Karnataka High Court
Dr. Sontakke Kanchan Ramrao vs The Union Of India on 17 June, 2021
Author: Aravind Kumar Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
W.P.No.29798/2018
C/W. W.P.No.27993/2018 (EDN-MED)
In W.P.No.29798/2018
BETWEEN:
1. DR. SONTAKKE KANCHAN RAMRAO
DAUGHTER OF RAMRAO SONTAKKE,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
RESIDING AT C/O DR. SAJJAL BALTE,
H.No.4-5-39, KHANDRE GALLI,
GUNJ AREA,
BHALKI DISTRICT,
BIDAR - 585 328.
2. DR. AJAHAT KHANAM,
DAUGHTER OF AKBAR KHAN,
AGED 25 YEARS,
RESIDING AT C/O SYED MAZHAR HASHNI,
H.No.8-9-149,
BEHIND DISTRICT JAIL,
BIDAR - 585 401.
3. DR.CH.ANIL KUMAR,
SON OF MANAIAH,
AGED 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT H.No.23-89,
SHIVAJI ROAD,
2
JOGIPET DISTRICT,
SANGAREDDY - 502 270,
TELANGANA STATE.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR.A, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF AYURVEDA,
YOGA AND NATUROPATHY,
UNION SIDDHA AND
HOMOEOPATHY [AYUSH],
'AYUSH BHAWAN', 'B' BLOCK,
G.P.O COMPLEX, INA,
NEW DELHI - 110 023.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/
SPECIAL SECRETARY.
2. THE CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE,
61-65, INDUSTRIAL AREA,
JANAKAPURI,
NEW DELHI - 110 058.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES,
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DIRECTORATE OF AYUSH,
DHANAVANTRI ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
5. N.K.JABSHETTY AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE
& P.G. CENTRE.
SIR SIDHAROODH MATH, GUMPA,
3
BIDAR - 585 403
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. BIRDY AIYAPPA, GCG FOR R-1 (ABSENT);
SMT. MANASI KUMAR, ADV., FOR R-2;
SRI. N.K.RAMESH FOR R-3;
SRI. G.V.SHASHIKUMAR, AGA FOR R-4;
R-5 SERVED AND UNREPRSENTED)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:09.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT No.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-L, ETC.
In W.P.No.27993/2018
BETWEEN:
DR. B.S.SHUCHITHA,
D/O B.R.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/O 'GURUKRUPA', 1ST MAIN,
4TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGARA,
TUMKUR - 572 102. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF AYURVEDA,
YOGA AND NATUROPATHY,
UNANI SIDDHA AND HOMOEOPATHY [AYUSH],
'AYUSH BHAWAN', 'B' BLOCK,
G.P.O COMPLEX, INA,
NEW DELHI - 110 023.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/
SPECIAL SECRETARY.
4
2. THE CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE,
61-65, INDUSTRIAL AREA, JANAKAPURI,
NEW DELHI - 110 058.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES,
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DIRECTORATE OF AYUSH,
DHANAVANTRI ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
5. J.S.S. AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE,
LALITHADRIPURA ROAD,
MYSORE - 570 028
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. BIRDY AIYAPPA, CGC FOR R-1(ABSENT);
SMT. MANASI KUMAR ADV., FOR R-2;
SRI. N.K.RAMESH FOR R-3;
SRI. G.V.SHASHIKUMAR, AGA FOR R-4;
NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN R/O R-4)
THIS PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-1
VIDE ANNEXURE-K.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR DICTATING
ORDERS THIS DAY, SANJAY GOWDA, J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
5
ORDER
1. Petitioners in these writ petitions are students who
were admitted to Post Graduate Ayurveda course in the
academic year 2017-18. The admission of the petitioners
into the Post Graduate courses were found fault with by
the respondent-authorities on the ground that they had
obtained admission without appearing for the entrance
examinations namely All India AYUSH - Post Graduate
Entrance Test (AIAPGET-2017).
