Teaching faculties from various Ayurveda Colleges had approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi against the communications issued by Central Council of Indian Medicine (“CCIM”) dated 14.01.2021 by which the Respondent No. 1 decided not to certify the teaching faculties under Regulation 3(1)(f) of Indian Medicine Central Council (Requirements of Minimum Standard for under-graduate Ayurveda Colleges and attached Hospitals) Regulations, 2016 for the year 2020-21. The Regulation 3(1)(f) of Regulations of 2016 requires CCIM to certify that the teaching faculty present in an Ayurveda college is not working at any other place. The said communications of non-certification were issued by the CCIM on the ground that the teaching faculties are “on paper teachers” at their respective Colleges based on presumption that they are practicing in States other than the State where their respective colleges are located.
Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi with A Mariarputham, and Siddharth R Gupta on behalf of the Ayurveda teachers, submitted that the CCIM debarment order was passed without any jurisdiction and that there was lack of adherence to the principles of natural justice.
CCIM, represented by advocate Archana P Dave, justified its actions and stated that it was well within its jurisdiction to withdraw the Teacher Codes.
The Delhi High Court after examining all contentions held that there was non-consideration of the material submitted by the petitioners.
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 petitioners being in dark as to for what reasons, the material relied upon by them has been discarded, the impugned orders need to be set aside," the Court said.
Advocate Animesh Kumar one of the lawyers who had appeared for the petitioners in the current matter argued that the CCIM had itself acknowledged the fact that the petitioners were working at the institution in Maharashtra . Furthermore the petitioner's teaching code has been withdrawn by CCIM by relying on the state register which has proof of their address in Maharashtra. He further argued that the petitioners have provided all evidences to show their physical teaching presence. Mr. Kumar further argued that the basis on which the impugned order issued by the CCIM is on the presumption that the petitioners are practicing in State of Maharashtra on the pretext that the State Register shows the practicing address of the Petitioner, does not stand. He further argued that the mere noncompliance with Regulation 26 of Regulations of 1982 cannot disprove the physical presence of the teachers at College. He further stated that the CCIM did not accept any document which the petitioners submitted but requested a document which was not mandatory and has never been asked earlier.
The learned Single Judge set aside the communication issued by the CCIM on the ground that the CCIM had failed to pass reasoned orders without considering the material produced by the teachers. The Hon’ble Court furthermore remanded the matter back to the CCIM with a direction to pass fresh order(s) by considering all the material available with them and pass a reasoned order within a period of 12 weeks.