Delhi High Court Sets Asides Order Of Non-Certification Of Practitioners

Delhi High Court Sets Asides Order Of Non-Certification Of Practitioners

The Central Council of Indian Medicine had withdrawn the teacher's code of the Petitioners for a period of 10 years over alleged violation of regulations

The Delhi High has set aside the orders of non-certification of the practitioners and remanded the matters for fresh consideration, as the material produced by the Petitioners was not considered.

Multiple petitions were placed before a single-judge court of Justice V. Kameswar Rao in the High Court of Delhi dealing with the orders by the Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM).

The factual background common in all these petitions was that the Petitioners were teaching faculties at various Ayurvedic colleges recognised by the Respondent – Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM). The Respondent – CCIM is an expert statutory body constituted under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (CCIM Act) which has been framing and implementing various regulations including the curriculum and syllabus in the Indian Systems of Medicine. In pursuance thereof, the Indian Medicine Central Council (Requirements of Minimum Standard for under-graduate Ayurveda College and attached Hospitals) Regulations 2016 (Regulations) was framed by CCIM to regulate the requirement of colleges for education in the Ayurveda system of medicine.

Regulation 3(1)(f) required the Central Council of Indian Medicine to certify that the teaching faculty present in a college was not working at any other place. Therefore, it was the duty of the CCIM to check that a teaching faculty who had shown himself to be teaching at a particular college was not merely an 'On Paper Teacher'.

An order dated 24 November 2020 was passed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine withdrawing the teacher's code of the concerned persons including the Petitioners for a period of 10 years. On reconsideration, the order dated 24 November 2020 was withdrawn with regard to all the teachers and fresh orders were passed wherein the Petitioners made representations to the CCIM, which were considered but the decision arrived was not to certify them.

The Petitioners in all these writ petitions were aggrieved by orders dated 14 January 2021 and 15 January 2021 by which the Central Council of Indian Medicine had decided not to certify them under this Regulation 3(1)(f) of the Regulations.

It was a common case of the Petitioners that even after submitting their responses along with detailed proof regarding residence and teaching, the Central Council of Indian Medicine passed an order dated 24 November 2020 taking a view that the Petitioners were not undertaking actual teaching work in the college and debarred them from teaching for a period of 10 years without appreciating the detailed proof.

The Petitioners contended that the order dated 24 November 2020 was passed without application of mind as the same letter with the same wording was used for debarring all other similarly placed teachers and no specific reasons were provided for rejecting the evidence. It was further contended by the Petitioners that the Central Council of Indian Medicine had no jurisdiction to pass such an order since the disciplinary powers vested with the State Councils.

The Petitioners also submitted that the refusal of the Central Council of Indian Medicine not to certify the Petitioners under the said regulation was based on no material and it was wholly arbitrary and whimsical, violative of Article 14 and Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

On the other hand, the Respondent – Central Council of Indian Medicine contended that the CCIM was required to maintain the standard of the Indian system of medicine, which included the duty to check that a teaching faculty who had shown himself to be teaching at a particular college was not merely an 'On Paper Teacher', as per the Regulation 3(1)(f). The Respondent – Central Council of Indian Medicine further contended that the Petitioners were registered with different states and that the Petitioners had not approached the Court with clean hands as they were misleading the Court by taking a stand that Central Council of Indian Medicine had proceeded against them arbitrarily even though they were enrolled in one State and teaching in another.

It was submitted by the Respondent – Central Council of Indian Medicine that State Register was the paramount proof of type and place of practice of a registered practitioner and that it was maintained and required to be renewed from time to time by the Petitioners by intimating the concerned authorities with respect to change in the type of practice, change of address on succeeding to another practice, etc. A Grievance Redressal Committee for such Petitioners against whom the aforesaid action was taken was also set up by the Respondent which scrutinized the materials on record.

The Court heard the arguments of each of the petitions filed by all the Petitioners taking into account their factual differences and legal contentions.

