Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1253 (PNJ)

Castros Homoeo Research Centre v. State Of Punjab

2000-10-13

K.S.GAREWAL, V.K.BALI

body2000
Judgment V.K.BALI, J. 1. By this order, we propose to dispose of two civil miscellaneous applications, bearing No. 21810 of 2000 and 19104 of 2000 in C.W.P. No. 5889 of 2000, former having been filed by the petitioner and the latter by the respondents. Whereas, in C.M. No. 21810 of 2000 prayer is to issue appropriate directions that may result into compliance of order dated 15-6-2000, in C.M. No. 19104 of 2000 filed by the respondents, prayer is to modify the same very order. Naturally, if application filed on behalf of the respondents for modification of order dated 15-6-2000 is dismissed, the one filed by the petitioner, i. e. C.M. No. 21810 of 2000 has to be allowed. It would, thus, be more in the fitness of things to deal with the application filed by the respondents prior in point of time. 2. As mentioned above, prayer in the application is for modification of order dated 15-6-2000. Vide order dated 15-6-2000, while adjourning the case, we had directed the petitioner to admit students in Graded and Direct Degree Course of Homoeopathic Sciences. From reading of the entire order that came to be passed after hearing arguments at length it would be manifest that 50 students could be admitted. Modification/clarification, as mentioned above, in the application is sought to the following extent :- "(i) that admission to the Direct Degree Course be made for 25 seats only.(ii) the College be directed to withdraw the advertisement." 3. In support of the application, it has been pleaded that the University had got the institute inspected on January 14, 2000. The Inspection report was placed before the Board of Management which resolved that till such time the deficiencies pointed out in the inspection report were removed by the Institute, no admission to the College be permitted and further that the students already admitted in the College may be provisionally permitted to appear in the professional examinations which would be only one time concession. All further examinations had to be held only if the training and teaching of the course subsequent to the examination for which concession was granted was conducted with the council prescribed infrastructure duly verified by the University. The result of the Board was conveyed to the College vide letter dated April 22, 2000 which led to filing of the present writ petition. The result of the Board was conveyed to the College vide letter dated April 22, 2000 which led to filing of the present writ petition. It is then pleaded that the institute is running two courses, one is Graded Degree Course and the other is Direct Degree Course. The Graded Degree Course is a condensed course of two years for which only a licensed homoeopathic practitioner can apply whereas Direct Degree Course is a course for four and half years duration where candidates, who have passed 10+2 examination, can compete, on the same terms and conditions, as for PMET. It is then pleaded that in terms of the order of this Court, the applicant University got the inspection conducted of the Institute on August 14. 2000. A copy of the inspection report has been annexed as Annexure A1. A perusal of the report shows that keeping in view the existing infrastructure, the equipment and staff strength, the Inspection Team unanimously opened that the College should be allowed to admit a maximum of 25 students in the Direct Degree Course provided that they arrange at least two class rooms adjoining the existing premises and still further that they shift to their own building by December, 2000. On the basis of the interim order dated June, 15, 2000 the Institute had given an advertisement on August 13, 2000 inviting applications for admission to the Direct Course and this advertisement is stated to be totally unwarranted by a private college. It is in these circumstances that it is further pleaded that the respondent University is approaching this Court by way of present application with the prayer that order dated June 15, 2000 may be modified to the extent that admisison should be limited to 25 seats. Still further, admissions should be made by the respondent University and not by the College at its own level. 4. On notice of this application, petitioner has entered appearance and contested the same by filing written reply. It has been stated by way of preliminary objections that the application for modification is liable to be dismissed on the short ground of material misstatment of facts by the respondents. 4. On notice of this application, petitioner has entered appearance and contested the same by filing written reply. It has been stated by way of preliminary objections that the application for modification is liable to be dismissed on the short ground of material misstatment of facts by the respondents. It has been pleaded in para 6 that the petitioner institute was got inspected by them in terms of the orders of this Court and this averment is false as this Court had not granted any such liberty to them. That being so, the very basis of the instant application being inspection report dated August, 14, 2000, which is not correct, application in hand should be dismissed. The inspection, it has also been pleaded, has been done with an ulterior motive and even otherwise, the inspection report runs in total contrast to the inspection report dated January 14, 2000, submitted by the respondents along with the written statement. The application is also stated to be mala fide and malicious. It is stated