Home |Index Jun 14|Archive
 
Home
Archive
Editorial
Albums
Links
Directory
Advertise
Subscribe
Contact
 
 
Jun 2014|Volume 11|Issue 6
 
Jun 2014|Vol 11|Issue 6


NEWS
 
TNHMC Member Homoeopathy Medical College recognition denied

 

         Dr.S.Subramanian, the nominated member, Tamil Nadu Homoeopathy Medical council, Secretary of S.V.S.Educational and Social Service Trust, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the Department of AYUSH to consider the representation dated 22.3.2012 based on the representation to direct the first respondent to issue direction to the second respondent to conduct re-inspection so as to find out whether the petitioner complied the minimum requirements as contemplated under section 12 and regulations issued as per the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 and on compliance of the requisites to issue permission to the petitioner to run the institution. The case was heard by honorable Justice K.Chandru and dismissed the petition.

Excerpts from his judgment

      The petitioner Trust is running a college in the name of S.V.S.Medical College of Yoga and Naturopathy and Research Institute at Bhangaram, Salem District. The college is offering 5-1/2 years course in Bachelor of Naturopathy and Yogic Sciences which is the medical degree course with one year compulsory rotator internship. In this writ petition, they sought for a direction to the first respondent, Government of India, Department of Ayurvedha,Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH) coming under the Ministry of Health and Welfare, to consider their representation dated 22.3.2012 and based on the representation to issue a direction to the second respondent Central Council for Homeopathy to conduct re-inspection so as to find out whether the petitioner had complied with the minimum requirements contemplated under Section 12 of the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 as well as regulations framed there under and to grant necessary permission to run the institution.


2. When the writ petition came up for admission on 25.04.2012, this court directed the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisthi to take notice for the first respondent and Ms.Narmada Sampath, learned Standing Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, the third respondent. On behalf of first respondent, a counter affidavit, dated 06.06.2012 has been filed.


3. The case of the petitioner was that the petitioner trust had created necessary infrastructure, faculty, staff and medical facilities. They had applied for permission vide application dated 27.04.2011 for establishing a homeopathy medical college with an annual intake of 50 students. The State Government by G.O.(3D)No.5, Health and Family Welfare department, dated 28.02.2011 had granted no objection certificate to start the college. The first respondent considering the application of the petitioner had forwarded the same to the second respondent Central Council for Homeopathy on 09.05.2011 for conducting an inspection and making a recommendation. The second respondent had conducted the inspection of the proposed college on 23.07.2011. The executive committee of the second respondent in its meeting held on 23.09.2011 had decided not to recommend for grant of permission to the petitioner to start a new college. Based upon the same, the first respondent had issued an order dated 6.3.2012 by which they had informed that the request for permission was rejected. The second respondent had pointed out several deficiencies by their inspection report. The deficiencies pointed out were either incorrect or false as during inspection the petitioner had produced all relevant documents to show that the institute had fulfilled all requisites in terms of Section 12 of the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 and regulations framed therein.


4. The first respondent before rejection had called for an enquiry on 17.01.2012 to provide an explanation regarding deficiencies pointed out by the second respondent. During enquiry, the petitioner gave both written and oral submissions regarding the deficiencies pointed out by the second respondent. It was despite the explanation offered, the rejection was made. The first respondent had failed to consider the explanation offered with necessary proof. The rejection has been based solely on the recommendation of the second respondent without considering the evidence showed. Several deficiencies pointed out by the second respondent were rectified. Therefore, they sent a detailed representation, dated 22.3.2012 and sought for consideration to conduct re-inspection.


5. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing on 17.01.2012 in terms of Section 12A(4) of the HCC Act. The petitioner had failed to substantiate their claim that such deficiencies do not exist. Though they claimed that six class rooms were shown to the council visitation team, they could not provide any supporting document in respect of completion of their building and availability of six class rooms. It was stated that there was only one class room against the requirement of six class rooms. There were only 11 teachers against the requirement of 43 teachers. Further, there was only 15 hospital staff as against the requirement of 50. In terms of equipment, out of 470 equipment required, there were only 217 equipments available. The availability of museum, teaching lab, clinical laboratory, library and functional operation theatre were also not mentioned. The outpatient department and inpatient department registers were not produced. The department of Pathology and Microbiology, Community Medicine, Practice of Medicine, Surgery, Gynecology, Forensic Medicine and Repertory were under construction. Even the accommodation for hospital Superintendent and Medical Officer was not available in the hospital. During the visit of the team, it was claimed that they had 20 teaching faculty. They have submitted the appointment order, degree certificate and joining report of 33 teaching staff. On examination of the documents, it was found that 11 teachers have joined the college on 24.02.2011 and letters of appointment were issued only on 14.02.2011. The date of joining and the date of offer of appointment in the case of other 21 teachers were same. Though they claimed that all teachers have joined the college, they could not produce the attendance register with supporting affidavits. Hence the documents produced by them were spurious. They claimed that they had 58 hospital staff, who were present on the date of inspection. Though they submitted appointment orders, joining letters and educational certificate of hospital staffs, the joining letters given by the 13 staff were without signature. It was claimed that one A.Selvaraj had joined the college on 14.02.2010, but the appointment order was issued to him only on 14.02.2011. His name was also not found in the attendance register.


6. Similarly, the Hearing Committee had selected 8 case records regarding 50 bedded IPD hospital. On examination it was found that in two cases, the bed numbers were not mentioned. The laboratory investigation sheets were found blank in respect of 8 patients. The authenticities of documents were also found doubtful. Therefore, the committee was of the opinion that they had 20 teaching faculty and 53 hospital staff could not be accepted. It is in the light of these deficiencies, the request was rejected. A letter dated 22.3.2012 was submitted after the impugned order came to be issued and it was only an afterthought. The fulfillment of requirements on subsequent occasion after inspection and hearing did not permit the petitioner to claim the right for acceptance of their application under Section 12A.


7. In the light of the stand taken by the respondents, the petitioner's attempt to seek for re-inspection also cannot be accepted. Since the orders have been passed by the competent authority after taking note of all relevant circumstances, the question of seeking for fresh opportunity at this stage will not arise. The petitioner themselves have not chosen to challenge the order of rejection and they are only seeking for re-inspection which is not contemplated under the Act. The power of judicial review over such matters is very narrow. In the light of the above, there is no case made out by the petitioner. Hence the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs.