ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent University and Central Council of Indian Medicine. 2. The present writ petitioner was elected as a member of the Central Council of Indian Medicine vide notification dated 20.06.2012 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Ayurveda Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (in short AYUSH) in his capacity as a professor of Suryamukhi Dinesh Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospitals, Ranchi under the Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag w. e. f. 05.07.2011. 3. Petitioner being aggrieved by letter of Ministry of AYUSH dated 04.05.2016 and 24.05.2016 approached this Court in W. P. (S) No. 2943 of 2016 asserting that the tenure of member/president/vice president is for five years, however, they are permitted to continue till their successor are elected/nominated as per Section 7 (i) of the Indian Medical Central Council (IMCC) Act, 1970. He also asserted that the term of membership of the petitioner should be calculated w.e.f. from the date of notification dated 20.06.2012 for the term of five years. The impugned letter had treated tenure of petitioner as member of the Central Council of Indian Medicine w.e.f. 05.07.2011. 4. The respondent Central Council of Indian Medicine resisted the prayer. Apart from other grounds it also took stand that the respondent Vinoba Bhave University even after request has not reconstituted the present Ayurveda faculty and sent a notified copy of newly constituted faculty with tenure. 5. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in W. P. (S) No. 2943 of 2016 vide judgment dated 20.01.2017 framed two issues for adjudication, which read as under: “(i) Whether Section 7 (i) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 provides that a member of the CCIM shall continue, till the expiry of his term or till a successor is nominated/elected, whichever is later? (ii) Whether from the date of election or from the date of publication of Gazette Notification is the tenure of the member i.e. 5 years is to be computed ? ” 6. Learned Single Judge came to the following findings and dismissed the writ petitions: “5. From the aforesaid provisions, it is quite apparent that the term of the elected member is co-terminus with the term of faculty member elected under Section 3 (1) (b) of the IMCC Act, 1970. ” 6. Learned Single Judge came to the following findings and dismissed the writ petitions: “5. From the aforesaid provisions, it is quite apparent that the term of the elected member is co-terminus with the term of faculty member elected under Section 3 (1) (b) of the IMCC Act, 1970. Section 7 (2) of the IMCC Act, 1970 is the qualifying clause to determine the term of the faculty members. Under section 3 (1) b, a member elected to CCIM can continue in the office, as long as his faculty term is not expired. The election of the faculty member is totally independent of the election of CCIM under section 3 (1) b of the IMCC Act, 1970. The notification dated 02.08.2011 vide Annexure-R/1 to the counter affidavit of the respondent no. 1 indicates that the valid tenure of the petitioner's membership in Suryamukhi Dinesh Ayurvedic Medical College, which is affiliated with the Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh is 05.07.11 to 05.07.2016. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of K.B. Nagur, M.D. (Ayurvedic) versus Union of India reported in (2012) 4 SCC 483 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner in the instant case in view of the provisions of Section 7 (2) of the IMCC Act, 1970. The present case does not pertain to the term of the member of the CCIM but the issue relates to faculty tenure of the petitioner, which is requisite qualification under the statute to continue as a member of the College under Section 3 (1) (b) of IMCC Act, 1970. Even after extension of the term of the faculty by virtue of election or otherwise, it will not automatically extend the term of the CCIM in view of the provisions of Section 7 of the IMCC Act, 1970 and once the membership of the petitioner expires, it will be followed by a fresh election in view of the deemed provisions. Therefore, the decisions cited by the petitioner is of no assistance to the petitioner. Rule 24 of the Indian Medicine Central Council (Election) Rules, 1975 envisage with the heading “Intimation of name of elected person to the Central Government. Therefore, the decisions cited by the petitioner is of no assistance to the petitioner. Rule 24 of the Indian Medicine Central Council (Election) Rules, 1975 envisage with the heading “Intimation of name of elected person to the Central Government. The name of the person elected shall be intimated by the Registrar of the University to the Central Government, who shall take steps to publish the name of the elected person in the Official Gazette.” Therefore, the delay in publication of the Notification in the official Gazette will not render the operation of the provisions of IMCC Act, 1970, a nugatory. 6. In order to examine Section 7 (i) of the IMCC Act, 1970, which envisages the date of election of a member, who assumes office, the date of election is considered as the date of assumption of office by the member but the Notification mentions about the date from which the members shall be elected. 7. Viewed thus, since the term of the membership of the petitioner has come to an end on 04.07.2016 as per Annexure-4 of the writ application, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition sans merit is dismissed. ” 7. As is apparent from the findings recorded at para 5 quoted hereinabove, with regard to the tenure of petitioner's membership in Suryamukhi Dinesh Ayurvedic Medical College, Ranchi, which is affiliated with the Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag from 05.07.2011 to 05.07.2016, it was also held that the present case does not pertain to the term of the member of the Central Council of Indian Medicine, but the issue relates to faculty tenure of the petitioner, which is requisite qualification under the statute to continue as a member of the college under Section 3 (1)(b) of Indian Medical Central Council Act, 1970. Even after extension of the term of the faculty by virtue of election or otherwise, it will not automatically extend the term of CCIM in view of the provisions of Section 7 of the Act of 1970 and once the membership of the petitioner expires, it will be followed by a fresh election in view of the deemed provisions. Petitioner being aggrieved by the instant judgment dated 20.01.2017 has preferred a Letters Patent Appeal bearing No. 67 of 2017. 8. In the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the letter dated 05.07.2016 issued by the respondent no. Petitioner being aggrieved by the instant judgment dated 20.01.2017 has preferred a Letters Patent Appeal bearing No. 67 of 2017. 