Delhi High Court
Shree Laxmi Narayan Ayurvedic ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 19 February, 2019
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 19th February, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 1718/2019 & CM No. 7915/2019
SHREE LAXMI NARAYAN AYURVEDIC COLLEGE &
HOSPITAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D. Hasija and Mr. Anirudh Tyagi,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jitesh Vikram Srivastava, Adv.
for R-1/UOI
Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Adv. for
R-2/CCIM
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
% J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, seeks extension of the cut
off date fixed by the Department of AYUSH, Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare, for effecting admissions to the BAMS (Bachelor of
Ayurvedic Medical Sciences) Course, conducted by various
institutions conferring the said degree.
2. The facts required to be noted, for adjudicating the dispute, may
be stated in brief thus.
3. The petitioner was granted permission, on 23rd August, 1976, to
establish a new Ayurvedic Medical College with an initial intake
capacity of 50 seats. For the academic session 2018-2019, the
Central Council for Indian Medicine (CCIM, impleaded as
Respondent No.2 herein) conducted inspection of the petitioner
college and pointed out certain deficiencies/shortcomings vide letter
dated 6th September, 2018, and granted permission, conditional to the
petitioner removing the said deficiencies by 31st December, 2018.
4. The petitioner claims that it received a letter dated 27 th October,
2018, from Guru Ravidas Ayurved University (hereinafter referred to
as the "University", and impleaded as Respondent No.3), informing it
that counselling for the BAMS Course was to be held on 30 th and 31st
October, 2018, in its office. Thereafter, it appears, the date of
counselling was extended and that, vide a public notice dated 9th
November, 2018, the University informed that the third round of
counselling would be held on 13th and 14th November, 2018.
5. The last date for effecting admissions against AYUSH courses
was fixed by Respondent No.1 as 15th November, 2018. However,
owing to confusion regarding the requirement of passing the National
Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET), in order to secure admission to the
said Course, several seats, it appears, remain vacant. This resulted in
a spate of litigations, across the country. Vide judgment dated 10th
December, 2018, in Vihar Private Unani Medical Colleges v. UOI,
2018 SCC OnLine 1857, the High Court of Patna set aside the
Circular, dated 12th February, 2018, issued by the Department of
AYUSH, which required the passing of NEET as a condition for
admission to the BAMS Course.
6. Owing to this confusion, seats for the BAMS Course in several
colleges, across the country, remain unfilled, resulting in various High
Courts being petitioned. One such case, I may note, stands
adjudicated by me as well, being W.P.(C) 13456/2018 (Shiv Shakti
Ayurvedic College & Hospital v. UOI). In the said case, noting the
fact that the inability to effect admissions to the seats, for which
permission had been granted by the Department of AYUSH, was
owing to the prevalent confusion regarding the requirement of passing
NEET, I had, following the decisions by other High Courts, extended
the time for effecting admissions to the Course till 20 th December,
2018.
7. As a consequence thereof, on 19th December, 2018, the
University issued a circular, stating that counselling for admission to
the BAMS Course for the 2018-2019 session would be held at 10 a.m.
on 20th December, 2018.
8. It appears that, even thereafter, this Court, as well as other High
Courts, have been granting further extensions for effecting admissions
against the remaining vacant seats. The petitioner has relied on an
order, dated 24th December, 2018 in W.P.(C) 29461/2018 (Harshita v.
Union of India) of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, extending the
time for counselling to fill up the remaining vacant seats by 30 days,
as well as an order dated 26th December, 2018, passed by a Coordinate
Bench of a learned Single Judge of this Court, also extending the time
for effecting admissions till 31st December, 2018. On the basis
thereof, public notice, dated 30th December, 2018, was issued by the
University, fixing counselling on 31st December, 2018 and, further,
public notice dated 3rd January, 2019, was also issued by the
University, fixing counselling on 5th January, 2019.
9. The only case made out in this petition, is that, even after the
expiry of the aforementioned cut off date of 5 th January, 2019, six
seats remained vacant in the petitioner-college. The petitioner seeks
further extension of time to effect admissions against the said seats.
Mr. Hasija, learned counsel for the petitioner, exhorts the Court to
grant at least four days time, so that admissions could be so effected.
10. Mr. Hasija also places reliance, in this context on a judgment of
the Supreme Court in Association of Management of Homeopathic
Medical Colleges of Maharashtra v. UOI, 2019 SCCOnLine SC 113,
in which extension of time was granted by the Supreme Court, till 15th
February, 2019, for effecting admissions to the BHMS (Bachelor of
Homeopathic Sciences) course.
11. No doubt, the right to education is a valuable right, and it is in
the interests of the country as a whole that this right is not to be
allowed to go abegging. Enhancing the reach and scope of education
to as many of the citizenry of this country, as is possible, is a
constitutional imperative, which cannot be gainsaid.
12. Having said that, this Court is also constrained to take stock of
the fact that there is a deluge of petitions, seeking extension of cut off
dates, fixed for effecting admissions to Homeopathic and Ayurvedic
Courses, on the ground that seats are remaining vacant. No doubt,
where the exigencies of the situation are such that it was impossible
for the College to effect admissions against the course, courts have
been lenient and have been extending the cut off date.
13. In the present case, the University had extended the cut off date
for counselling for the BAMS Course thrice, first till 20th November,
2018, thereafter till 31st December, 2018 and thereafter, till 5th
January, 2019. We are, today, on the 19th of February, 2019. The
petitioner's case is that despite these extensions - which, Mr. Hasija's
submission is, his client did not avail - six seats in the BAMS Course
remain vacant.
14. This Court is, however, of the view that extensions of dates for
admission to courses cannot continue to be granted ad nauseam on the
premise that seats are remaining vacant; the exercise would, then,
never end. The magnanimity of the law is not contained in any
Mercurial urn, from which one can seek solace endlessly. It would set
a dangerous precedent, if this Court were, on the sole ground that it
was not possible to effect admissions within the time allowed, to grant
extension of the cut off date for making admissions. Such an attitude
is bound to lead to endless litigation. Any such order would be liable
to be cited in all future cases, thereby completely negating the sanctity
of a cut off date fixed for admission to the educational institutions.
15. It is significant to note, in this context, that the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Association of Management of Homeopathic
Medical Colleges of Maharashtra v. UOI (supra), on which the
petitioner relies, has also noticed this fact by clarifying, in para 7
thereof, that the said order was being passed in the peculiar facts of the
case and would "not be treated as a precedent". The argument of Mr.
Hasija is, precisely, that this Court should treat the said case as a
precedent and use it as a basis to grant his client further time to effect
admissions against the remaining six seats in the college.
16. The contention that sufficient time was granted for the
counselling process can also not hold water, as the University had
granted three extensions to effect the said counselling, firstly till 30th
November, 2018, secondly till 31st December, 2018 and thirdly till 5th
January, 2019. Such extensions cannot continue ad infinitum.
Moreover, these orders of extension, on which the petitioner relies,
were passed in cases where colleges had approached this Court at an
opportune time, and obtained relief. These orders would not permit
every institution to piggyback on these decisions and, on the basis
thereof, seek further extension of time. The court is also required to
bear in mind the sanctity of a cut off date for admissions which is also
essential to a healthy and wholesome educational system.
17. In view of the above, this Court regrets that it is not possible to
accede to the prayer of the petitioner and grant further extension of
time so that it could affect admissions against the remaining six seats
in its institution, which remained unfilled as on date.
18. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed in limine with no order
as to costs.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J
FEBRUARY 19, 2019/kr
