Non -Reportable  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

M.A.   Nos.   2867-2868   of   2018 IN  

Civil Appeal No(s). 10023-10024 of 2018

THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH.

      .... Appellant

  Versus

A.T.S.V.S.  SIDDHA MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL AND ANR.  

   ….Respondents

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

1. The above Civil Appeals were filed by the Government

of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Health

and  Family  Welfare,  Department  of  AYUSH  against  the

judgment  of  the  High  Court  of  Madras  in  Writ  Appeal

No.1175 of 2016 and Writ Petition No.2260 of 2017 dated

27.04.2017.   By  the  said  judgment,  the  High  Court  of

Madras directed the Appellant to approve the admission of

the students over  and above the approved intake of  40

seats  for  the  academic  year  2015-2016.   There  was  a 1 | P a g e

further  direction  to  the  Respondents  to  announce  the

results  of  the examinations of  all  the students including

those  who  have  been  admitted  over  and  above  the

approved intake.  2. After  hearing  both  sides,  this  Court  directed  the

results of the students who were admitted to the course of

Bachelor  of  Siddha  Medicine  and  Surgery  (hereinafter

referred to as ‘BSMS Course’) for the year 2015-2016 and

2016-2017  be  declared,  subject  to  the  result  of  an

inspection  to  be  conducted  in  order  to  evaluate  the

existence  of  requisite  infrastructure  and  facility  in  the

Hospital and College.  3. M.A.  Nos.  2867-2868  of  2018  were  filed  by  the

Respondent-College for a direction to the Central Council of

Indian  Medicine  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  ‘CCIM’)  to

conduct the inspection.  A further direction was sought to

the fourth Respondent University to publish the results of

the  second  year  BSMS  examinations  of  18  students

belonging to the 2015-2016 batch and the first year BSMS

examinations of 39 students belonging to the 2016-2017

batch, subject to the final outcome of the inspection to be

conducted by the CCIM.   The first Respondent-College also

sought  a  direction  to  the  University  to  conduct  special

2 | P a g e

examinations for 18 students for the 2015-2016 batch for

the third year BSMS course and 39 students of the 2016-

2017 batch for the second year BSMS course.  4. An inspection was conducted by CCIM on 2nd and 3rd

November, 2018.  The inspection reports were forwarded

to  the  Central  Government  under  Section  13  (4)  of  the

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 | P a g e

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 27th 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 | P a g e

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 | P a g e

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 | P a g e