that this Court had passed an order after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing both the parties through their counsel at length. Further, the respondents are stated to have not approached this Court with clean hands. Even though time of nearly three months had already elapsed ever since the passing of the order aforesaid, the respondents had done nothing to implement the aforesaid orders and they had shown utter disregard to the said order and their conduct is contumacious. To hide their own guilt, present application has been filed with ulterior motive. It is then pleaded that the petitioner institute fulfils the conditions laid down by the Central Council of Homoeopathy, New Delhi which inspected the petitioner Institute in the month of Dec. 1999 and thereafter granted Permanent Recognition to the petitioner Institute. Of course, while doing so, the Council had imposed conditions, like shifting of the college to a new building before the year end or so on which the Institute would fulfil within the stipulated period. The standards set down by the Council are much more stringent and difficult to be achieved then the standards set down by the University and the Council has granted Permanent Affiliation to the petitioner only after completely satisfying about the petitioner institute. The standards set down by the Council are much more stringent and difficult to be achieved then the standards set down by the University and the Council has granted Permanent Affiliation to the petitioner only after completely satisfying about the petitioner institute. A copy of the communication granting Permanent Recognition to the petitioner is already available on records as Annexure P-9. The Council had permitted the petitioner to admit 50 students for Direct Degree and 30 students for Graded Degree Course and the respondent University cannot reduce the admission strength earlier, sanctioned by the Council. In fact, its action runs contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jaya Gokul Educational Trusts case in Civil Appeal No. 2589 of 2000 : (reported in AIR 2000 SC 1614) wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has held that a body like Central Council of Homoeopathy is supreme. It has further been pleaded that the petitioner institute had been granted year to year affiliation even by the Punjabi University, Patiala only because if fulfilled the various conditions. Even the Punjabi University had allowed 50 and 30 seats to Direct and Graded Degree course and now the respondent University cannot turn around and say that it would allow limited affiliation to the petitioner only for 25 seats of the Direct Degree and it would not grant affiliation to Graded Degree course. The stand of the respondent University is stated to be an attempt to over-reach this Court. 5. On merits, it is stated that the inspection report had not been supplied to the petitioner till date, except with the written statement of the respondents. They have reproduced only a part thereof. The report is totally uncalled for in view of the law laid down by this Court as also the Hon ble Supreme Court, particularly after grant of permanent recognition by the Central Council of Homoeopathy, New Delhi which is a body superior to the respondent University. While denying the averments made in the application, it is further pleaded that the respondents have made a false statement before this Court. Petitioner received a FAX message in the late evening of August 11, 2000 to the effect that it would be inspected by the respondents on August 14, 2000. The next two days being holidays the petitioner institute could not pass on any message to the respondents as the numbers were not replying. Petitioner received a FAX message in the late evening of August 11, 2000 to the effect that it would be inspected by the respondents on August 14, 2000. The next two days being holidays the petitioner institute could not pass on any message to the respondents as the numbers were not replying. Finally, the petitioner conveyed to the respondents on the morning of August 14, 2000 that the inspection was totally uncalled for, In spite of this, inspection was made . It is further pleaded that the respondents ought to have made an inspection of the upcoming building of the petitioner which is to have all the facilities. However only old rented building, for the reasons known to them was inspected. The constitution of the Inspection Committee has also been objected to as it is stated that Dr. K.K. Dhiman was an opponent of the Director of the institute as the latter had filed a writ petition in this Court challenging his election and as such he was totally biased to the petitioner institute. Moreover as per the guidelines of the Central Council of Homoeopathy, New Delhi, no person from the same region is to be associated in the inspection. Dr. Dhiman is Principal of Chandigarh College and not of Ludhiana College, as wrongly mentioned in the inspection report. Even otherwise the Inspection team is stated to have given wrong facts as the petitioner institute has 19 full timer teaching staff, 10 part timer staff members and 14 members of Para medical staff. The petitioner wishes to recruit new staff and augment its facilities. It is further pleaded that last year also they did not grant affiliation to the petitioner and allowed admission to the petitioner at a very late stage, due to which the petitioner institute got a very poor response in petition. This year, the respondents have not even taken any step to fill in the seats. Resultantly, the petitioner has already suffered a loss of more than Rs. 35 (sic) lacs and it is likely to lose the similar amount this year as well. It is further pleaded that the petitioner institute is fulfilling each and every condition imposed by the Punjabi University and condition of shifting to new building has been explained above. Resultantly, the petitioner has already suffered a loss of more than Rs. 35 (sic) lacs and it is likely to lose the similar amount this year as well. It is further pleaded that the petitioner institute is fulfilling each and every condition imposed by the Punjabi University and condition of shifting to new building has been explained above. The work is going on and the petitioner is making all out efforts to shift to the new building by the end of November itself, even though time has been granted up to December. