Harjit Sngh Bedi, J.
1. This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 16015 of 1998 and 16016 of 1998. The facts have been taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 16015 of 1998.
2. The petitioners Sanjiv Kumar, obtained his Graduate Degree in Ayurveda from the institution known as the Examining Body Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicine, Delhi (hereinafter called the Examining Body'). He, thereafter, took the Post Graduate Entrance Test for admission to the Three years M.D. (Ayurveda) -Course to be conducted at the Government Ayurvedic College, Patiala, respondent No. 4 starting in the year 1998. The petitioner in this and the connected writ petition qualified the test and were placed at merit position Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The petitioner was, according, called for interview on 30th September, 1998, wherein a doubt was raised for the first time with regard to his eligibility to take the test and, thereafter to be admitted to the course and he was advised to bring evidence to show that his Graduate Degree had been recognised by the Central Council of Indian Medicine (hereinafter called the council'). The petitioner, accordingly, obtained a communication Annexure P-1 dated 5th October, 1998 from the Assistant Secretary (Registration) of the Council informing him that the degree awarded by the Examining Body had been included in the Second Schedule to the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), and as such, was a recognised medical qualification. The petitioner also filed a representation dated 7th October, 1998 Annexure P-2 before the representation dated 7th October, 1998 Annexure P-2 before the Vice Chancellor of the Punjabi University enclosing the letter Annexure P-1 therewith. It appears that the respondent-University was still not satisfied with the petitioner's information and he was directed to produce more evidence to show that the Degree in question stood recognised till 1992. On this, the Secretary of the Counsel informed the petitioner through a fax message dated 7th October, 1998 that the Graduate Degree issued by the Examining Body stood recognised from 1978 onwards and continued to remain recognised as such even in 1992. Despite this document, however, the respondent-University passed the order Annexure P-4 dated 8th October, 1998 declining admission to the petitioner on the ground that the University had not recognised the Graduate Degree issued by the Examining Body and as such, the degree was not considered equivalent to the Graduate Degree of the University. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has come to this Court impugning the order Annexure P-4.
3. Replies have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 4 - the State of Punjab, and the Government Ayurvedic College, Patiala and a second one by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. Punjabi University Patiala and the Admission Committee. In the reply filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 4, it has been pointed out that the Graduate Degree issued by the Examining Body had not been recognised by the Punjabi University as equivalent to the B.A.M.S. Degree of that University and as such, the petitioner was not eligible for admission to the Post Graduate Courses. The said respondents have also appended Annexure R-1/1 dated 8th October, 1998 with their reply, (the proceedings of the Admission Committee on that date) with regard to the petitioner's case in which it had been decided that the degree obtained by the petitioner could not be recognised by the University.
4. A similar reply has been filed on behalf of the other two respondents, who, in addition, have pointed out that the Vice Chancellor had, on 8th October, 1998 itself, approved the decision taken by the Admission Committee. It has also been pleaded that as the question of equivalence of courses in two different universities was a technical matter, it would not be open to this Court to sit in judgment over the decision of the University as it did not have the necessary expertise to do so. Reliance has also been placed on some judgments of the Supreme Court and of this Court in this behalf.
5. The only question that arises from the given facts is as to whether a graduate degree that had been recognised by the Central Counsel and stood enlisted in Schedule 2 of the Act should be deemed to be recognised by the Punjabi University as being equivalent to a graduate degree of that University. In this connection, Mr. Ajay Tewari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has referred to the Statement of Objects and Reasons and to the various provisions of the Act in support of his case and has submitted that the counsel had complete control with regard to the minimum standards for admission to courses in the Indian System of Medicine and as the degree issued by the Examining Body had been incorporated in Schedule 2 of the Act, the University had no option but to recognise the same and to grant admission to the petitioner. He has, in this connection, drawn my attention to State of M.P. and Anr. v. Kumari Nivedita Jain and Ors., A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 2045 and the very latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka and Ors., J.T. 1998(5) S.C. 40 which pertain to the authority and jurisdiction of the Medical Council of India, which deals with the study etc of the modern system of medicine. He has urged that the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 which pertained to the study of the modern system of medicine were almost pari materia with the provisions of the Act and as such, the judgments under references would be fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The statement of Objects and Reasons as also the relevant sections of the Act referred to above, are reproduced below:-
'Statement of Objects and Reasons'.
The question of establishing a statutory composite Central Council for Indian System of Medicine (Ayurveda Sidha and Unani and Homoeopathic system of medicine, on the analogy of Medical Council of Indian has been under consideration of the Government of India for some time.
2. Minimum standard for admission, duration of course of training, details of curricula and syllabi of studies and the title of the degree or diploma vary from State to State and even from institution to institution in the same State. A number of Committees appointed by the Government of India to consider problems relating to the Indian system of medicine and Homoeopathy have recommended that a statutory Central Council on the lines of the Medical Council of India for modern system of medicine is a pre requisite for the proper development of these systems of medicines.
