RavindraV. Ghuge, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. Rule.
3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.
4. Since a common question of law is involved in all these matters, we have heard the concerned parties and have taken up these petitions together for final hearing.
5. Before adverting to the question of law involved, we deem it appropriate to note the facts of the case in brief as follows:-
(A) Writ Petition No.3574 of 2013 pertains to the Ayurvedic College at Boradi, Taluka Shirpur, District Dhule, falling under the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nasik (for brevity "Health University" hereinafter). The petitioner therein was admitted to Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery course (for brevity "BAMS" hereinafter) in the year 2006-07. In the period from 2006 till 2012, the petitioner made six attempts to clear his first year of BAMS course. Having failed in said six attempts, he was barred by the Health University from taking seventh attempt in the first year of BAMS course, by virtue of communication dated 5.10.2012. The contention of Health University is that under it's Rule 56.1 of Ordinance No.1/2002 governing the field, a candidate would not be permitted to appear for first year examination after six attempts. As such, said communication dated 5.10.2012 has been impugned in the said petition.
(B) In Writ Petition No.3881, the petitioners were admitted to the D.S.Naik Ayurvedic Mahavidhyalaya, Nagaon, District Dhule, which came under the same Health University, to the first year BAMS in the year 2007 and could not clear the first year examination in six attempts. As such they were barred from taking seventh attempt vide communication dated 5.4.2013, which has been impugned in this petition.
(C) In Writ Petition No.3391 of 2013, the petitioners were admitted to the first year BAMS course in Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj Shikshan Sanstha Sanchalit Ayurvedic Mahavidhyalaya, Kanchanwadi, Aurangabad and Eknath Ayurvedic Mahavidhyalaya, Shevgaon respectively. As like other petitioners, these petitioners also could not pass their first year of BAMS course and were thus prohibited from appearing for the examinations, in view of Rule 56.1. Central Council of Indian Medicine (for brevity, "CCIM" hereinafter) and Health University are common respondents in all these petitions.
(D) In Writ Petition No.3769 of 2013, the petitioners were admitted to the first year of BAMS in the Dhanvantari Ayurvedic Medical College, Taluka Udgir, District Latur. These petitioners could not clear the first year of BAMS in six attempts and were thus prohibited from taking a seventh attempt, in view of Rule 56.1.
(E) In Writ Petition No.8077 of 2013, the petitioner was admitted to he first year BAMS course in Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj Shikshan Sanstha Sanchalit Ayurvedic Mahavidhyalaya, Kanchanwadi, Aurangabad. Having failed to clear the first year in six attempts, he was prohibited from taking a seventh attempt in the light of Rule 56.1.
6. All the above mentioned petitioners are thus aggrieved by Rule 56.1 issued by the Health University, prohibiting them from appearing in the first year of BAMS course, by way of seventh attempt and the communications which they received from their respective Ayurveda Colleges.
7. It has been brought to our notice that similarly situated petitioners have filed Writ Petition Nos.4720 to 4722 of 2012 at Mumbai. These petitions were heard along with similar Writ Petition Nos.3769 and 3781 both of 2013. Vide order dated 25.3.2012, interim relief in the nature of permitting those petitioners to appear for the first year examination of BAMS course, by way of seventh attempt, was granted. This Court has observed in the said order that the learned counsel appearing for CCIM had made a statement that it had recommended to the Union of India a relaxation of the said Rule and for providing the candidates unlimited attempts for clearing the first year examination of BAMS course. It was also observed that a formal approval from the Union of India was awaited. It was specifically observed by this Court in the said order that the petitioners are permitted to appear for the examination in view of the anticipated relaxation, in as much as, no equities would be claimed by the petitioners on the basis of the interim order.
8. Similarly, in these petitions, this Court has granted interim relief to the petitioners, pending issuance of notice before admission, vide it's orders dated 18.4.2013, 25.4.2013 and 30.4.2013. It needs mention that none of the parties before us have questioned the rule making authority of CCIM.