The arguments of the Petitioners were on the similar lines contending that there was not a single provision in the Central Council of Indian Medicine Act, which either allowed CCIM to initiate any enquiry against the teachers of the Ayurveda Medical Colleges or empowered the CCIM to withdraw the certification of the teacher's code for a certain period of time. The Petitioners had further argued that Regulation 26 of Regulations of 1982 did not empower Central Council of Indian Medicine to undertake the whole process of enquiry of alleged 'On Paper Teachers', but only mandated that every practitioner of Indian medicine shall intimate the concerned State Board or Central Council about change in the type of practice and address.

Similarly, the Respondent – Central Council of Indian Medicine put a defence against these allegations by submitting that the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments had settled the legal proposition that the scope of judicial review where the experts have come to a particular conclusion was very narrow and should be exercised only in the eventuality if there was a jurisdictional error and ex-facie perversity or allegation of malafide. The Respondent – Central Council of Indian Medicine further submitted that these orders had been passed well within the boundaries of the CCIM Act read with the Regulations published from time to time and thus, there was no ex-facie perversity or malafide in the passing of the impugned orders.

The Court considered all these submissions and noted that the order dated 24 November 2020 was withdrawn and is currently not in existence. Thus, the legality of the said order was dealt with i.e. the plea that the Central Council of Indian Medicine Act does not empower the CCIM to withdraw the certification code for a certain period, was not considered by the Court.

The Court only dealt with the orders dated 14 January 2021 and 15 January 2021 and considered the Regulation 3(1)(f), which is reproduced as follows:

"3. Requirements of Minimum Standard to grant of permission- (1)(f)The Central Council shall certify that teaching faculty present in the college is not working at any other place"

The Court made the following observations while dealing with these petitions:

• The Judge noted that Regulation 3 of Regulations of 2016, had a twin effect, i.e., non-certification of the faculty/teacher and also the denial of permission to a particular college to function. It observed that orders passed by the Respondent – Central Council of Indian Medicine dated 14 January 2021 and 15 January 2021 resulted in many colleges not getting the permission to conduct the course and that such colleges had challenged the denial of permission to them for conducting the course.

• The Court agreed that that Regulation 26 of Regulations of 1982 provided the practitioner to inform the change in the type of practice and address, but stated that these orders passed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine were not the actions under Regulation 26. It found that there was no reference to Regulation 26 in the impugned orders and concluded that these orders stem out from Regulation 3(1)(f) of the Regulations of 2016 and are not under Regulation 26 of Regulation of 1982.

• The plea of the Petitioners that orders were discriminatory as a large number of identically situated Ayurvedic teachers had either been not touched or had been exonerated with identical facts and circumstances was found unmerited by the Court since the Petitioners had not stated as to how those cases were identical.

• The Judge agreed with the contention of the Respondent that the verification and grant of permission was a yearly process in terms of Regulation 3(1)(a) of Regulations of 2016.

• The Court observed that merely because in the past the Central Council of Indian Medicine had certified the teachers that they were not working at any other place would not preclude CCIM to come to a conclusion later that in fact, a teacher was working at a different place, and thereby, not certify that the teacher was not working at any other place.

• The Court observed that the Central Council of Indian Medicine was empowered to take action against the Petitioners and that this power had not been challenged by the Petitioners.

• The Judge noted that Petitioners were required to follow the mandate of Regulation 26 of Regulations of 1982 and intimate the change of type of practice and address to the state board, to be in conformity with the address/place of the college where he/she was teaching. No separate notice was required to be issued for such action to be undertaken.

• The Court concluded that this action was in accordance with Regulation 3(1)(f) of Regulations of 2016 and therefore, it could not be said to be violative of the provisions of the Constitution. It further held that the principles of natural justice had been complied with as show-cause notice was issued to the Petitioners.

Even after noting all these observations, the Court found that the orders passed did not reveal the material produced by the Petitioners was considered. It made the following observation regarding this issue:

"The law in this regard is well settled that an authority discharging its functions under a statute/regulation must pass a reasoned order which would reveal the consideration of the relevant material in support of the said order."

The Court concluded that the Petitioners were left in the dark as to for what reasons the material relied upon by them had been discarded. Therefore, the Court set aside these orders and remanded these matters to the Respondent – Central Council of Indian Medicine with a direction that they should pass fresh orders by considering all the material available with them.