the present Central Act, the provisions of the said law if repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act would stand impliedly replaced to the extent of repugnancy. Such repugnancy would have to be adjudged on the basis of the tests which are applied for adjudging repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution." The provisions of the Indian Medicines Central Council Act, 1970 vests the C.C.I.M. with extensive powers in the field of Indian medicines such as in recognition of Medical qualifications, inspection of Medical Institutions, withdrawal of recognition and setting down of minimum standard of education in Indian Medicine. In such matters as are provided by the Central Act, 1970, the C.C.I.M. is surely the apex body and in such matters its orders and views like that of AICTE will prevail over those of the State Government or the University. 29 However, in the facts of these cases neither the decision of the State Government dated 31.12.93 nor the stand of the State Government raises any competitive right vis-a-vis CCIM. In fact the clear stand of the State Government which is also supported by the contents of decision dated 31.12.93 is that the State Government wants to take proper decision in exercise of its power under the Bihar Indigenous Medical Educational Institution (Regulation and Control) Act, 1982 in accordance with result of inspection of Ayurvedic Colleges in the State by C.C.I.M. Thus, in this case there is no requirement of deciding as to whether the State Government has competing power to withdraw recognition/permission under the aforesaid Bihar Act, 1982 which was enacted to curb the evils in the field of teaching of Indian System of Medicine and to regulate and control the institutions imparting teaching in Indian Systems of Medicine. Under the aforesaid Bihar Act, 20 of 1982 opening of colleges in the field of Indian Medicines has been controlled by provisions requiring permission and approval from the State Government. The provisions in this Act have been enacted with due regard to power of the Government of India and C.C.I.M. to grant approval. Under the aforesaid Bihar Act, 20 of 1982 opening of colleges in the field of Indian Medicines has been controlled by provisions requiring permission and approval from the State Government. The provisions in this Act have been enacted with due regard to power of the Government of India and C.C.I.M. to grant approval. Section-11 of this Act contains the effects of refusal of recognition and one such effect is an obligation to close such institution within three months of refusal of recognition. In view of such provisions and in view of the fact that in issuing annexure-2, the decision/notice dated 31.12.93 the State Government had the clear intention of acting as per the views of C.C.I.M., no illegality is found in the said order of the State Government. 30. The contents of annexure-2 clearly reveal that the decision imposing ban on admission was temporary in nature only for the purpose of obtaining the inspection reports and views of the C.C.I.M. for judging propriety of permission/recognition granted by the State Government. Hence as a logical consequence of this decision the State Government must be held obliged to act as per the views of C.C.I.M. in the matter of permission/recognition of Ayurvedic Colleges in the State of Bihar. The same conclusion flows from the fact that C.C.I.M. in such matters is the apex body under the Central Act and hence its views over the matters entrusted to it under the Central Act must prevail over the views of the State Government or the University exercising powers under State Acts. 31. The technical objections raised on behalf of the University relating to procedure for affiliation and requirement of approval by the State Government may have substance in appropriate cases but with regard to such Ayurvedic Colleges which have been permitted for several years to enjoy the status of affiliated colleges and have the necessary permission/approval of C.C.I.M., such technical objections cannot be permitted to prevail over the decision and views of C.C.I.M. and affect the future propects of students pursuing their studies in such colleges. In the considered opinion of this court, once the C.C.I.M. has found the college fit to impart teaching in Ayurved and has granted permission accordingly then the State Government and the University must abide by such decision and take all the appropriate decision accordingly. In the considered opinion of this court, once the C.C.I.M. has found the college fit to impart teaching in Ayurved and has granted permission accordingly then the State Government and the University must abide by such decision and take all the appropriate decision accordingly. This view finds support from a judgment of this court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar V/s. The State of Bihar, reported in 1999(3) PLJR 349. Of course in that case this court was considering a matter under the AICTE Act. 32. Since in similar facts the State Government has issued annexue-7 with regard to Ayurvedic College at Motihari hence the petitioners college is entitled for similar treatment. This observation should not be construed to mean that this court has indirectly approved such a decision in the case of Motihari College whose facts are not before this Court. The aforesaid conclusion is otherwise also inevitable in view of the fact that upto 1993-94 batch the students of this college were permitted to take the BAMS examination on the basis of permission/provisional permission of the C.C.I.M. as well as the State Government and thereafter again such permission has been accorded in explicit terms by C.C.I.M. vide annexure-6 for 30 students for 1997-98 batch. There is nothing on record to show that the standard of the college was different during the intervening period i.e. for the sessions 1994-95 and 1995-96. In such a situation a presumption can be validly drawn that the state of affairs which existed earlier and are existing now have existed in the intervening period also. 33. In view of aforesaid discussions and findings the prayer made in C.W.J.C.No. 5487/98 is allowed and the respondents particularly the University is directed to allow the students of Swami Raghvendra Charya Tridandi Ayurved College and Hospital, Karjara, Gaya belonging to the sessions 1994-95 and 1995-96 to take the next first BAMS examination conducted by the University. It is expected that such examination shall be held in due course without any delay. In the facts of the case there shall be no order as to costs. 34. Before parting with this judgment it is relevant to observe that an interlocutory application of some students belonging to another Ayurvedic College was disposed of by this Court by order dated 27.6.2000. In the facts of the case there shall be no order as to costs. 34. Before parting with this judgment it is relevant to observe that an interlocutory application of some students belonging to another Ayurvedic College was disposed of by this Court by order dated 27.6.2000. The relevant submission of the intervenors to the effect that they belonged to sessions earlier to 1994-95 and therefore not covered by a decision of the State Government to ban further admission was noted by this Court without going into the merit of their claims because those intervenors belonged to different institutions whose facts were not before this court. Since the intervenors claimed to be adversely affected by the interim order dated 13.1.99 passed in C.W.J.C.No.9406/98 hence they were permitted to file representations before the University which was directed to verify their claims and pass suitable orders, even to permit the intervenors to take the next BAMS examination and the interim orders of this Court would not stand in the way of the University for permitting the intervenors to take the BAMS examination. It is clarified that since the interim order was adversely affecting those intervenors who were not parties before this court hence the aforesaid opportunity was granted to them without actually deciding their right to take the BAMS examination. The aforesaid order dated 27.6.2000 should not be taken as a decision on merits relating to the institution/college to which the intervenors belonged. Several similar interlocutory applications filed at the last stage of hearing of these cases are not being decided either way because the facts of concerned institutions are not before this court and in view of this final judgment the interim order would also cease to be effective. However, it is expected that the University, the State Government as well as the C.C.I.M. shall hold a high level meeting and if required take an uniform decision on rational principles with regard to all the similarly situated students of sessions prior to 1994-95, like the interveners whose application was disposed of on 27.6.2000. The concerned respondents are directed to take such a decision expeditiously and preferably within two months from today. This observation and direction has been found necessary only in the interest of justice and to obviate any undesired ill effect of interim order dated 13.1.1999.