9. It is brought to our notice that CCIM had published the Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) Regulations, 1986 dated 13.7.1989 in the Gazette of India dated 5.8.1989. Clause 5 of the said Regulation pertains to the BAMS course. Clause 8.1(i) prescribes three attempts for passing the first year of BAMS course. Clause 8.1(v) specifies that those candidates, who failed in their three attempts, would not be allowed to continue with their studies. An exception was carved out on the grounds of personal illness of serious nature and unavoidable circumstances, provided the Vice-Chancellor of the University was convinced of these reasons to grant one more attempt.
10. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Medical Council of India ("MCI" hereinafter for brevity) has not introduced any restriction on the number of attempts in relation to the first year examination of MBBS and BDS courses. Notification No.32 of 2003 was brought to our notice vide which the Health University permanently removed the effect of Rule 56.1 from June 2004 in relation to the BHC (Nursing), P.C. B.Sc. (Nursing), B.P. Th., B.O. Th, BASLP and B.Sc. (HLS) and BPO courses. Nevertheless, it was mentioned in notification No. 32 of 2003 dated 10.12.2003 that Rule 56.1 of Ordinance No.1 of 2002 will continue to stand and operate in relation to the BHMS, BAMS, BUMS and GR.BHMS courses.
11. The Health University, vide it's Notification No.3 of 2004 dated 7.5.2004, referring to CCIM letter No. A-12/2004-MUHS, dated 16.4.2004, enhanced the permissible limit of attempts to pass the first professional examination from five to six, (the petitioners and respondents are oblivious as to when were the three attempts enhanced to five). The time limit or the period for passing first professional examination was done away with. It was stated therein that the said Rule would come in to effect from June 2004 and that Rule 56 of the Ordinance No.1/2002 (Amended) would be suitably amended. This notification was made applicable to BAMS and BUMS courses.
12. The petitioners have placed before us the impugned notification No.4 of 2004, dated 7.5.2004, issued by the Health University. Vide the said notification, the Health University, relying upon the Academic Council's Resolution No.10 of 2004 and 164 of 2004, dated 27.4.2004, based on the Central Council of Homeopathic letter No. 14-6/2002 and CCH (Pt-1) 642, dated 23.4.2004, raised the limit of the permissible attempts and the time period of passing the first professional examination as mentioned under Rule 56.1 of Ordinance 1/2002 (Amended) was permanently removed with effect from June 2004 only in relation to BHMS and Graded BHMS courses.
13. In the light of these facts, the petitioners summed up their contentions invoking an element of discrimination on the ground that ceiling on attempts and the time period for passing the first professional examination in MBBS and BDS, BHC (Nursing), P.C. B.Sc. (Nursing), B.P. Th., B.O. Th, BASLP and B.Sc. (HLS) and BPO courses has been done away with and that such a limit on number of attempts was made applicable only to the BAMS course. As such, the said notification dated 7.5.2004 was impugned along with the respective orders / notices issued by the respective Ayurvedic Colleges and Health University. It was contended that when the CCIM has not prescribed any such limit in relation to any other professional courses, on the number of attempts for passing the first professional examination, notification No.4 of 2004 dated 7.5.2004 was discriminatory inasmuch as invalid and unsustainable. It was thus contended that the CCIM and the Health University are not to be permitted to introduce such a limit on the number of attempts as it would be violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
14. It is contended before us that CCIM amended it's Regulations vide the Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) (Amendment) Regulations, 2012 which were published in the Gazette of India on 26.4.2012. It was further contended that vide the said amendment, Clause 8.1 of the earlier Regulations was replaced with Clause 6.1 and that, with the introduction of said Clause 6.1, the limit on the number of attempts was totally done away with in relation of the BAMS course.
15. The respondents in these petitions have addressed us without filing any affidavit-in-reply. The respective Ayurved Colleges have preferred to keep themselves away from the hearing of these petitions, though served.
16. Shri Sant, learned counsel for the Health University has stated that though there was no such limit applicable to any other course, Notification No.4 of 2004, dated 7.5.2004, could not be held invalid in view of the powers of the University to have it's own Rules. He further contended that the said notification was aimed at achieving the object of maintaining minimum standards of education and that such an attempt was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory but laudable.
17. During the course of hearing, one of the petitioners placed before us a communication dated 18.9.2013 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department of Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Siddh and Homeopathy (AYUSH). It is taken on record and marked Exhibit "X" for identification. Said communication was in response to the Right to Information Act application, dated 30.8.2013, moved by one Shri Patil Naval Maharu - father of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3574 of 2013 Ms. Nita Naval Patil. Vide the said communication, Under Secretary to the Government of India, on behalf of the above department (AYUSH), has informed father of the said petitioner that the department is not issuing any notification with regard to educational matters of CCIM. It was clarified that CCIM issues notification with due approval of the Central Government as per the provisions under the IMCC Act, 1970. It was also stated that accordingly, the CCIM had issued notification titled as "Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) (Amendment) Regulations 2012" published on 25.4.2012 with subsequent amendment on 22.5.2013. It was made clear that as per these Regulations, now there is no bar on the number of attempts for passing the first year of professional course of Ayurvedacharya (BAMS). It was further informed that these Regulations are available on CCIM's website - www.ccimindia.org.
18. We, therefore, called upon Shri Sharma, learned ASGI representing the Union of India in these petitions, to express his stand on behalf of the Union of India and especially in the light of the communication dated 18.9.2013 from AYUSH. He stated that he had just received a fax message dated 4.10.2013 at about 14:14 Hours from the Under Secretary to the Government of India, that the father of the said petitioner Shri Patil was informed that there is no bar on the number of attempts for passing the first year of professional course of Ayurvedacharya (BAMS). It is taken on record and marked Exhibit "Y" for identification. In the light of said two communications, dated 18.9.2013 and 4.10.2013, placed on record, the controversy in these petitions has been narrowed down to an issue as to Whether the notification No.4 of 2004 dated 7.5.2004 issued by the Health University is sustainable or not ?
19. The petitioners contended that when the law making body i.e. CCIM having issued a notification titled as "Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) (Amendment) Regulations 2012" on 25.4.2012, with subsequent amendment on 22.5.2013, and having left no bar on the number of attempts for passing the first year of professional course of Ayurvedacharya (BAMS), the Health University has neither any power to introduce such a notification nor would the 2004 notification be sustainable since it amounted to running counter to the intent and object of the 2012 Regulations of CCIM and causing prejudice to the students. It was further contended that such a notification is de-hors the Rules of CCIM and are prejudicial to the interest of the students and are violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
20. Per contra, learned counsel for the Health University put forth two fold arguments. He, firstly, contended that the impugned notification dated 7.5.2004 was in the light of the then existing limit of six attempts based on the CCIM letter No. 4-12/2004/MUHS dated 16.4.2004. Secondly, he contended that the Health University was within it's powers to ensure achieving higher standards of education and can still sustain and continue with the impugned notification even today since the underlined aim and object was that the standard of education should be raised. He, therefore, summed up by contending that the said notification is legally sustainable even today.
21. In reply to the submission, the petitioners contended that the Health University had no authority to introduce such a limit / bar in absence of any such power existing today. The notification dated 25.4.2012 of CCIM published in the Gazette of India dated 26.4.2012 was once again referred to press home the point.
22. In view of the narrowing down of the controversy in these petitions, we find that the CCIM had lifted the bar / limit on the number of attempts, vide it's notification dated 25.4.2012. The stand of CCIM has been made absolutely clear in the light of the letter dated 18.9.2013 issued by AYUSH to the father of one of the petitioners. Learned ASGI has confirmed the same, in the light of the communication from the Under Secretary to the Government of India (AYUSH) dated 4.10.2013, addressed to him.
23. The learned Division Bench of this Court at Panaji (to which, one of us - B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. was a Member) had an occasion to deal with a some what similar situation in the matter of Gaurav Uday Nagarsekar Vs. State of Goa and others [2009 (4) Bom.C.R.117]. This Court, therein, had held that if any additional requirement is introduced by the State but is repugnant and is in conflict with the requirements prescribed by Dental College Regulations 2007, the same need to be quashed and set aside.
