Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1263 (AP)

J. Surisha Dai D/o. Nagaiah v. NTR University

2012-12-20

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2012
Judgment: In this batch of writ petitions, the legality of the admission of the petitioners into the 1st year of Batchelor of Ayurved Medicine & Surgery (BAMS) Course into two institutions, namely, Sri Vaageswari Ayurvedic Medical College at Kurnool and Vaagdevi Ayurvedic Medical College at Warangal for the academic year 2009-10, arises for consideration. 2. The respective educational Societies intended to establish the two colleges mentioned above, to impart education in Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery. As required under the prescribed procedure, applications were made to Dr.N.T.R. University of Health Sciences (for short ‘the University’), Vijayawada, for provisional affiliation, and to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, for permission. It was only on grant of provisional affiliation that an application was required to be made to the Central Council of Indian Medicine (for short ‘Council’), for approval. The College can be established only on approval being accorded by the council. The university granted provisional affiliation. The Government also accorded permission, subject to the approval by the Council. The Entrance Examination for selection of candidates for admission into 1st year of BAMS course was conducted sometime in June 2009. The schedule for counselling for allotment of candidates to various institutions was determined. 3. The University happens to be the agency to conduct counselling and to allot the candidates through its Convener. Since the schedule was in an advanced stage and the factum of granting approval to the two institutions, referred to above, was not cleared, the University addressed a letter, dated 10-07-2009, to the Council to inform it as to whether approval was accorded to those institutions or not. No reply is said to have been received. Therefore, it included these two institutions in the list of approved colleges for admission of students in the counselling. It is in this process, that the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions, came to be admitted in the 1st year BAMS course in the two institutions. 4. The University received a letter, dated 05-10-2009, from the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Ayurved to the effect that the applications submitted by the two institutions for grant of permission were rejected. Taking note of this development, the University issued a fresh notification, dated 21-10-2009, cancelling the admissions made to the two institutions and proposing to conduct the counselling once again, so that the effected candidates can be adjusted, wherever possible. Taking note of this development, the University issued a fresh notification, dated 21-10-2009, cancelling the admissions made to the two institutions and proposing to conduct the counselling once again, so that the effected candidates can be adjusted, wherever possible. The notification is challenged in W.P. Nos.22480, 23610 and 23745 of 2009. 5. The Writ Petitions were admitted and interim orders were passed, enabling the petitioners therein to continue the study. Thereafter, writ petitions have been filed by the same individuals seeking directions to enable them to continue the course, at various stages. 6. On coming to know that the admissions have already been effected by the University, the Council addressed a letter to the Government of Andhra Pradesh on 18-11-2009, directing that the candidates that were admitted to the two institutions may be adjusted in other institutions. The petitioners submit that their admissions were made by the Convener, appointed by the University, and they did not make any misrepresentation, warranting cancellation of admissions. They submit that though steps were initiated for taking up counselling for the effected candidates, their chances of being selected are almost bleak, since two colleges have been taken away from the list of approved institutions. They further submit that the council has also recognized their admissions to be valid and directed that they be admitted in other institutions, and that it should not make any difference whether they have studied in the institution, they are admitted, and on the other hand, it would be just impossible for such large number of students to be admitted in the other colleges, which are very limited in number in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 7. The Council filed a detailed counter – affidavit. It is stated that on receiving the applications from the two institutions, inspection teams were sent as required under the relevant provisions of law. It is stated that the inspection teams recorded a finding to the effect that the applicants have not fulfilled the conditions and without any loss of time, the orders of rejection was passed. They submit that the petitioners did not derive any right on account of the improper admission effected by the Convener. 8. No counter – affidavit is filed by the University or the State of Andhra Pradesh. 9. They submit that the petitioners did not derive any right on account of the improper admission effected by the Convener. 8. No counter – affidavit is filed by the University or the State of Andhra Pradesh. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government, learned Standing Counsel for the University and the learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health. 10. There is absolutely no controversy about the facts that gave rise to filing of the writ petitions. It is only some communication gap that resulted in the situation. Prayer of the petitioners in the writ petitions was not with reference to any institution. It is the University that prepares a list of Institutions into which admission can be made, after verifying from the Government and the Council. The University was very much aware of the steps being taken by the two institutions. The reason is that provisional affiliation was granted during the academic year 2008-09 to enable the two institutions to seek approval from the Council. It is not as if the University did not make any effort to verify as to whether approval was granted by the Council or not. On its part, a letter was addressed on 10-02-2009 as regards inclusion of the two institutions in the list of approved colleges. Reply did not come from the council. The University has chosen to give the benefit of doubt to the colleges and included them. Had it refused to include them despite there not being any negative answer from the council, the loss would not have been that of the colleges, but of the students who could have been admitted against the seats. It is in this context that the University included the institutions in the list and the petitioners came to be admitted. 11. By the time, the Council sent its reply to the University the seats in the Institutions were filled by the Convener. The University, no doubt, took immediate action by issuing the impugned notification straightaway cancelling the admissions and proposing to undertake counselling once again. However, by that time, valuable rights have accrued to the petitioners and their career could not have been unsettled, that too, without issuing any notice to them. This is not a case where the admissions of the petitioners are into institutions, which sprang over night. However, by that time, valuable rights have accrued to the petitioners and their career could not have been unsettled, that too, without issuing any notice to them. This is not a case where the admissions of the petitioners are into institutions, which sprang over night. The council may have refused to accord approval on account of certain reasons. The fact however remains that preparatory measures were taken one year in advance, so much so the University also granted provisional affiliation. Therefore, the study being undertaken by the petitioners in the respective institutions, cannot be said to be of no worth, or consequence. The University has been ensuring that the Instructions are imparted by qualified teachers and examinations are conducted duly verifying all the relevant factors. 12. The proposal mootedby the Council for allotment of the candidates into other institutions is also taken into account. However, the number of candidates is so large that it is difficult to adjust them in the Institutions of Ayurvedic Medicine that are functioning in the State, which are very limited. The facilities that are made available for the students are specific. It is difficult to expect the institutions to provide additional infrastructure for such large number of students. No harm would be caused to anyone, if the petitioners are permitted to complete the course in the respective institutions. Once the council has treated the admissions as valid, the petitioners deserve to be permitted to complete the Course and the University must confer degrees on them, on successful completion of the course. 13. Hence, the Writ Petitions are allowed and it is directed that the petitioners shall be entitled to complete their course in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. This order, however, shall not confer any right upon the respective institutions to admit the candidates for any other academic year, unless specific approval is accorded by the Council. It is needless to mention that the degree conferred upon the petitioners shall be recognized by all the agencies including the Central Council of Indian Medicine. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. The miscellaneous petitions filed in the writ petitions shall also stand disposed of.