CWP No. 17757 of 2011. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 17757 of 2011. [O&M] Date of Decision: 1st November, 2011. Mai Bhago Ayurvedic College & Hospital Petitioner through Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Chopra, Advocate. Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents through Mr. S.S.Sandhu, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 17491, 17757, 17820, 17886, 17961, 18034, 18103, 18161 and 18961 of 2011 as common issues are involved in these cases. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 17757 of 2011. [2]. The petitioner is an Ayurvedic College and Hospital which came to be established in the year 1995 and became functional from the Academic Session 1995-96. The petitioner has been granted affiliation/approval/recognition etc. by the concerned bodies/stake holders from time to time. It may be sufficient to mention here that in terms of the Indian Medicine Council Act, 1970, the Central Council of Indian Medicine ['CCIM'] used to be the Prescribed Statutory Regulatory Body to approve the infrastructure and other facilities required to be maintained by the Ayurvedic colleges. Thereafter, an amendment was carried out in the said Act on 7.11.2003, whereby CWP No. 17757 of 2011. ::-2-:: the CCIM became the Recommendatory Body and the final decision with regard to recognition or establishment or continuance of an Ayurvedic College was to be taken by the Central Government. The CCIM has, subsequently and with the prior approval of the Central Government, framed the Indian Medicine Council [Permission to Existing Colleges] Rules, 2006 laying down the infrastructural parameters required to be maintained by the existing Medical Colleges for continuation of their recognition/permission under the 1970 Act. [3]. The controversy that has arisen for consideration in these cases is an outcome of the Government of India circular dated 18.03.2011 [Annexure P-5] which is said to have been issued in purported exercise of its powers under the 1970 Act as amended on 07.11.2003. The aforesaid circular lays down the minimum standard/norms for granting permission to the Ayurvedic Sidha and Unani Colleges for the Academic Session 2011-2012. The Circular lays down the following minimum standard norms:- “1. For under Graduate Courses:- Sr. No. Parameters Minimum Standards Requirements for conditional permission for the academic Session 2011-12. 1. Teaching Staff for under Graduate ASU Colleges [i] At least 90% of the total requisite teaching Staff as per the CCIM’s draft norms with no minimum requirement of teachers from modern faculty. And [ii] 50% higher faculty [Professor + Reader] of the total required higher faculty staff as per the CCIM’s draft norms. And [iii] Availability of at least one teacher in each Department. 2. Number of beds of teaching hospital for under graduate ASU colleges For hospitals of Ayurveda and Siddha colleges; Student-Bed Ratio will be 1:2. However, minimum 100 bedded hospital is required. For hospitals of Unani College: Student-Bed Ratio will be 1:1. However, minimum 50 bedded hospital is required. 3. OPD attendance of teaching hospital for UG courses in ASU Colleges Daily average OPD attendance of the OPDs will be required on an average 100 patients per day during 1st January, 2010 to 31st December, 2010. 4. Bed Occupancy in IPD of teaching hospital for under graduate ASU colleges. Minimum 40% bed occupancy during 1st January, 2010 to 31st December, 2010. CWP No. 17757 of 2011. ::-3-:: 2. For Post-Graduate Course:- Sr. No. Parameters Minimum Standards Requirements for conditional permission for the academic Session 2011-12. 1. Teaching and non-teaching staff for post Graduate ASU Colleges A. All Ayurvedida and Siddha Colleges are required to be recommended on the basis of provisions as exist in the notified PG regulations for Ayurveda entitled ‘The Indian Medicine Central Council [Postgraduate Ayurveda Education] Regulations, 2005’, except for the following two modifications which are separately being notified:- [a] The students teachers ratio of 1:3 shall be allowed instead of 1:2 in case of professor for PG students to be admitted per year. [b]. The minimum annual average bed occupancy in the IPD of the hospital shall be at least 50% instead of 60%. It is reiterated that all the provisions [measurable and non-measurable] as contained in the Indian Medicine Central Council [Postgraduate Ayurveda Education] Regulations, 2005 shall be examined by CCIM before sending their recommendations. B.All Unani Colleges are required to be recommended on the basis of provisions as exist in the notified PG regulations for Unani entitled ‘The Indian Medicine Central Council [Postgraduate Unani Education Regulations, 2007’. It is reiterated that all the provisions [measurable and non-measurable] as contained in the Indian Medicine Central Council [Postgraduate Unani Education] Regulations, 2007 shall be examined by CCIM before sending their recommendation. 2. Number of beds of teaching hospital for Post graduate ASU colleges 1. For Post-graduate Course in Ayurveda and Siddha- Minimum 150 beds are required including 50 beds for 10 PG seats in clinical subjects with UG intake capacity of 50 students. However, no. of beds in hospital for PG seats in clinical subjects will be maintained in 1:5 student – bed ratio in addition to beds required for UG seats. 