Bombay High Court
Dr. Asmita D/O Deorao Sonwane vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Its ... on 2 March, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp5628.11.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5628/2011
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5629/2011
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NO.5628/2011
PETITIONER: Dr. Swapna d/o Sadanand Bokhad,
aged 30 years, Occu. Student, R/o Plot No.42,
Chhatrapati Nagar, Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Department of Medical Education
and Drugs, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Director of Ayurved, State of Maharashtra,
2nd Floor, Khanna Construction House,
Dr. R.G. Thadani Marg, Worli, Mumbai - 400018.
3. Ayurved Sewa Samiti, Through its
Secretary, Office at D.M.M. Ayurved
Mahavidyalaya, Yeotmal, Dist. Yeotmal.
4. D.M.M. Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, through
its Principal, Shivaji Nagar, Arni Road, Yeotmal.
5. Government of India, Ministry of health and
Family Welfare, Department of Ayurveda, Yoga
and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and
Homoeopathy (A.Y.U.S.H.), (Education Policy
Section) Indian Red Cross Society, Annexe
Building, 1-Red Cross Road, New Delhi - 110 001.
6. Central Council of Indian Medicine, through
its Secretary, 61-65, Institutional Area,
Janakpuri, New Delhi - 110 058.
::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2017 00:34:19 :::
wp5628.11.odt
2
7. Maharashtra University of Health
Sciences, through its Registrar, Vani
Road, Mhasrul, Nashik.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Addl. G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2
Shri V.B. Bhise, Adv. h/f Shri J.Y. Ghurde, Adv. for respondent nos.3 & 4
Ms Nirja Choubey, Advocate for respondent no.5
Shri R.S. Sundaram, Advocate for respondent no.6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5629/2011
PETITIONER: Dr. Asmita d/o Deorao Sonwane,
aged 27 years, Occu. Student, r/o Daulatkar
Hostel, Near Shivaji Garden, Near Bus Stand,
Yeotmal.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Department of Medical Education
and Drugs, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Director of Ayurved, State of Maharashtra,
2nd Floor, Khanna Construction House,
Dr. R.G. Thadani Marg, Worli, Mumbai - 400018.
3. Ayurved Sewa Samiti, Through its
Secretary, Office at D.M.M. Ayurved
Mahavidyalaya, Yeotmal, Dist. Yeotmal.
4. D.M.M. Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, through
its Principal, Yeotmal.
5. Government of India, Ministry of health and
Family Welfare, Department of Ayurveda, Yoga
and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and
Homoeopathy (A.Y.U.S.H.), (Education Policy
Section) Indian Red Cross Society, Annexe
Building, 1-Red Cross Road, New Delhi - 110 001.
::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2017 00:34:19 :::
wp5628.11.odt
3
6. Central Council of Indian Medicine, through
its Secretary, 61-65, Institutional Area,
Janakpuri, New Delhi - 110 058.
7. Maharashtra University of Health
Sciences, through its Registrar, Vani
Road, Mhasrul, Nashik.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Addl. G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2
Shri V.B. Bhise, Adv. h/f Shri J.Y. Ghurde, Adv. for respondent nos.3 & 4
Ms Nirja Choubey, Advocate for respondent no.5
Shri R.S. Sundaram, Advocate for respondent no.6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 02.03.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is identical,
they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment.
By these writ petitions, the petitioners have sought a writ of
mandamus against the respondents, State of Maharashtra and others to
regularize the admissions of the petitioners in the M.D. (Ayurved) course
in the respondent-College in the academic session 2008-09 and pass
appropriate orders permitting the petitioners to appear at the examination
and declare the results of the petitioners.
The petitioners in all the writ petitions were admitted to the
M.D. (Ayurved) course in the respondent-College in the years 2008-09 in
wp5628.11.odt
the seats sanctioned by the competent authorities. The admissions of the
petitioners were made after following the due process in the centralized
admission process. The petitioners were permitted to appear at the first
year M.D. (Ayurved) examination without any objection from any of the
authorities and they submitted their thesis and appeared at the written
examination. When the petitioners tendered their thesis for the second
year examination, an objection was raised by the Maharashtra University
of Health Sciences that the petitioners' admissions were wrongfully made
as the intake capacity of the college was reduced in the subsequent years.
The petitioners have, therefore, approached this court by filing the
petitions.
In terms of our interim orders, the petitioners were
permitted to appear at the examination and the petitioners have cleared
the M.D. (Ayurved) course and have secured the degrees.
In our view, the respondent-Maharashtra University of
Health Sciences could not have raised an objection about the eligibility of
the admissions of the petitioners to the M.D. (Ayurved) course in the year
2008 and 2009. There is no dispute that the petitioners were admitted as
per the due selection process and through the centralized admission
process. The petitioners were also permitted to appear at the first year
M.D. (Ayurved) examination without any objection from any of the
wp5628.11.odt
respondents. Merely because the intake capacity of the colleges was
reduced subsequently i.e. after the admissions of the petitioners in the
colleges were made, the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences could
not have raised an objection about the eligibility of the admissions of the
petitioners in the M.D. (Ayurved) course in the year 2008-09. The action
of the respondents appears to be incorrect. In any case, the petitioners
have passed the M.D. (Ayurved) course and have secured the degrees.
Hence, the writ petitions are allowed. The action on the part
of the respondents questioning the admission of the petitioners in the
M.D. (Ayurved) course in the year 2008-09 is declared as illegal. The
admissions of the petitioners to the M.D. (Ayurved) course in the year
2008-09 are held to have been correctly made.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
