1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6661 OF 2009 Mandar Milind Kulkarni & Ors.... Petitioners Vs. Union of India & Ors. .… Respondents Mr.S.R. Ganbavale a/w Mr. Sangramsingh Yadav for petitioners. Mr.Girish Kulkarni a/w Mrs.Rutuja Ambekar for respondent no.1. Mr.Abhijit Adugale a/w Rahul Walvekar for respondent no.2 Mr.S.R. Nargolkar, AGP for respondents no. 4 to 7. CORAM : S.B. MHASE & R.M. SAVANT JJ. Date : 13th August, 2009 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. This petition is filed by the students who have passed 12th Standard examination with less than 50% marks in the aggregate in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology and have appeared in the MHT- CET-2009 and ASSO-CET-2009 and are not being allowed to participate in the rounds of counseling for admission in Ayurvedacharya course (B.A.M.S.). The minimum standard for admission has been fixed under regulations which are framed under Section 22 read with Section 36(1) of the Indian Medicine Central 2 Council Act, 1970 (IMCC Act). According to the regulations, the minimum standard for admission is “12 th Standard with Science with at least 50% marks in aggregate in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology”. The petitioners admittedly do not possess this minimum requirement. Therefore, they have approached this Court. It is their case that the Central Council of Indian Medicine, New Delhi has considered that in view of the said requirement of 50% marks in aggregate as stated above, the colleges are not getting sufficient number of students for admission, therefore CCIM decided to delete the request of minimum 50% marks from the regulations. It is required to be noted that by letter dated 1st September 2008 addressed to Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Department of Ayush, Ayurved Desk, New Delhi by which letter it has been informed by the Secretary of C.C.I.M. that the decision to delete the said regulation has been taken by C.C.I.M. and that the copies of the draft regulations and all subsequent amendments thereof shall be circulated to all the State Governments for furnishing their comments as required under Section 3 22 of the said Act, the response of only two states has been received. Therefore the said proposal in the nature of draft regulations is submitted to the Central Government for approval as required under Section 36(1) of the said Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since these draft regulations were approved by the Central Government, prior to the circulation under Section 22, fresh approval again is not necessary and therefore the said regulation has come into force and it should be implemented. Mr. G.S.Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 submits that approval given to the draft rules is only for circulation to the states as required under Section 22 and after considering the comments of the State Governments, the Central Government will take a decision as to whether approval as required under Section 36 is required to be granted and whether the Notification is to be published in the official gazette. The learned counsel further submits that since such approval has not been granted amended regulation cannot be said to be in force and it cannot be implemented. We 4 asked the learned counsel for the petitioners to point out the sanction that has been given under Section 36(1) by the Central Government and the Notification published consequent to that. The learned counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that such sanction is not granted. Therefore the process which is required to be completed under Section 36(1) has not been completed and therefore the regulation deleting the said provision stipulating 50% marks in the minimum has not come into force so as to be implemented. We cannot direct the Central Government to legislate in our writ jurisdiction. However, we have noted from the letter dated 1st September 2008 that the proposal for approval under Section 36 is pending before the Central Government and the Central Government till today has not taken any decision in this respect. If it is a fact that because of the minimum requirement of 50% marks in aggregate, the seats in various Ayurvedic colleges are going vacant and the students are not available, then in that case, the private colleges who are running said course on non grantable basis will be in a great difficulty. Since the State Governments and the Central council 5 is granting permission to open new Ayurvedic colleges through out the country, it is obligatory for the Central Government to see that sufficient number of students are made available to the said colleges. Therefore the Central Government and the State Governments may take a decision either to relax the said provision and/or on account of the non availability of the students, either to cancel the permission granted to the various Ayurvedic colleges. Such a decision can be taken while considering the proposal submitted by C.C.I.M. by letter dated 1st September 2008. In fact the admission process is going on and till date the proposal is kept pending. We are of the view that the Central Government should have really taken this decision expeditiously as it is a matter of great importance, considering the interest of the students and interest of various Ayurvedic colleges, wherein the seats are going abegging. In the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, we deem it appropriate to direct the Central Government to take a decision in respect of letter dated 1st September 2008 as early as possible, and if possible for the Central Government prior to closing of the last date 6 of admission for the academic year 2009-2010. We make it clear that is not our suggestion or view of this Court that the minimum standard required should be lowered or that the colleges should be closed down, it is for the Central Government to take an appropriate decision in that respect. Since the issue of deletion of the regulation falls in the realm of legislation, we do not wish to comment one way or the other; and leave it to the wisdom of the Central Government. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. (R.M. SAVANT, J.) (S.B. MHASE, J.)