2. For PG Courses in Unani:- Minimum 75 beds are required including 25 beds for 5 PG seats in clinical subjects with UG intake capacity of 50 students. However, total no. of beds in hospital for PG seats in clinical subjects will be maintained in 1:5 student – bed ratio in addition to beds required for UG seats. 3. OPD attendance of teaching hospital for PG courses in ASU Colleges. Daily average OPD attendance of the OPDs will be required on an average 100 patients per day during 1st January, 2010 to 31st December, 2010. 4. Bed Occupancy in IPD of teaching hospital for post graduate ASU colleges. Minimum 40% bed occupancy during 1st January, 2010 to 31st December, 2010. CWP No. 17757 of 2011. ::-4-:: [4]. The undisputed facts are that the CCIM conducted an inspection of the petitioner-College on 28/29.03.2011 for the purpose of admissions in the academic Session 2011-12. The case of the petitioner College is that the revised minimum standard norms laid down by the Central Government vide the afore-stated Circular dated 18.03.2011 were not communicated to it till then nor was the College apprised of the condition to provide and maintain the minimum standard norms laid down in the said circular as on the date of inspection. It is stated that most of the Colleges received the afore- stated Circular on 4th and 5th of April, 2011, i.e., much after the inspections though it is claimed on behalf of the Union of India that these minimum standard norms had already been prescribed. [5]. The petitioner-Colleges, as soon as they received the revised minimum standard norms as laid down vide the afore-stated circular, asserted that the they have complied with these norms and each one of the colleges has recruited the minimum number of teaching staff to run the hospital with requisite OPD attendance as well as the bed occupancy in consonance with the norms prescribed by the Circular dated 18.03.2011. An intimation to this effect was given by the College[s] to the Committee constituted by the Government of India to accord personal hearing to their representatives on 23.06.2011. [6]. It may be mentioned here that the last date for admissions for the Academic Session 2011 was 31.10.2011. The case of the petitioner Colleges is that the requisite infrastructure/ facilities as revised by the Central Government have been ensured by them well in advance and much before the commencement of the CWP No. 17757 of 2011. ::-5-:: Academic Session 2011-12. The petitioners' case is that notwithstanding the fact that the relevant records in support of their above stated plea were produced before the Committee leaving no uncertainty regarding removal of the deficiencies and to bring the infrastructural facilities at par with the Circular dated 18.03.2011, the Government of India has failed to take notice of their plea and refused to accord them the necessary permission to admit the students for the Academic Session 2011-12. [7]. At this stage, it may also be noticed that the Union of India had issued subsequent instructions dated 21.03.2011 [Annexure R-5] wherein it was laid down that the requisite infrastructure to be made available by the College[s] had to be in place at the time of inspection, held in March, 2011 and the subsequent addition[s] will not be taken into consideration for the purpose of granting recognition/permission. [8]. The principal question that arises for consideration, is whether the petitioner-Colleges deserve indulgence at the hands of the Prescribed Authority, namely, the Union of India to carry out supplementary inspection of the available infrastructure well in advance before the actual commencement of the academic Session 2011-12? [9]. In my considered view, the petitioner Colleges, notwithstanding the self-serving executive instructions issued illogically by the Central Government at a belated stage on 21.03.2011, were entitled to be granted some reasonable time to comply with the Circular dated 18.03.2011. I say so for the reasons that firstly, the circular dated 18.03.2011 laying down the revised CWP No. 17757 of 2011. ::-6-:: minimum standard norms ought to have been issued by the Central Government sufficiently before the CCIM conducted the inspection of the colleges in March, 2011. In other words, it was imperative upon the authorities to firstly inform the colleges about the revised infrastructure and thereafter only should have carried out the inspections. Contrary to it, the inspections were carried out on 28th and 29th March, 2011 and it is quite possible that the revised norms by that time were not factually brought to the notice of the petitioner Colleges. Even if it is assumed that the revised norms did come to the notice of the Colleges, there was hardly any breathing time to recruit more teachers and/or expand the hospital infrastructure to meet the minimum standards laid down in the Circular dated 18.03.2011. The fact of the matter is that after the inspections were carried out in March, 2011, the Colleges were given an opportunity of hearing by the Committee constituted by the Central Government and it was pleaded by them before the said Committee that the revised minimum standard norms laid down by the Central Government have since been complied with and hence they should be given permission to admit the students for the Academic Session 2011-12. [10]. The admissions admittedly started only with the commencement of the first counselling in September, 2011 and the last date of admissions was 31.10.2011. There was thus sufficient time with the CCIM and the Central Government, as the case may be, to re-inspect the Colleges at their costs and ascertain the the availability of the facilities in consonance with the parameters laid down by the Central Government. CWP No. 17757 of 2011. ::-7-:: [11]. In my considered view, there is some substance in the contention of the Colleges that they have suffered some genuine difficulties, in creation of the infrastructure as per the revised minimum standard norms. For example, the Colleges are required to follow the 'reservation policy' and it is stated at the Bar that despite issuing several advertisements, no suitable candidates from the reserved categories have come forward to seek appointment. It is also stated that adhoc or temporary appointments from the open category against the reserved category posts are not permitted by the CCIM/Union of India. Such like difficulties need to be looked into and suitably remedied by the CCIM or the Central Government by granting reasonable time to make recruitments in which a representative of the Government of India can also be associated besides the University Observers. In the event of non-availability of the reserved category candidates, there appears to be no rhyme or reason to preclude the Colleges to recruit the candidates belonging to general category against the reserved posts on adhoc/contractual basis so that the petitioner Colleges are able to fulfill the condition of infrastructural facilities in terms of the Circular dated 18.03.2011, it would serve the cause of the student community as well. Such like practical difficulties have unfortunately not been visualized or addressed while revising the minimum standard norms. The petitioners would therefore be justified in asking for some additional time to remove such like deficiencies to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned and this factor shall be required to be kept in view while re-inspecting the colleges in terms of the directions issued here-in-after. CWP No. 17757 of 2011. ::-8-:: [12]. The contention raised on behalf of the Union of India that last year when permission was granted to the petitioner Colleges, they were required to provide 100% infrastructural facilities by 31.12.2010 or that the non-availability of such infrastructure facilities at the time of inspection in March, 2011, rightly dis-entitled them to seek permission for the Academic Session 2011-12, has to be rejected for the simple reason that the revised minimum standard norms have been laid down vide Circular dated 18.03.2011 only. [13]. Similarly, the respondents' contention that in terms of Rule 5.1-E and F of the 2006 Regulations, the petitioner Colleges were required to provide 80% of the infrastructure at the time of taking permission which was to be further achieved to the extent of 100% by 31.12.2008, though appears to be attractive, however, fails to explain as to how come the authorities in the CCIM or the Central Government kept on granting permissions to the colleges despite non-availability of such infrastructural facilities. [14]. It may also be noticed here that this Court had by way of interim orders permitted the petitioner Colleges to participate in the counselling for the Academic Session 2011-12 and the candidates so selected/allotted to the petitioner Colleges were to be granted final admission, subject to the outcome of the writ petitions. [15]. Taking into consideration totality of the facts and circumstances and for the reasons afore-stated, I allow these writ petitions to the extent that the Union of India through Ministry of Family Welfare, Department of Ayush as well as Central Council of Indian Medicines – respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed to carry out fresh inspection of the petitioner Colleges in order to ensure that the CWP No. 17757 of 2011. ::-9-:: minimum standard norms as revised vide Circular dated 18.03.2011 by the Central Government have been complied with and made available by these Colleges subject to the observations or exceptions noticed earlier. In case, it is found that the said infrastructure facilities were made available before the commencement of the Academic Session 2011-12, it is further directed that necessary permission shall be accorded for the said Session. However, if any college is found lacking in terms of the requisite infrastructure/facilities, the Competent Authority shall be at liberty to refuse permission. The Competent Authority shall further consider the desirability of considering the in-take of the students proportionate to the infrastructure facilities actually made available in a College. [16]. The Competent Authority shall also consider the desirability of permitting the petitioner-Colleges to make ad- hoc/temporary arrangements against reserved posts in order to ensure that the interest of students is not jeopardized and the revised minimum standard norms laid down by Circular dated 18.03.2011 are also complied with. [17]. Disposed of. Dasti. November 01, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE