Baba Hira Das Ji Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital v. Union of India & Ors.

4. Schedule V of the 2016 Regulations which brings out the details of teaching staff in an Ayurvedic College reads as under: “SCHEDULE-V [See regulation 3, regulation 6, regulation 7, regulation 8, regulation 10 and regulation 11] DETAILS OF TEACHING STAFF IN AN AYURVEDIC COLLEGE S. No. (1) Teaching Department (2) Requirement of teaching staff Upto 60 students (3) From 61 to 100 students (4) Prof./ Reader Lecturer Prof. Read er Lecturer (1) Samhita and Siddhanta 1 or 1 1 Ayurveda and 1 Sanskrit 1 1 1 Ayurved and 1 Sanskrit (2) Rachana Sharir 1 or 1 1 1 1 1 (3) Kriva Sharir 1 or 1 1 1 1 1 (4) Dravvaguna 1 or 1 1 1 1 1 (5) Rasashastra evam Bhaisaiva Kalpana 1 or 1 1 1 1 1 (6) Roga Nidan evam Vikriti vigyana (7) Swasthavritta and Yoga (8) Agad Tantra evam Vidhi Viadyaka (9) Prasuti evam Striroga 1 or 1 1 1 1 2 (10) Kayachikitsa 1 1 1 1 1 2 (11) Shalya 1 or 1 1 1 1 1 (12) Shalakya 1 or 1 1 1 1 1 (13) Kaumarbhritva (Balaroga) (14) Panchakarma 1 or 1 1 1 1 1 15 15 14 14 17 Total 30 45 Note: i. Apart from above, one Yoga teacher in the Department of Swasthavritta and Yoga, One Biostatistician to teach Research Methodology and Medical-statistics and eight Consultants of Modem Medicine as specified at the Schedule-IV (SL. No.14 to

22) shall be engaged for teaching on part time basis. ii. The requirement of part time teachers shall be minimum any five as mentioned above in point i. for conditional permission to undertake admission for particular academic session. iii. The deficiency of teachers for up to sixty intake capacity shall not exceed more than ten per cent of total requirement with availability of minimum one teacher in each of fourteen Departments. The total number of Higher Faculty shall not be less than twelve Professors or Readers distributed in minimum eleven Departments. This relaxation is for seeking particular academic session. For example- the college having up to sixty intake capacity shall have minimum twenty-seven total faculties, out of which minimum twelve Professors or Readers covering not less than eleven Departments. iv. The deficiency of total teachers for sixty-one to hundred intake capacity shall not exceed more than ten per cent of total requirement and deficiency of higher faculty shall not exceed more than twenty per cent of total teachers with availability of minimum one Higher faculty and one Lecturer in each of fourteen Departments. The total number of Higher Faculty shall not be less than nineteen. This relaxation is for seeking particular academic session. For example- the college having sixty-one to hundred seats intake capacity shall have minimum forty total faculties, out of which minimum nineteen Professors or Readers covering all fourteen Departments. v. Wherever additional Professors or Readers are available in the department, the additional Professor shall be considered against the requirement of Reader or Lecturer and additional Reader shall be considered against the requirement of Lecturer. For example- in a college with intake capacity from sixty-one to hundred under graduate seats, if there are three Professors or one Professor and two Readers or one Professor, one Reader and one Lecturer against the requirement of one Professor, one Reader and one Lecturer in the Department of Rachana Sharir, the college is fulfilling the requirement of faculty in this department and there is no shortcoming of faculty in this department.” (emphasis supplied)

6. Note (iii) of Schedule V of 2016 Regulations which has been reproduced above states that deficiency of teachers for up to sixty intake capacity shall not exceed more than 10 per cent of total requirement with availability of minimum one teacher in each of fourteen Departments. It also states that the total number of Higher Faculty shall not be less than twelve Professors or Readers distributed in minimum eleven Departments.

7. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the requirement of a college having upto 60 intake capacity should have a minimum faculty of 27 in total and out of which a minimum of 12 Professors or Readers should cover not less than 11 departments. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the college had a total 32 teaching faculty out of which 12 were higher faculty in 11 departments and 20 were lower faculty. He, therefore, contends that the total faculty is above 90 per cent and the finding in the impugned order that it is below 90 per cent is incorrect.

8. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents submit that Schedule V of the 2016 Regulations requires an institution to have 30 teachers for 60 seats i.e. 15 Higher Faculty and 15 Lower Faculty. It is submitted that Note (iii) of Schedule V of 2016 Regulations permits relaxation of 10 per cent of total requirement, and therefore, the institution is required to have at least 27 out of 30 teachers with minimum one teacher in each of 14 Departments is necessary which means that there cannot be any Department with zero faculty and there should be either one Higher Faculty and one lower faculty in each Department, and the total number of Higher Faculty should not be less than twelve Professors or Readers distributed in minimum eleven Departments.

9. It is further submitted on behalf of the Respondents that the Appellant-Institution has 25 teachers instead of 27 teachers, after removing excess teachers, and further 11 Higher faculty, excluding excess teachers, instead of minimum requirement of 12 Higher faculty across 11 Departments. It is submitted that having more than one teacher in any Department i.e., excess teacher, would not help the Appellant-Institution for getting conditional permission. Respondents have furnished a chart showing the availability and deficiency of Professors in the Appellant-Institution which reads as under: BABA HIRA DAS JI AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE Sr. Department Professor Associate Professor Assistant Professor FACULTY REQUIREMENT ANALYSIS 1 Ayurveda Samhita & Siddhanta Dr. Veena P Reghunathan Dr Shaveta Arora Mr. Jyoti Prasad (Sanskrit) 2 Rachana Sharir HF Deficiency Dr. Tarun 1 HF Deficiency 3 Kriva Sharir Dr. Mukesh Sharma Dr. Sudha Lokhande

8 Agad Tantra Dr. Gubhachan Singh LF Deficient 1 LF---Deficiency 9 Prasuti Tantra Dr. Gokarapu Ramu Dr Susheela Chaudhary

10 Kayachikitsa Dr Santosh Wagmare HF DEFICIENT Dr. Devesh Jaiman 1 HF DEFICIENT + 2 LF --- Excess Dr Ravi Sharma Dr.Pooja Kohli

14 Panchakarama HF DEFICIENT Dr. Harikrishana DS 1 HF DEFICIENT/2 LF --- Excess Dr. Vikas Nath Dr Sushila TOTAL (including excess) 5 7 18 TOTAL (excluding excess) 5 6 14 25

10. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of the writ petition, the second appeal which had been filed by the Appellant-Institution was dismissed by the Ministry of Ayush, Government of India vide Order dated 31.01.2023.

11. A perusal of the Order dated 31.01.2023 shows that there are 11 Higher faculty in 11 Departments which are available against the minimum requirement of 12 Higher faculty in 11 Departments after relaxed criteria for conditional permission as per 2016 Regulations. It has been consistently recorded with respect to the availability of lower faculty that in the Department of Agad Tantra, Dr. Aruna Tiwari joined as a lower faculty after the visitation and hence was not considered.

12. The learned Single Judge after analysing the material on record before it has accepted the deficiencies pointed out by the Respondent No.2/National Commission for India System of Medicine in respect of the Higher faculty in Departments of Rachna Sharir, Swasthavvritta, Kayachikitsa and Panchakarama. The learned Single Judge has also observed that against the requirement of 30 teaching faculty, there are 25 teaching faculty excluding the excess.

13. As rightly pointed by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents that excess of faculty in a Department cannot be considered as fulfilling the requirement of teachers. Therefore, the excess faculty in a particular Department has to be ignored for the purpose of 2016 Regulations.

14. As it has been consistently pointed out by the three Bodies/Expert Bodies i.e., National Commission for India System of medicine, Medical Assessment and Rating Board, NCISM and Ministry of Ayush, Government of India that the total availability of higher faculty with the Appellant- Institution is admittedly 11 whereas, Schedule V of 2016 Regulations, specifically mandates that the Institution must have a minimum of 12 higher faculty spread over in 11 departments.

15. The three Expert Bodies and the learned Single Judge have concurrently held that there are deficiencies in Higher faculty of Appellant- Institution.

16. It is well settled that Courts should normally refrain themselves from interfering in matters wherein opinions have been rendered by experts and deference should be given to their knowledge on a subject matter. There is also no allegation of any malice, and therefore, Courts must not interfere with the decision arrived at by the Expert Bodies. In Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 372, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed this proposition that Courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendations of the Expert Committee consisting of distinguished experts. Relevant portion of the said Judgment reads as under:

17. With respect to issues involving academia, in U.P. Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh, (2018) 7 SCC 254, the Supreme Court was assessing the scope of interference in matters relating to key answers in an exam and arrived at the observation that Courts must bow down to the opinion of experts and cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters. The relevant portion delineating the same reads as under:

18. The Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder and Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 737, notes that Courts lack expertise especially in disputes relating to policies of purely academic matters by relying upon a series of judgements that have already cemented this view. The paragraph iterating this observation is as follows:

42. Undoubtedly, the court lacks expertise especially in disputes relating to policies of pure academic educational matters. Therefore, generally it should abide by the opinion of the expert body. The Constitution Bench of this Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao [AIR 1965 SC 491] (AIR p. 496, para 13) held that “normally the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts”. It would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave such decisions to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be. This view has consistently been reiterated by this Court in Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal [(1990) 2 SCC 746: 1990 SCC (L&S) 395: (1990) 13 ATC 732: AIR 1990 SC 1402], Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity [(2010) 3 SCC 732: AIR 2010 SC 1285], Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh [(2010) 8 SCC 372: (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 640] and State of H.P. v. H.P. Nizi Vyavsayik Prishikshan Kendra Sangh [(2011) 6 SCC 597]” (emphasis supplied)

19. Similarly, in a Judgement dated 28.02.2022 in Mahesh Kumar v. Staff Selection Commission and Anr., SLP No. 1951/2022, the Supreme Court upheld a Judgement of this Court and stated that the High Court had rightly refused to entertain the writ petition by observing that “when the conscious decisions has been taken by the experts and the courts have no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics, we see no reason to interfere with the same”.

20. In view of the fact that it has been concurrently held by the three Expert Bodies and the learned Single Judge that there are deficiencies in Higher Faculty of the Appellant-Institution, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the three Expert Bodies and the learned Single Judge.

21. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed, along with pending application(s), if any.

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J MARCH 13, 2023