Khushi Gupta
Published on: April 12, 2022 at 17:56 IST
In this Case, the Defendant had sought Permission from the State Government, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and the Plaintiff to start Post-Graduate (PG) studies in 2014-15.
The Complainant was granted permission to start five new five-seat Ayurvedic disciplines in each area under the Indian Medicine Central Council (Post-Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2012.
These Regulations were replaced by the 2016 Regulations. As per the 2016 Regulations, it was necessary for the Institution to have a Central Research Laboratory and Animal House.
For the 2018-19 Academic Year, the Defendant went to the Karnataka High Court. The written request was granted based on previous Cases in the Karnataka High Court Division of the Supreme Court stating that, “If the permission was granted for the subsequent years, the Benefit should enure in respect of the previous year also”.
The Plaintiff went to Division Bench to Appeal the Case, which was Dismissed. The Plaintiff then went to the Supreme Court.
The High Court noted that Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati on behalf of the Complainant had stated that students admitted in 2018-19 should not be disturbed.
The High Court ruled that Subsection (6) of Section 13A is a ‘Prescribed Rule’ that states, “If no order is communicated by the Central Government to the person or Medical College submitting the Scheme, within a period of one year from the date of submission of the scheme, such a scheme shall be deemed to have been approved by the Central Government in the form in which it was submitted. It further provides that the permission of the Central Government required under Subsection (1) of Section 13A of the said Act shall also be deemed to have been granted,” the Apex Court observed.
“It could thus be seen that the finding that the permission granted for a subsequent Academic Year would also enure to the benefit of earlier academic year though the said institution was not fulfilling the criteria of minimum standard, is totally erroneous,” the Judgment said.
The Court, therefore, allowed the Appeals and Quashed the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court.
Also Read: Karnataka HC dismisses RGUHS writ pleas on fake marks cards