Heard Sri Badrish Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner Institution, Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Union of India, Sri Shree Prakash Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2 Central Council of Indian Medicine, New Delhi, learned standing counsel for respondent No.3 and 4, State, and Sri Subhash Bisaria, learned counsel for respondent No.6, Choudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut.
Sole submission raised by the learned counsel for petitioner Institution is that the petitioner Institution is running (UG) BAMS Courses since the year 2017-2018. In the year 2017-2018, the petitioner Institution was having approval for 100 seats throughout. However, in the year 2017-2018, the petitioner Institution was allotted 38 students and in the year 2018-2019 the petitioner Institution was allotted 36 students. In the said background, the petitioner Institution moved application dated 8.2.2019 before the Secretary, Central Council of Indian Medicine, New Delhi requesting that the sanctioned strength of the Institution be reduced to 60 students as with the allotted number of students, the Institution is unable to maintain the required teaching staff of 100 seats. The said application was, however, refused by order dated 2.5.2019. Thereafter, by the order dated 1.7.2019, finding insufficient teaching staff, further strength is refused for the year 2019-2020.
Further submission of learned counsel for petitioner Institution is that in similar circumstances with regard to another Institution namely, Gaur Brahman Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital, Village and Post Office, Barhmanwas, district Rohtak, Haryana, such permission is granted by the Central Government. However, in the case of the petitioner, such sanction is arbitrarily refused.
Learned counsel for petitioner Institution submits that the grievance of petitioner would be sufficiently met in case in the given background, it is permitted to make fresh representation to the respondent No.1 to take a final decision in the matter. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, Union of India and learned counsel for respondent No.2, CCIM have no objection to the same.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation to the respondent No.1 within one week from today. It is expected that respondent No.1 shall pass a fresh order after looking into the entire circumstances of the case, in accordance with law as expeditious as possible. It is also expected that the Union of India shall keep in mind that the counselling is continuing and the Institution may not suffer due to delay in taking decision in the matter.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.8.2019 Rajneesh DR-PS) (Vivek Chaudhary, J.)