The Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of AYUSH vs A.T.S.V.S. Siddha Medical College and Hospital, Rep. By Its Principal

Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. After

considering the inspection report, the Appellant decided

that the first Respondent-College was not entitled for

issuance of permission for the academic year 2015-2016

and 2016-2017. Permission was not granted on the ground

that assessment of the availability of infrastructure and

other requirements for the years 2015-2016 and 2016-

2017 could not be made by the CCIM on the basis of the

inspection conducted on 2nd and 3rd November, 2018.

5. A perusal of the material on record would make it

clear that the first Respondent-College was granted

permission to admit only 40 students and not 60 seats, as

requested. Pursuant to an interim order passed by the

High Court, the College admitted 58 students which means

that 18 students were admitted in excess of the sanctioned

intake. For the year 2016-2017 no permission was granted

to the first Respondent-College to make any admission

3 | Page since, according to the Union of India, the College did not

permit an inspection to be conducted. However, the first

Respondent College made admissions to 39 seats on the

basis of an interim order passed by the High Court. The

dispute pertains to the future of those students who were

admitted without any permission by the Appellant. There

is no ambiguity in the order dated 27 th September, 2018

passed by this Court in the above Civil Appeals; the

students who were admitted in excess of the sanctioned

intake were to be permitted to take examinations and the

results to be announced on the basis of the inspection to

be conducted by the competent authority i.e. CCIM.

6. The refusal by the Union of India to grant permission

approving the admission of 18 students for 2015-2016 and

39 students for 2016-2017 who were admitted in excess of

the sanctioned strength, is contrary to the direction issued

by this Court in Civil Appeals No.10023-10024 of 2018.

The inspection that was to be conducted pursuant to the

order of this Court was for assessing the existing

infrastructure and other facilities. The report of the CCIM

which indicated that assessment for the year 2015-2016

and 2016-2017 cannot be made on the basis of the

inspection conducted in November, 2018, is in violation of 4 | Page the direction issued by this Court. The continuance of the

students who were admitted beyond the sanctioned

strength was made contingent on said inspection. The

judgment of the High Court in favour of such students was

upheld subject to the outcome of the inspection that was

directed. To say that assessment of the facilities in 2015-

16 and 2016-17 cannot be done by inspection in 2018 and

refuse permission is in blatant violation of the order of this

Court dated 27th September, 2018.

7. We were taken through the inspection report by Mr.

Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

first Respondent-College to show that the College has all

the facilities that are required in accordance with the

Regulations. The learned Additional Solicitor General

appearing for the Appellant disputed the said submission

to state that certain deficiencies still exist.

8. A perusal of the inspection report shows that there

are no serious deficiencies. The refusal by the Union of

India to truthfully carry out the orders passed by this Court

in the Civil Appeal Nos.10023-10024 of 2018 prompts us to

direct the approval of admissions of the 18 students in

excess of the sanctioned intake of 40 seats for the year

2015-2016 and the 39 students for the year 2016-2017.

5 | Page The said students shall be permitted to take the

examinations and the results may be announced. We do

not approve the conduct of the first Respondent-College in

making admissions without the requisite permission and

not permitting inspection. The Appellant is at liberty to

take suitable action in case the first Respondent does not

fulfill the requirements as per the Regulations. This order

shall not be treated as a precedent as it is passed in the

peculiar facts of the case.

9. M.A. Nos. 2867-2868 of 2018 in Civil Appeal No(s).

10023-10024 of 2018 are disposed of.

..................................J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

..................................J. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]

New Delhi, February 08, 2019.

6 | Page