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they were granted
admission based on 20% weightage granted to the marks
secured by them in their Under Graduate examination by
virtue of Regulation 8(5) of the Indian Medicine Central
Council (Post Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulation,
2016 (for short, '2016 Regulation') and the subsequent
communication of the Ministry of AYUSH which waived the
requirement of appearing for entrance test and their
admissions could not be therefore be found fault with.
3. These writ petitions, by an order dated 25.06.2019,
were dismissed by this Court holding that requirement of
appearing for entrance test had not been waived off and
that it was necessary for the petitioners to have taken the
entrance test.
4. Subsequently, a review petition was filed in
R.P.No.302/2019 in W.P.No.29798/2018 and
R.P.No.325/2019 in W.P.No.27993/2018, which was
entertained and as a matter of fact, the review petitions
were allowed after this Court came to the conclusion that
the issue raised by the petitioners regarding the necessity
of appearing for entrance test was considered by the Apex
Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA VS. FEDERATION OF
SELF FINANCED AYURVEDIC COLLEGES PUNJAB AND
OTHERS in Civil Appeal No.603/2020 and though the Apex
Court had held that it was necessary for the students to
take up the entrance test, the Apex Court in its order
dated 20.02.2020 had permitted the petitioners in that
particular case to continue their studies.
5. This Court came to the conclusion that the judgment
rendered in the aforementioned case by the Apex Court
applied to this batch of writ petitions also and it was also
noticed that in respect of similarly situated batch of
students, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
WP.Nos.106948-950/2018 had also permitted them to
prosecute and complete their studies notwithstanding the
fact that they had not taken up the entrance test before
they were admitted to their courses.
6. This Court further held that there was a conflict of
the orders passed in WP.Nos.106948-950/2018 and the
order that had been passed in these set of writ petitions on
25.06.2019 and it was therefore appropriate and proper to
recall the order dated 25.06.2019 and restore the writ
petitions to file.
7. These writ petitions having been thus restored are
taken up for consideration.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
contends that in Federation of Self Financed Ayurvedic
Colleges case (supra) decided by the Apex Court, question
as to whether there was requirement to appear for
entrance test had been considered and the Apex Court had
held that regulations which had been framed in 2018 were
intra vires the Act and therefore, the requirement for
appearing in the entrance test was necessary. However, it
is contended that in the very said judgment, the Apex
Court had observed as under:
"However, in view of admission of a large
number of students to the AYUSH Under Graduate
courses for the year 2019-2020 on the strength of
interim orders passed by the High Courts, we direct
that the students may be permitted to continue
provided that they were admitted prior to the last
date of admission i.e., 15th October, 2019. The said
direction is also applicable to students admitted to
Post Graduate courses before 31st October, 2019.
This is a one-time exercise which is permitted in view
of the peculiar circumstances. Therefore, this order
shall not be treated as a precedent."
9. It is contended that since the Apex Court had
extended the benefit of continuing their courses as a one-
time exercise to all the students who had admitted to Post
Graduate courses before 31.10.2019, petitioners, having
been admitted prior to 31.10.2019, would also be entitled
to continue and complete their course. He submitted that
similar relief had been granted to a set of students, who
had also been admitted without taking up the entrance
test, by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.105310/2018 and W.P.Nos.106948-950/2018
which had applied the decision of the Apex Court and
therefore, on parity, petitioners would also be entitled to
the same relief.
10. Smt. Manasi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2, however, contended that the benefit
granted by the Apex Court cannot be extended to the
petitioners since that order was limited only to those
students who had been admitted pursuant to the interim
orders granted in the writ petitions. She submitted that in
the instant case, petitioners had got themselves admitted
without the intervention of the Court by grant of interim
orders and the petitioners had chosen to take a chance by
getting admissions on their own. She submitted that as
the petitioners had taken a risk by getting admitted to the
Course despite being aware that they would be eligible for
admission only if they had appeared in an entrance test,
they would not be entitled to the relief extended by the
Apex Court which was confined only to those students who
had got admissions pursuant to interim orders granted by
Courts.
11. She also submitted that these writ petitions having
been dismissed earlier by the Order dated 25.06.2019, the
interim orders granted by this Court had come to an end
and despite this, petitioners had continued to prosecute
their studies which indicated their complete disregard to
the regulations. She submitted that extension of benefit to
the petitioners would send wrong signals and the
petitioners ought not be granted the benefit of an order of
the Apex court which was granted on consideration of a
particular set of facts and which itself clearly stated that
the said order should not be treated as a precedent.
12. Sri N.K.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.3 adopted the arguments of learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2.
13. We have considered the submission of the learned
counsel appearing for both parties and also perused the
material on record.
14. It cannot be in dispute that the principal question
involved in these writ petitions is as to whether the
petitioners could have been admitted into Post Graduate
Courses without having appeared for entrance test. It
cannot also be in dispute that this question has already
been decided by the Apex Court in the case referred to
supra. As could be seen from the said judgment, while the
requirement for appearing for entrance test for being
admitted into a Post Graduate Ayurveda course has been
held to be an absolute necessity, the Apex Court, however,
as a one-time exercise, thought it proper to extend the
benefit of permitting the students, who were admitted prior
to 15.10.2019, to continue their studies.
15. In fact, the Apex Court while stating that large
number of students had been admitted pursuant to
interim orders were entitled to continue their studies,
made the following distinct statement, immediately
thereafter:
"The said direction is also applicable to
students admitted to Post Graduate courses
before 31st October, 2019."
This statement categorically indicates that the Apex Court
was not only considering the cases of students, who had
been admitted pursuant to interim orders, but was also
taking into consideration all the students who had been
admitted prior to 31st October, 2019 and the Apex Court
was primarily safeguarding the interests of all the students
who had got an admission without taking an entrance test
before 31st October, 2019.
16. The Apex Court by distinctly stating that it was
extending the benefit not only to those students who had
been permitted to continue their courses on the strength of
interim orders, but also to all other students and the only
stipulation was that all of them should have been admitted
before 31.10.2019, has clearly clarified that the benefit
would be applicable to all the students who had been
admitted prior to 31.10.2019. In our view, the subsequent
statement of the Apex Court makes it clear that the benefit
of continuing and completing the course would be
available to all students who had been admitted prior to
31.10.2019 who had not taken the entrance test.
17. In view of this specific declaration by the Apex Court
that the benefit was available to all the students admitted
to Post Graduate courses before 31.10.2019, the
arguments of learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2 that the benefit could be granted only to those
students who had been admitted pursuant to an interim
order granted by the Court cannot be accepted.
18. It may also be pertinent to state here that in the
present case also, the petitioners have been permitted to
continue their Post Graduate courses and also to appear
for any examination that were scheduled to be held
thereafter by virtue of the interim orders granted in these
writ petitions. In our view, since the Apex Court has
extended the benefit not only to students who had been
admitted under interim orders, but also to students who
were admitted without the intervention of the Court, all the
students who were admitted prior to 31.10.2019 without
taking up the entrance test, would be entitled to the same
benefit of continuing their courses.
19. Admittedly, all the petitioners herein have admittedly
been admitted prior to 31.10.2019 and they would thus be
entitled to the relief of continuing and completing their
courses.
20. Furthermore, since a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in W.P.No.105310/2018 and W.P.Nos.106948-
950/2018 has already held that the decision of the Apex
Court rendered in the aforementioned case, applies to
students who had been admitted prior to 31st October
2019 and had also extended the said benefit to other
students, it would be improper to deny the very same relief
to the petitioners, who stand on the same footing as those
students in W.P.No.105310/2018 and W.P.Nos.106948-
950/2018.
21. In fact, in the said writ petitions, this Court was
dealing with students who had been admitted for the
academic year 2018-19, while the petitioners in this case
were admitted to the academic year 2017-18, which as a
matter of fact, makes the case of the petitioners stand on a
better footing.
22. In view of the above, these writ petitions are disposed
of with a direction to the respondents to permit the
petitioners to continue and complete their respective Post
Graduate courses in Ayurveda.
23. The respondents shall also announce the results of
the examinations taken by the petitioners pursuant to the
interim orders granted by this Court in these writ
petitions.
24. If the petitioners have already completed their
courses successfully, the respondents are directed to issue
them with necessary certificates in that regard.
Accordingly, writ petitions stand disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
PKS