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case with their assistance. 7. It could not be disputed during the course of arguments and has also been mentioned in our order dated June, 15, 2000 that the petitioner institute is conducting various courses like Homoeopathic Graded and Direct Degree courses since the year 1992 and prior to issuance of notification, Annexure P3, it was affiliated to Punjabi University, Patiala having all rights and privileges that accrued to it from such an affiliation. Vide notification, Annexure P3, all colleges and other educational institutions imparting education in health sciences in the State of Punjab, previosuly admtted or affiliated to Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjabi University, Patiala and other Universities have now been affiliated to Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot. It is again not disputed and is so mentioned in our order dated June 15, 2000 that by dint of notification, Annexure P3, affiliation of the petitioner University with Baba Farid University of Health Sciences is automatic. The Vice-Chancellor had granted provisional affiliation to petitioner institute in anticipation of approval of Academic Council for the Session 1998-99 for BHMC Part I for admitting only 50 students, vide Annexure P1 dated May 27, 1998. Petitioner institute has also been granted permanent recognition by the Central Council of Homoeopathy, New Delhi, Condition No. 1 pertaining to construction of building on priority basis, while giving the approval, has so far not been fulfilled but it is the positive case of the petitioner that all out efforts are being made to fulfil it and same would certainly be fulfilled before the stipulated date. The earlier inspection report, reference whereof has been made in our order dated June 15, 2000, would manifest that even in view of the respondents, the petitioner is taking keen interest in coming up to the mark. It is on these basic facts and also considering the future of the students, that we had directed the petitioner to admit students for Graded and Direct Degree Courses in Homoeopathy to the tune it was permitted by the University to which it was earlier affiliated. Order dated June 15, 2000 was not made subject to any further inspection by the respondents. Yet, such an inspection has been made and deficiencies, which were not even mentioned earlier, have also been pointed out. We find no change in circumstances that may occasion or necessitate modification in our order dated June 15, 2000. We will not go into the question as to whether inspection conducted now and the report that has come on account of such inspection, is biased. Suffice it, however, to say that all through arguments were addressed in this Court, nothing at all could be pointed out that the petitioner institute was in any way or manner indulging in profiteering. In fact, the Incharge of the Institute, Dr. Castro was praised as an eminent educationist. It is not denied that the petitioner institute has been granted permanent recognition by the Central Council of Homoeopathy, which inspected it in the month of Dec. 1999. It is thereafter only that permanent recognition was granted to the petitioner. No doubt, while doing so, the Council had imposed condition of shifting of the college to the new building before the year end and, as mentioned above, it is the positive case of the petitioner that shifting would be done before the stipulated date. In Jaya Gokul Educational Trust V/s. Commissioner and Secretary to Government Higher Education (2000) 5 SCC 231 : (AIR 2000 SC 1614), the Hon ble Supreme Court held that "when fresh facts come to light after approval is granted by the Council, the State Government may write to the Council for the latter to take appropriate action". In Jaya Gokul Educational Trust V/s. Commissioner and Secretary to Government Higher Education (2000) 5 SCC 231 : (AIR 2000 SC 1614), the Hon ble Supreme Court held that "when fresh facts come to light after approval is granted by the Council, the State Government may write to the Council for the latter to take appropriate action". In the present case, as mentioned above, permanent recognition has been granted by the Central Council of Homoeopathy and if some facts had come to the notice of the respondents, that might entail cancellation of such recognition, same should have been brought to the notice of the said Council. 8. In view of what has been said above, C.M. No. 19104 of 2000 seeking modification of our order dated June 15, 2000, is dismissed. As mentioned above, if C.M. No. 19104 of 2000 is dismissed, C.M. No. 21810 of 2000 has to be allowed. Consequently, a direction is issued to the respondents to take all steps that may be required, to comply with order dated June, 15, 2000 in its letter and spirit.Order accordingly.