24. There the controversy was about admission to MDS Course and provisions of Dental Council of India Regulation 2007 stipulated that admission has to be on the basis of individual cumulative performance. By its 1998 Rules, State Government added one more norm and required the students to possess 60% marks in subject specialty. After appreciation of the precedents like 1) (2004) 11 S.C.C. 755 (Bharati Vidyapeeth and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and anr.) 2) AIR 1963 S.C. 703 (Gujarat University and anr. v. Shri Krishna Ranganath Mudhokar) 3) (1995) 4 S.C.C. 104 (State of Tamil Nadu and anr. v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and Ors.) 4) AIR 1959 S.C. 648 (Deep Chand v. State of U.P.) 5) (1990) 2 S.C.C. 562 (Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka) 6) (1999) 7 S.C.C. 120 (Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P.), this Court has found that the same cannot be viewed as a higher or additional or further requirement but it is repugnant to and in conflict with one prescribed by DCI Regulations. When field was fully occupied in view of provisions of Entry 66 of List I of the Constitution, State of Goa could have provided any norm only if it satisfied the requirement of Article 254 of Constitution of India and not otherwise. Norm prescribed did not satisfy said requirement but it adversely prejudiced the norm prescribed by DCI. Any candidate though down below in the merit list could have been selected only because he/she had 60% marks in subject speciality and thus the concept of merit itself was drastically changed. It is held that said norm cannot be said to be a higher qualification in consonance with the norms for admission prescribed by DCI Regulations. "Merit" as determined by DCI Regulations was only constitutionally valid and relevant and interference with it by State Government was held unauthorized. Thus, the contention of learned Advocate General or learned ASGI that said norm was a higher qualification prescribed by State of Goa in consonance with the norms for admission prescribed by Dental Council of India Regulations has been turned down. Therefore the requirement of possessing 60% marks in subject speciality as prescribed by 1998 Rules by the State Government has been found violative of Article 254(1) and was quashed and set aside.
25. In the said case, the issue was whether a stipulation of obtaining 60% marks in a subject of speciality was an additional or higher standard prescribed in consonance with the norms of Dental Council of India or then was repugnant to those norms It was contended that when the power is to be exercised by any authority, it is to be exercised in the manner prescribed in the statute or else it could not be exercised at all. 'Coordination' as appearing in Entry 66 of List I was concluded in Bharati Vidyapeeth and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another [(2004) 11 SCC 755] to mean harmonization with a view to forge a uniform pattern for a concerted action according to a certain design, scheme or plan of development It has to be interpreted to include power to do all things, which are necessary to prevent what would make 'coordination' either impossible or difficult. This Court in the case concluded that additional requirement of possessing 60% marks in the subject of speciality cannot be viewed as a higher or additional or further requirement but it is repugnant and in conflict with the one prescribed by the Dental Council of India Regulations 2007. This conclusion was arrived at since the said requirement was tested on the touchstone of merit as one of the respondents, who was below the petitioner, stole a march over him because the said respondent fulfilled the additional requirement in a particular subject 'Conservative Dentistry'.
26. In this background, the scrutiny of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 becomes essential to find out whether the Central Council of Indian Medicine is clothed with the exclusive powers to deal with the academic matters and the educational standards.