3. Some States have constituted State Boards or Councils, either by legislation or by a executive orders for the purpose of registration of practitioners in the various system of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy as well as recognition of qualification. There is, however, no Central legislation for the regulation of practice or for minimum standard of training and conduct of examinations in these systems of medicine on an all India basis. In the absence of such legislation, there is no effective control over the large number of unregistered practitioners in these systems.
4. The Central Council of Health at its thirteenth meeting in June, 1966 while discussing the policy on Ayurvedic education, recommended the setting up of a Central Council for Indian systems of medicine to lay down and regulate standard of education and examinations, qualification and practice in these systems.
5. The main functions of the Central Council would be to evolve uniform standards of education in and registration of the practitioner of these systems of Indian medicine and Homeopathy. For this purpose of Central Council will constitute separate committee for Ayurveda Siddha. Unani and Homeopathy consisting of members of the respective systems of medicine to deal with matter pertaining to these systems. The registration of practitioners on the Central register of Indian medicine and Homoeopathy will ensure that medicine is not practiced by those who are not qualified in these systems, and those who practice observe a code of ethics in the profession.
Section 2(a) 'Approved institutions' means a teaching institution, health centre, or hospital recognised by a University or Board as an institution in which a person may undergo the training, if any, required by his course of study before the award of any medical qualification to him;
(g) 'Prescribed' means prescribed by regulations.
'Section 14. Recognition of medical qualification granted by certain medical institutions In India.- (1) The medical qualifications granted by any University, Board or other medical institution in India which are included in the Second Schedule shall be recognised medical qualifications for the purpose of this Act.
(2) Any University, Board or other medical institution in India which grants a medical qualification not included in the Second Schedule may apply to the Central Government to have any such qualification recognised, and the Central Government, after consulting the Central Council, may, by notification in the official Gazette, amend the Second Schedule so as to include such qualification therein, any such notification may also direct that an entry shall be made in the last column of the Second Schedule against such medical qualification declaring that it shall be a recognised medical qualification only when granted after a specified date'.
'Section 18. Power to require information as to courses of study and examination:- Every University, Boards of medical institution in India which grants a recognised medical qualification shall 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 course of study and examinations are required to be undergone and such qualification is conferred and generally as to the requisites for obtaining such qualification'.
'Section 19. Inspectors at examination:- (1) The Central Council shall appoint such number of medical inspectors as it may deem requisite to inspect any medical college, hospital or other institutions where education in Indian medicine is given, or to attend and 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.
(2) The medical inspectors shall not interfere with the conduct of any training or examination, but shall report to the Central Council on the adequacy of the standards of education including staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities prescribed for giving education in Indian medicine or on the sufficiency of every examination which they attend.
(3) The Central Government shall forward a copy of any such report to the University, Board or medical institution concerned, and shall also forward a copy with the remarks of the University, Board or medical institution thereon, to the Central Government'.
'Section 20. Visitors of examinations:- (1) The Central Council may appoint such number of 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.
(2) Any person, whether he is a member of the Central Council or not, may be appointed as a visitor under this section but a person who is appointed as an inspector under section 19 for any inspector or examination shall not be appointed as a visitor for the same inspection or examination.
(3) The visitors shall not interfere with the conduct of any training or examination, but shall report to the President of the Central Council on the adequacy of the standards of education including staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities prescribed for giving education in Indian medicine or on the sufficiency of every examination which they attend.
(4) The report of a visitor shall be treated as confidential. Unless in any particular case the President of the Central Council otherwise directs. Provided that if the Central Government requires a copy of the report of a visitor, the Central Council shall furnish the same'.
'Section 21. Withdrawal of recognition:- (1) When upon report of the Inspector or the visitor, it appears to the Central Council:-
(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 of medical institution, or
(b) that the staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities for instruction and training provided in such University, Board of medical institution or in any college or other institution affiliated to the University, do not conform to the standard prescribed by the Central Counsel, the Central Counsel shall make a representation to that effect to the Central Government.
(2) After consideration such representation, the Central Government may send it to the Government of the State of which the University, Board or medical institution is situated and the Statement Government shall forward it alongwith such remarks as it may choose to make to the University, Board of medical institution, with an intimation of the period within which the University Board or medical institution may submit its explanation to the State Government.
(3) On the receipt of the explanation or, where no such explanation is submitted within the period fixed, then on the expiry of that period, the State Government shall make its recommendations to the Central Government.
(4) The Central Government, after making such further inquiry, if any, as it may think fit, may, by notification in the official Gazette, direct that an entry shall be made in the appropriate Schedule against the said medical qualification declaring that it shall be a recognised medical qualification only when granted before a specified date, or that the said medical qualification if granted to students of a specified College or institution affiliated to any University shall be recognised medical qualification only when granted before a specified date, or as the case may be, that the said medical qualification shall be recognised medical qualification in relation to a specified college or institution affiliated to any University only when granted after a specified date'.
