Case Note & Summary
The case involves appeals by the Central Council for Indian Medicine against judgments of the Karnataka High Court that allowed writ petitions filed by Karnataka Ayurveda Medical College and others. The college had applied for permission to start PG courses for the academic year 2014-15 under the 2012 Regulations. Permission was granted, and students were admitted. Subsequently, the 2016 Regulations came into force, imposing new requirements. The Council sought to withdraw the permission on the ground that the college did not comply with the 2016 Regulations. The High Court held that the 2016 Regulations could not be applied retrospectively to affect admissions already made. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Council's action was arbitrary and that the college had a vested right to continue the courses. The court emphasized that regulations cannot be applied retrospectively to the detriment of students who have already been admitted. The appeals were dismissed, and the college was allowed to continue the PG courses.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Retrospective Operation of Regulations - Vested Rights - The principle against retrospective application of regulations that affect vested rights was applied. The court held that the 2016 Regulations could not be applied to admissions made prior to their notification, as the college had already admitted students based on the 2012 Regulations. (Paras 10-15) B) Education Law - Medical Education - Withdrawal of Permission - Legitimate Expectation - The court held that once permission was granted and students were admitted, the college had a legitimate expectation that the permission would not be withdrawn mid-stream. The Central Council's action was arbitrary and violative of Article 14. (Paras 16-20) C) Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 - Section 13A - Permission to Start New Courses - The court interpreted Section 13A to mean that the Council's power to grant permission includes the power to impose conditions, but such conditions must be reasonable and cannot be applied retrospectively to the detriment of students already admitted. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Council for Indian Medicine can withdraw permission for PG courses granted under the 2012 Regulations on the ground of non-compliance with the 2016 Regulations, after students have already been admitted and the academic year has commenced.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court judgments. The college was allowed to continue the PG courses.
Law Points
- Retrospective application of regulations
- vested rights
- legitimate expectation
- non-arbitrariness
- Indian Medicine Central Council Act
- 1970
