Students Can't Suffer Due To Dispute Over Approval Of College: Gujarat High Court Orders Grant Of License To Homeopathy Doctors
The Gujarat High Court has held that students who had completed their Homeopathy course under protection of interim court orders cannot be denied license to practice or recognition of their degrees merely because dispute over grant of approval to the college by the regulator remained unresolved.
Considering the plight of students, Justice Nirzar S Desai noted,
“Now, at this stage, though the petitions have remained pending, if the Court considers the merits of the matter and the issues involved and ultimately comes to the conclusion that the petitions do not have any merit, in that case, ultimately, the sufferers would be the students, who are not before the Court…the College would continue to function, and it would be only the students who would suffer...The respondents are directed to grant permission for license to practice as well as the LOP, i.e., Letter of Permission, to the College, and to grant all such other permissions and approvals as may be required for the functioning of the College, as if such permissions had been granted at the relevant point of time".
Thus keeping in mind the larger interest of the students who have already passed out and who were the beneficiaries of the interim orders dated 25.11.2016 and 08.02.2019, the court directed the respondent Central authorities to grant the Letter of Permission, as well as license to practice Homeopathy and all other consequential permissions, as may be required, for the students as well as the College, so as to validate the degrees of the students who have already passed out.
The Court was hearing a batch of petitions led by Parul University challenging the refusal of the Union Ministry of AYUSH to grant extension of approval to their Homeopathy colleges for the academic year 2016–17, despite favourable inspection reports from the Central Council of Homeopathy.
The dispute arose after the Ministry of AYUSH declined approval citing deficiencies under the Homeopathy Central Council (Minimum Standards Requirement of Homeopathy Colleges and attached Hospital) Regulations, 2013. However, in 2016, a Coordinate Bench had granted interim relief permitting the colleges to admit students, which was later confirmed by a Division Bench. Consequently, students admitted pursuant to those orders completed their courses.
Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate D.C. Dave with Advocate Udayan P. Vyas submitted that although students had completed their degrees under protection of court orders, they were unable to obtain registration and license to practice due to absence of formal approval and Letter of Permission. It was argued that students should not be prejudiced for circumstances beyond their control.
Opposing the petitions, Advocates Sushil Shukla and Harsheel Shukla for the respondents opposed grant of relief but did not dispute that the affected students had already completed their education and would suffer irreparable harm if approval was denied at this stage.
Taking note of these circumstances, the Court held that deciding the matter purely on merits at this stage could irreversibly harm students who were not even parties before the Court and had relied on judicial orders while pursuing their education.
However, noting that the universities had not impleaded the affected students and that the Court was compelled to grant relief primarily to protect student interests, the Court imposed costs of ₹25,000 on each petitioner institution, payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee.
Clarifying that the relief was granted solely to safeguard students "who have already passed out and who may face difficulties in practicing as homeopathic doctors or otherwise if the petitions are not allowed, for no fault attributable to them", and without deciding broader legal questions, the Court allowed the petitions keeping all legal issues open.
Case title: Parul University v. Union of India
Case number: R /SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17011 of 2016
Appearrance: Mr. Udayan P Vyas for the Petitioners and Mr Harsheel Shukla for the Respondents.