'Section 22, Minimum standard of education in Indian medicine:- (1) The Central Council may prescribe the minimum standard of education in Indian medicine, requiring for granting recognised medical qualifications by University, Boards or medical institutions India.
(2) Copies of the draft regulations and of all subsequent amendments thereof shall be furnished by the Central Counsel to all State Governments and the Central Council shall, before submitting the regulations or any amendment thereof, as the case may be, to the Central Government for sanction, taken into consideration the comments of any State Government received within three months from the furnishing of the copies as aforesaid.
(3) Each of the Committees referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub section (1) of Section 9 shall, from time to time, report to the Central Council on the efficacy of the regulations and may recommend to the Central Council such amendments thereof as it may think fit'.
6. A resume of the aforesaid provisions clearly indicate that a very substantial and pervasive control stands vested in the Council with regard to the maintenance of standards of education in the Indian system of medicine and other allied matters and as a matter of fact some of these provisions confer even a wider control of the counsel than the control exercised by the Medical Council of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nivedita Jain's Case (supra) observed that a Regulation prescribing the conditions of a candidate for admission to a medical course and for maintaining proper standards of medical education lay within the competence of the Medical Council of India but it was within each individual institution to set out the procedure for admission in the light of the variable local conditions in each State.
7. The matter came up for reconsideration once again in Medical Council of India's case (supra) and it was observed that it was within the domain of the Medical Council of India and not of a State Government to determine the number of seats in a medical college as that would be a matter relating to the standards of education to a college. In paragraph 30, it was observed as under:-
'The State Acts, namely, Karnataka Universities Act and Karnataka Capitation Fee Act must be given way to the Central Act, namely, Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Karnataka Capitation Fee Act was enacted for the sole purpose of regulation in collection of capitation fee by colleges and for that the State Government is empowered to fix the maximum number of students that can be admitted but that number cannot be over and above that fixed by the Medical Council as per the Regulations. Chapter IX of the Karnataka Universities Act, which contains provision for affiliation of colleges and recognition of institutions, applies to all types of colleges and necessarily to professional colleges like medical colleges. Sub section (10) of Section 53, falling in Chapter IX of this Act, provides for maximum number of students to be admitted to course for studies in a college and that number shall not exceed the intake fixed by the University or the Government. But this provision has again to be read subject to the intake fixed by the Medical Council under its Regulations. It is the Medical Council which is primarily responsible for fixing standard of medical education and overseeing that these standards are maintained. It is the Medical Council which is the principal body to lay down conditions for recognition of medical colleges which would include the fixing of intake for admission to a medical college.
8. The ratio of the aforesaid judgments applies to the case in hand. The Statement of Objects and Reasons and the various sections of the Act quoted above, more particularly Section 14 thereof, which deals with the grant of recognition of medical qualifications granted by certain medical institutions in India clearly postulates that those institutions which are included in Schedule 2 to the Act, shall be recognised medical qualifications for the purpose of the Act, whereas Section 22 of the Act specifically provides that the council may prescribe minimum standards of education in Indian medicine, for the purpose of granting medical qualifications by the Universities, Board of Medical institutions in India. It is also clear that the Council has complete and full control on the question of maintenance of standards of admission and the requisite qualifications with regard to the Indian system of medicine. It is also significant that in Schedule 2 of the Act, the Examining Body stands recognised under Item 14 (Delhi) whereas Punjabi University, Patiala, the contesting respondent herein figures at serial No. 88-B (Punjab). The graduate degree issued by the Examining Body must, therefore, be deemed to be equivalent to the B.A.M.S. degree of the Punjabi University. There can be no quarrel with Mr. Gur Rattan Pal Singh's assertion that it is not open to this Court to go into the question of equivalence of degrees, but the question does not arise in the present proceedings.
9. Having held as above, the question now arises as to the relief that the petitioner can get at this stage. It has been submitted by Mr. Tewari that though the session had started in November, 1998 the petitioner's lectures were to be counted from the date of admission and in this connection, reliance has been placed on Harsh Pratap Sisodia v. Union of India and Ors., J.T. 1999(1) S.C. 313, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with admission to a M.B.B.S. course observed that if a candidate had been unfairly left out, it would be proper that attendance be counted from the date on which the admission had been granted and not from the date when the session had started.
10. Mr. G.S. Gill, the learned DAG, has, however, pointed out that as of now, all the five seats available in the course had been filled and the petitioner could, therefore, not be accommodated at this belated stage. I am, however, of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the denial of admission to the petitioners although they were at serial Nos. 1 and 2 in the merit, is totally unjustified and contrary to law. This petition is accordingly allowed the order Annexure P-4 is quashed and a direction is issued to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to grant admission to the petitioners forthwith. The said respondents will take steps to create two additional seats against which the petitioners shall be adjusted. Further more, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harsh Pratap's case (supra), the lectures of the petitioners will be counted from the date when they .actually get admission in the college. There will, however, be no order as to costs.