Section 22 stipulates that the Central Council may prescribe the minimum standards of education in Indian medicine, required for granting recognised medical qualifications by Universities, Boards or medical institutions in India. Section 18 gives it power to require information as to courses of study and examination and obliges every University, Board or medical institution in India which grants a recognised medical qualification to furnish such information as the Central Council may, from time to time, require as to the courses of study and examinations to be undergone in order to obtain such qualification, as to the ages at which such courses of study and examinations are required to be undergone and such qualification is conferred and generally as to the requisites for obtaining such qualification. Its Permission is prerequisite for establishment of new medical college, new course of study etc as per Section 13-A. Where any medical college is established without the previous permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 13-A, medical qualification granted to any student of such medical college is deemed to be not a recognised medical qualification for the purposes of this Act due to S.13-B(1). Its sub-section (2) lays down that where any medical college opens a new or higher course of study or training including a postgraduate course of study or training without the previous permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 13-A, medical qualification granted to any student of such medical college on the basis of such study or training shall not be deemed to be a recognised medical qualification for the purposes of this Act. Where any medical college increases its admission capacity in any course of study or training without the previous permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 13-A, medical qualification granted to any student of such medical college on the basis of the increase in its admission capacity can not be deemed to be recognised medical qualification for the purposes of this Act by virtue of its sub-section (3). The Central Council can under Section 19 appoint such number of medical inspectors as it may deem requisite to inspect any medical college, hospital or other institution where education in Indian medicine is given, or to attend any examination held by any University, Board or medical institution for the purpose of recommending to the Central Government recognition of medical qualifications granted by that University, Board or medical institution. As per Section 20, the Central Council may appoint such number or visitors as it may deem requisite to inspect any medical college, hospital or other institution where education in Indian medicine is given or to attend any examination for the purpose of granting recognised medical qualifications. In this backdrop, Section 21 is the important provision which reads :--
Section 21. Withdrawal of recognition.â
(1) When upon report by the inspector or the visitor, it appears to the Central Councilâ
(a) that the courses of study and examination to be undergone in, or the proficiency required from candidates at any examination held by, any University, Board or medical institution, or
(b) that the staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities for instruction and training provided in such University, Board or medical institution or in any college or other institution affiliated to the University.
do not conform to the standard prescribed by the Central Council the Central Council shall make a representation to that effect to the Central Government.
Power to frame the Regulations is under Section 36 of the 1970 Act. Its relevant part reads :-
â36. Power to make regulations.â[(1) The Central Government may, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, [by notification in the Official Gazette,] make regulations generally to carry out the purposes of this Act, and, without prejudice to the generality of this power, such regulations may provide forâ
(a) to (g) â Not reproduced.
(h) the appointment, powers, duties, and procedure of inspectors and visitors;
(i) the courses and period of study and of practical training to be undertaken, the subjects of examination and the standards of proficiency therein to be obtained, in any University, Board or medical institutions for grant of recognised medical qualifications;
(j) the standards of staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities for education in Indian medicine;
(k) the conduct of professional examinations, qualifications of examiners and the conditions of admissions to such examinations;
(l) to (o) --- Not reproduced. And
(p) any matter for which under this Act provisions may be made by regulations.
[(2) The Central Government shall cause every regulations made under this Act to be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the regulation or both Houses agree that the regulation should not be made, the regulation shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that regulation.]â
27. Similarly, the issue before us is as to whether a student admitted to BAMS course on merit can be precluded from taking further education by the Health University by introducing a limit on the number of attempts at the first year professional examination. The ceiling on the number of chances to clear first year BAMS course is contained in Ordinance Nos.32/2003 and 03/2004 framed by the Health University i.e. Respondent No.3. Vide the impugned notification and impugned orders issued by Health University, the petitioners were prohibited from appearing in the examination by way of a seventh attempt, whereby the said petitioners were prohibited from taking further education. This ultimately would result in these petitioners being expelled from the Ayurvedic education since they would not be able to get admission to further years in their BAMS course, in view of they having been barred from taking the first year professional examination on the ground of having exceeded six attempts.
28. In the case of Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (AIR 1959 S.C. 648), the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the test to find out whether the provisions are repugnant or inconsistent with each other. These tests, as laid down in paragraph 29, as under :
"29. Nicholas in his Australian Constitution, 2nd Edition, page 303, refers to three tests of inconsistency or repugnancy:-
"(1) There may be inconsistency in the actual terms of the competing statutes;
(2) Though there may be no direction conflict, a State Law may be inoperative because the Commonwealth law, or the award of the Commonwealth Court, is intended to be a complete exhaustive code; and
(3) Even in the absence of intention, a conflict may arise when both State and Commonwealth seek to exercise their powers over the same subject matter."
In the case of Tika Ramji v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [AIR 1956 SC 676] the Honourable Apex Court has accepted the said three rules, among others, as useful guides to test the question of repugnancy.
In the case of Zaverbhai Amaidas v. State of Bombay [AIR 1954 SC 752], this Court laid down a similar test. At page No. 757, it is stated :
"The principle embodied in section 107(2) and Article 254(2) is that when there is legislation covering the same ground both by the centre and by the Province, both of them being competent to enact the same, the law of the Centre should prevail over that of the State."
