9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Special Leave Petitions filed against orders passed by Aurangabad and Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court regarding admissions to institutions teaching Indian form of medicines for academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13.
Issue 1: Refusal by Government of India, u/s AYUSH, to grant permission to colleges for admitting students for academic year 2011-12 due to deficiencies in infrastructure and teaching staff. The Supreme Court noted that the refusal of permission was based on deficiencies in infrastructure and teaching staff not meeting minimum standard norms. The Court referred to a previous case where it was observed that the proliferation of ill-equipped and under-staffed educational institutions had caused problems for students. The regulations governing medical colleges, including the 1970 Act and subsequent amendments, required colleges to seek permission from the Central Government and meet specified criteria, such as minimum bed strength for undergraduate and postgraduate courses. Issue 2: Lack of response from institutions in rectifying deficiencies and seeking permission for admissions. Despite being given time to address deficiencies, many institutions did not take adequate steps to meet the required standards. The Court observed that institutions only took action when faced with closure notices, prompting them to seek relief from the courts. While some institutions were allowed to accept admission forms, final decisions were pending the outcome of the Special Leave Petitions. Issue 3: Arguments presented by Petitioners and Additional Solicitor General regarding permission for admissions. Petitioners argued that deficiencies had been rectified, and permission should be granted for the academic year 2011-12 to avoid disruption in courses. The Additional Solicitor General emphasized the importance of maintaining professional standards in medical education and highlighted that permission had been granted for the subsequent academic year once deficiencies were addressed. The Court noted that while sympathy towards students was acknowledged, it could not override the need for adherence to standards. Issue 4: Court's decision and rationale for dismissing the Special Leave Petitions. The Court declined to interfere with the High Court's orders, stating that the institutions were not equipped to conduct classes for the academic year 2011-12. It deemed impractical the proposal of providing extra classes to new entrants to catch up with ongoing courses. The Court emphasized that the privilege granted to candidates to file applications did not guarantee admission, especially considering the advanced stage of the academic year. Ultimately, the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed, and each party was directed to bear its own costs.
|
