Letters Patent Appeal No.56 OF 2006 ---- In the matter of an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letter Patent Jurisdiction of Patna High Court ---- 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH MEDICAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY-CUM-SPECIAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH MEDICAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, INDEGENIOUS MEDICINE OF MEDICINE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH MEDICAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. …RESPONDENT NO.1,2 & 3/APPELLANT Versus 1. INDRAJEET KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE PASHUPATI SINGH, RESIDENT OF KENDUI, P.S. MAGAGH MEDICAL COLLEGE GAYA, ORGANIZATION SECRETARY OF TEACHING AND NON TEACHING STAFF ASSOCIATION OF AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, GAYA. …PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IST SET 2. THE COMMISSIONER, MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA AND PRESIDENT GOVERNING BODY OF AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, GAYA. 3. THE GOVERNING BODY, AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, GAYA, THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT, THE COMMISSIONER, MAGADH DIVISION GAYA. 4. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER-SECRETARY, GOVERNING BODY, AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, GAYA. 5. THE CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, JANKPURI, NEW DELHI. 6. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, INDEGENIOUS SYSTEM OF MEDICINE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. 7. THE INCHARGE PRINCIPAL, AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, GAYA. 8. MAKESHWAR SINGH SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, DARBHANGA. ….RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 2ND SET ---- For the Appellants :Mr.S.K.Ghosh,AAG 2 & :Mr. Arup Chongdar,AC to AAG 2 For Private Respondent :None P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ** K.K.Mandal,J This appeal has been preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna by the - 2 - State-respondent(s) against the judgment and order dated 14.02.2005, passed in CWJC No.5422 of 2002 (Indrajeet Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), whereby the writ application preferred by respondent no.1 herein was allowed. 2. A brief statement of facts giving rise to the present appeal may be indicated. The writ petitioner (respondent no.1) claiming himself to be Organizing Secretary of the Teaching and Non-teaching Staff Association of Ayurved Medical College and Hospital, Gaya(hereinafter to be called as ‘College’) filed the writ application seeking a direction from this Court to command the State-respondent to grant permission to the college for taking admission to the students in B.A.M.S. course in each session, i.e., 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. A further prayer was made for a direction upon the respondents to make payment of arrears of salary and other service benefits to the petitioner and all other teaching and non-teaching staff of the College. It is the petitioner’s case that the college was established in the year 1972 and received temporary affiliation with Kameshwar Singh Sanskrit University, Darbhanga. It was managed by the elected Governing Body, but in due course of time the State Government constituted a Committee for managing the affairs of the College. It is also the petitioner’s case that the said College was never taken over by the State Government under the Take Over Act,1985. The Central Council of Indian Medicines(hereinafter to be referred to as ‘C.C.I.M.’), inspected the College in question initially in the year - 3 - 1993, and provisional approval was granted to the College allowing admission to specified number of students. Such order was conditional as several deficiencies were noted and highlighted in the said letter itself. The said document is Annexure-3 to the writ application. In due course of time, the Council again inspected the College in question in 1998 and in 1999. During the course of inspection in the year 1998, the Council again found several serious deficiencies/shortcomings in making available the required infrastructures to the College, and conveyed by its communication dated 11.3.1998(Annexure-8 to the writ petition). However, permission to conduct Ayurvedacharya Course for session 1998-99 with the intake capacity of thirty students subject to permission of the State Government was allowed. Annexure-10 to the writ application is yet another communication of the C.C.I.M. dated 8.10.1999, whereby provisional approval was again granted for admission of the students subject to fulfilling the deficiencies pointed out therein. It is the petitioner’s case that on the ground of such provisional approval by the Council, the College was affiliated to the respondent University and thereafter admissions were being taken by the College. The Institution, however, could not take admission as the State Government did not permit the College to take admission. 3. The case of the appellant State of Bihar is that the State Government had banned admission in Aurvedic college for the year 1995 except Government Aurvedic College as all other - 4 - Institutions were found seriously lacking in infrastructure, and not fulfilling the criteria laid down by the Council in spite of repeated requests/instructions issued to such Institution from time to time. The State Government requested the Council to inspect the College in order to verify as to whether it has fulfilled the shortcomings pointed out by the Council. It further appears from the Counter affidavit of the appellant State that the College continues to be a private Institution as the same has not been taken over by the State at any point of time. 4. We have perused the materials available on record and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing in support of the present appeal. 5. It appears to us that the State Government intervened in the matter on the strength of the conditions provided in the letters of the provisional approval granted by the Council. The documents emanating from the Council, specially placed at Annexure-3, 8, 10 and Annexure-C to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, indicates that the provisional approval to the College was/were granted from time to time to the Council subject to the conditions that the College shall get necessary permission from the State Government. It also appears from those documents that the Council from time to time communicated with the Registrar of the University to ensure compliance of conditions required to be fulfilled for making up the deficiencies pointed out by the Council in different letters granting provisional approval to the College. - 5 - 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the of the appellant has taken us through those documents in order to highlight the point that the Council itself conferred jurisdiction to the State Government either to grant or refuse permission depending upon the required infrastructure available to the College. It has, therefore, been submitted that intervention of the State Government in the matter was justified as the documents placed on record would show that the College in question continuously failed in making up the deficiencies which was/were of vital nature. It has been impressed upon us that there is no material on record to indicate that the College in question was ever taken over by the State Government at any point of time and/or any grant of fund was/were made available to the College. From perusal of the documents referred to above, we find that the College suffered from several deficiencies inasmuch as there was/were no adequate number of teaching staff in the College duly appointed as per the guidelines of the Council. By communication dated 27.11.2004, the State Government after getting the College inspected by a team of officials and having found that the College continued to suffer from severe deficiencies, finally refused to grant permission to the College in question. This Court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the materials available on record, the State Government cannot remain a mute spectator in allowing an Institution to play with the fate and career of the students. This State Government has the - 6 - responsibility to ensure that the College imparts quality education as per the laid down guidelines of the Council to the admitted students, and the Council had granted provisional approval with certain conditions. The State Government was granted the authority to either grant or refuse the permission for taking admission in different course in College in question. We also find force in the submissions of Mr. Ghosh that if the College was never taken over by the State Government and thus became the responsibility of the State Government, there was no justification for a direction to grant any fund to the College. 7. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 14.02.2005, passed in CWJC No. 5422 of 2002, is hereby set aside. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S. K. Katriar ) ( Kishore K. Mandal ) Patna High Court, The 16th day of December, 2009 HR/NAFR