"Repugnancy between two statutes may thus be ascertained on the basis of the following three principles:
(1) Whether there is direct conflict between the two provisions;
(2) Whether Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive code in respect of the subject matter replacing the Act of the State Legislature; and
(3) Whether the law made by Parliament and the law made by the State Legislature occupy the same field."
The often quoted Judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of G.P. Stewart v. Brojendra Kishore Roy Chaudhury [AIR 1939 Cal 628], mentions the position as under :
"54. Negativing the contention, the Court quoted with approval the following observations of B.N. Rau, J. in G. P. Stewart v. Brojendra Kishore Roy Chaudhury : (Page No.632.)
"It is sometimes said that two laws cannot be said to be properly repugnant unless there is a direct conflict between them, as when one says 'do' and the other 'don't', there is no true repugnance, according to this view, if it is possible to obey both the laws. For reasons which we shall set forth presently, we think that this is too narrow a test: there may well be cases of repugnancy where both laws say 'don't' but in different ways. For example, one law may say 'no person shall sell liquor by retail, that is, in quantities of less than five gallons at a time' and another law may say, 'no person shall sell liquor by retail, that, in quantities of less than ten gallons at a time'. Here, it is obviously possible to obey both laws, by obeying the more stringent of the two, namely, the second one; yet it is equally obvious that the two laws are repugnant, for to the extent to which a citizen is compelled to obey one of them, the other, though not actually disobeyed, is nullified."
29. We here should also mention that the Honourable Apex Court has in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya (supra), held that possibility of simultaneous obedience is not a relevant test for finding out the repugnancy.
30. On discrimination between the students undertaking two different courses, the said Division Bench in the case of Gaurav Uday Nagarsekar (supra) has relied upon the judgment of the Hon. Apex Court in the case of Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [(2002) 4 SCC 34] and has held that if a law has to be struck down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the inequality must arise under the same piece of legislation or under the same set of laws which have to be treated together as one enactment. Inequality resulting from two different enactments made by two different authorities in relation to the same subject will not be amenable to attack under Article 14. It is held that the students prosecuting MBBS Courses and BDS Courses cannot be equated together and have always been treated differently. Merely because object is common, the two heterogeneous classes cannot be clubbed together. Hence, the argument that by prescribing the norm of possessing 60% marks in subject specialty only for Dental College graduate students, the State Government had violated Article 14 of Constitution of India has been held to be unsustainable. Thus, the challenge of the present Petitioners only on discrimination due to absence of any such ceiling on number of chances for students in MBBS or other disciplines is unsustainable and misconceived.
31. What we find is that if the Health University was to introduce any clause, which would stand the test of arbitrariness and simultaneous obedience, that could have been acceptable. Though it has been canvassed before us by the Health University that it's aim is to raise the standard of education, we find that the said attempt would result in prohibiting the students from pursuing further education in the said degree course on account of being disallowed from taking the first year professional examination after six attempts, which consequentially would prevent them from taking admission to the second and further years of the said professional degree course. The impugned notification dated 9.5.2004 cannot co-exist with the Regulations of CCIM dated 25.4.2012. The impugned notification would not thus achieve the object behind CCIM introducing it's amended Regulations of 2012. We, therefore, have no hesitation in concluding that the Health University cannot continue with the limit of six attempts for the first professional examination in the light of clause 6.1 of the amended Regulations 2012 of CCIM. Consequentially, the orders issued by the Health University and the respective Ayurvedic Colleges, impugned in these petitions, are unsustainable.
32. In the result, we allow all these petitions The impugned notification No.4 of 2004, dated 7.5.2004, issued by the Health University is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequentially, the impugned orders/ communications issued by the respective Ayurvedic Colleges prohibiting the petitioners from appearing in the first year of professional course (BAMS) are also quashed and set aside. The petitioners are at liberty to submit the admission forms as well as their examination forms for the ensuing examination of first year BAMS with reference to subjects in which they have failed. We direct the respondent Colleges to forward such examination forms to the respondent Health University, which shall process the same in accordance with Rules and allow the said petitioners to appear for the first year professional BAMS course examination.
33. Rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs.