Summary
The Council challenged rulings treating permission for a later academic year as curing denial of permission for the preceding year’s postgraduate Ayurveda admissions. The Court held that the statutory permission scheme and annual minimum-standard deadline required eligibility for the particular session. Later compliance could not retrospectively cure earlier deficiencies. The appeals were allowed and the institutions’ writ petitions dismissed; the earlier assurance that admitted 2018–19 students would not be disturbed was recorded.
Issues
- Whether permission granted for a subsequent academic session retrospectively validated admissions for an earlier session in which minimum standards were not fulfilled.
Provisions considered
- Sections 13A, 13B and 13C, Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970The prior-permission scheme, consequences of absence of permission and transitional treatment of existing institutions required compliance through the prescribed process. (¶¶ 13-22, 27-30)
- Section 22 and Section 36(1)(j), Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970The Council’s minimum-standard and regulation-making powers formed part of the permission framework. (¶ 23-27)
- Regulation 3(1)(a), 2016 Regulations considered in the judgmentMinimum infrastructure and teaching/training requirements had to be fulfilled by 31 December for admission permission in the coming academic session. (¶ 32-33)
Held
- Opening a new or higher course, including postgraduate training, required prior Central Government permission under Section 13A. Its scheme provided consideration by the Council and Government, opportunities to be heard and the possibility of a fresh scheme after refusal. (¶¶ 13-22, 27-30)
- The relevant annual minimum-standard requirement was session-specific. Eligibility for admissions in the coming academic session depended on fulfilment by 31 December of the preceding year; subsequent permission did not cure the earlier year’s deficiencies. (¶ 32-33)
- Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal had rejected the same attempt to carry later permission back to a deficient earlier session. The High Court erred in following its own earlier decisions instead of applying that Supreme Court authority and the statutory scheme. (¶ 34-39)
- When issuing notice, the Court had recorded the Council’s assurance that students already admitted to the 2018–19 postgraduate courses would not be disturbed, while considering the legal question raised in the appeals. (¶ 7)
Result
Appeals allowed; the impugned Division Bench and Single Judge judgments were set aside and the original writ petitions dismissed. Pending applications disposed of in those terms; no costs.