Madhya Pradesh High Court
District Homeopathic Medical ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 October, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 3 rd OF OCTOBER, 2023
REVIEW PETITION No. 1008 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. DISTRICT HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE
RATLAM PRINCIPAL/ DEAN DR. ARUNESH
DWIVEDI 450, KATJU NAGAR, RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. PT. DR. SHIV SHAKTI LAL SHARMA AYURVEDIC
MEDICAL COLEGE THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL DR.
SANTOSH TALE AYUSH PARISHAR BANJALI
SAILANA ROAD, SEJAWATA BYPASS, DIST.
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(SHRI RISHI TIWARI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH III FLOOR
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DIRECTORATE OF AYUSH/ COUNSELING
AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER/
D I R E C T O R STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
GROUND FLOOR, D WING, SATPURA BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY FO AYUSH THROUGH
ITS SECRETARY GPO COMPLEX, AYUSH BHAWAN,
B BLOCK INA NEW DELHI (DELHI)
4. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR HOMEOPATHY
THROUGH ITS MEMBER SECRETARY/
CHAIRM AN 61-65, SEWA MARG OPP, D BLOCK,
INSTITUTIONAL AREA JANAKPUR, NEW DELHI
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 10/4/2023
3:25:24 PM
2
(DELHI)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ANIKET NAIK, DY. A.G.)
This petition coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE SUSHRUT
ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI passed the following:
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission.
2. The instant review petition has been filed seeking relief/modification of
the interim order dated 09.05.2022 and final order dated 27.07.2023 passed in
W.P. No. 8950/2022.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner institutions run
under-graduate as well as post-graduate courses. The Post-Graduate courses
are M.D (Hom.)/ M.D (Ayurveda). The amended regulation 4 of the
Homeopathy (Post Graduate Degree Course) M.D (Hom.) Regulation, 1989
and amended regulation 8 of Indian Medicine Central Council (Post Graduate
Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2016 requires that there shall be a uniform
entrance examination for all medical institutions at the post-graduate level
namely, the All India AYUSH Post- Graduate Entrance Test (AIA-PGET).
Similarly, the Admission Rules for AYUSH Courses, 2020 required that for
B.A.M.S/ B.H.M.S. courses minimum marks in NEET were mandatory. The
petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid rules/ regulations for admission into
U.G. and P.G. courses filed W.P. No. 8950/2022 seeking an interim relief to
permit the petitioner college to fill the vacant seats of the U.G. and P.G. courses
in the light of the order passed by the Karnataka High Court.
4. Vide order dated 09.05.2022, this Court was pleased to grant interim
relief wherein it was observed that subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 10/4/2023
3:25:24 PM
provided in Regulation 5 (a) and (b) of National Commission for Indian System
of Medicine (Minimum Standards of Undergraduate Ayurveda Education)
Regulations, 2022. The petitioner institution was permitted to admit the students
for Undergraduate B.A.M.S. course for the academic year 2021-22 on the
unfilled seats. This Court vide order dated 09.05.2022 although granted the
interim relief for undergraduate courses. However, there was no mention of the
P.G. courses in the aforesaid interim order. The petitioner could not bring this
anomaly before this Court under the bonafide belief that the interim relief
extends to P.G. courses as well. Ultimately, the writ petition was finally
disposed of vide order dated 27.07.2023 stating that admissions of the students
admitted by virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court during pendency
of the petition are saved.
5 . Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the colleges who
had prayed for similar interim relief on the same ground were permitted to give
admissions in P.G. courses, however, due to omission in the interim order
dated 09.05.2022 with regard to admission. in P.G. courses, the students who
had got admission. for P.G. courses were denied enrollment in P.G. (Ayurveda)
course.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that in order to protect the career
of the students the order dated 27.07.2023 may be modified to the extent that
the students who had taken admissions in P.G. (Ayurveda) course for the
academic session 2021-22, admissions may also be saved.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer
and submitted that none of the grounds available for successfully seeking
review/ modification as recognized by Order 47 Rule 1 CPC are made out in the
present case. In the interim order dated 09.05.2022, this Court had specifically
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 10/4/2023
3:25:24 PM
granted permission for admission to the U.G. course only. Had there been any
anomaly in the order the petitioner ought to have applied for correction/
modification at that particular time. Even the writ petition was finally disposed
of on 27.07.2023, whereby the admissions of the students admitted by virtue of
interim order were saved.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. It is well settled in law that in the guise of review, rehearing is not
permissible. In order to seek review the petitioner has to demonstrate that the
order suffers from error apparent on the face of record. The Court while
deciding the review petition cannot sit in appeal over the judgment passed by it.
The petitioner cannot be given liberty to readdress the Court on merits because
it is not an appeal in disguise where the judgment is to be considered on merits.
[S ee: J . R . Raghupathy Vs. State of A.P. (AIR 1988 SC 1681), S.
Bagirathi Ammal Vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission, (2009) 10 SCC
464 and State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and
Another, (2008) 8 SCC 612].
10. In our considered opinion, none of the grounds available for
successfully seeking review as recognized by Order 47 Rule 1 CPC are made
out in the present case. The Apex Court in the case of S. Bairathi Amaal Vs.
Plni Roman (2009) 10 SCC 464 has held that in order to seek review, it has
to be demonstrated that the order suffers from an error contemplated under
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC which is apparent on the face of record and not an error
which is to be fished out and searched. A decision or order cannot be reviewed
merely because it is erroneous.
11. In another case, the Apex Court in case of State of West Bengal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 10/4/2023
3:25:24 PM
Vs. Kamal Sengupta (2008) 8 SCC 612 has held that "a party cannot be
permitted to argue de novo in the garb of review."
12. On perusal of the record and in the light of the judgments passed in
the case of S. Bairathi Amaal and State of West Bengal (supra), there is no
error apparent on the face of record warranting interference in the order
impugned.
13. The review petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Vatan
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 10/4/2023
3:25:24 PM