8. In the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the letter dated 05.07.2016 issued by the respondent no. 2, Secretary, Central Council of Indian Medicine, New Delhi, Annexure-7/1 addressed to the petitioner inter alia in the following terms: “Whereas, the Government of India vide Notification S.O. 1416 (E) dated 20.06.2012 mentioned the term of your membership to the CCIM as under : “With effect from the 5th Day of July, 2011 for a period of five years, or until his successor has been duly elected, or till he ceases to be a member of the Faculty of Ayurveda of Vinoba Bhave University. The copy of the same may be seen at Annexure 1. Whereas, the President, CCIM vide letter dated 29.02.2016 (copy enclosed) at annexure 2 has informed to the Government of India as under:- “The membership of Dr. Amitabh Kumar representative of Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag, Jharkhand is going to be ceased as a member of Faculty of Ayurved of the said University from 04.07.2016. As per provision under Section 7 (2) of Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, he will deem to have vacated his seat in the Council accordingly.” The copy of the same may be seen at Annexure-2. Subsequently, the Government of India vide letter dated 04.05.2016 and reminder dated 27.06.2016 has asked the Registrar of the Vinoba Bhave University to conduct the election by mentioning that the term of existing member Dr. Amitabh Kumar is going to be expire on 04.07.2016. The copy of the same may be seen at Annexure 3 & 4. In view of provision of section 7 (2) of Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, You shall be deemed to have vacated your seat in the council accordingly.” 9. When the instant matter was taken up on 17.03.2017, learned counsel for the University and Union of India both were asked to seek instruction in the matter as also I. A. No. 1285 of 2017 and file their response. 10. Respondent Central Council of Indian Medicine and Vinoba Bhave University both have filed their counter affidavit. 11. When the instant matter was taken up on 17.03.2017, learned counsel for the University and Union of India both were asked to seek instruction in the matter as also I. A. No. 1285 of 2017 and file their response. 10. Respondent Central Council of Indian Medicine and Vinoba Bhave University both have filed their counter affidavit. 11. The respondent-CCIM has in its affidavit referred to the background of the tenure of the petitioner's membership as per the notification dated 20.06.2012 and also the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court dated 20.01.2017 in W. P. (S) No. 2943 of 2016, Annexure-C. It is also averred that election for the post of President and Vice-President has been held and two persons named at para 5 of the counter affidavit of the CCIM, have been elected. Reference is also made to the provisions of Section 4 of the Indian Medical Central Council Act, 1970 regarding the jurisdiction of the Central Government to decide any dispute relating to election of the Central Council. 12. The respondent-University has in its affidavit made categorical statement that Suryamukhi Dinesh Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital situated at Ranchi is the only permanent affiliated College of the Vinoba Bhave University with effect from academic session 20052006 as evident from the letter of the University dated 01.12.2005. Petitioner Dr. Amitabh Kumar, Professor & Principal of the College in question has been appointed as Dean of faculty of Ayurveda on 24.01.2013, which was extended on 08.10.2015 till further orders. It is also stated that the Registrar of the University has intimated to the Secretary of Central Council of Indian Medicine vide letter dated 07.05.2016 that petitioner is permanent faculty member of the aforesaid College under the University and presently Dean faculty of Ayurveda. There is no provision under the University Act to reconstruct a permanent faculty of an affiliated College. 13. Learned counsel for University has referred to the statement made at paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit and stated that the University has earlier replied that petitioner is a permanent member of the faculty. There is no provision under the University Act to reconstruct a permanent faculty of an affiliated College. 13. Learned counsel for University has referred to the statement made at paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit and stated that the University has earlier replied that petitioner is a permanent member of the faculty. This fact is also evident from the Gazette Notification dated 20.06.2012 Annexure-5 that the petitioner is elected member of the University with effect from 05.07.2011 for a period of five years or until his successor has been duly elected or till he ceases to be a member of the faculty of Ayurveda of Vinoba Bhave University. Neither any successor of the petitioner has been elected nor he ceased to be a member of faculty of Ayurveda of the University, there is no question of expiry of tenure of the membership of the petitioner of the University. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tenure of the petitioner in terms of Section 7 (1) of the Act of 1970 is for a term of five years from the date of his election or nomination, as the case may, or until his successor shall have been duly elected or nominated, whichever is earlier. 15. The Respondent-CCIM has on erroneous understanding of the fact that the petitioner's tenure as permanent member of such faculty of Ayurveda of the college in question has expired, held that he would not be entitled to continue beyond a period of five years w.e.f. 05.07.2011 as per the notification dated 20.06.2012. It is submitted that the stand of the University clearly reflected that the tenure of the petitioner as a faculty member of Ayurveda under the University has not come to an end. Therefore, by virtue of Section 7(1) of the Act of 1970, tenure continues till his successor is elected or nominated. 16. Considered the aforesaid relevant material facts and the submissions of the parties. It is not evident from perusal of the judgment dated 20.01.2017 passed in W. P. (S) No. 2943 of 2016 that the present stand of the University was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge when the issue relating to tenure of the petitioner was under consideration. Findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in answer of the two questions posed have been quoted hereinabove. Findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in answer of the two questions posed have been quoted hereinabove. The judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge is in appeal before the learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 67 of 2017. 17. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the issue at hand relating to continuance of tenure of the membership of the petitioner has nexus with the issues decided by the learned Single Judge in the previous writ petition i.e. W. P. (S) No. 2943 of 2016. Since the matter is still sub-judice before the learned Division Bench of this Court in order to observe propriety of judicial discipline, this Court considers it proper that this matter to be listed along with L.P.A. No. 67 of 2017 before the learned Division Bench for consideration of the issues in proper perspective. 18. Let the matter be accordingly placed along with L.P.A. No. 67 of 2017 before the learned Division Bench of this Court.