Faculty Of Ayurveda Mansarovar Global University vs National Commission For Indian System Of Medicine & Anr.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010480892026

Date of decision: 13.10.2026

+ W.P.(C) 14773/2026 & CM APPL. 69239/2026, CM APPL.
69240/2026, CM APPL. 69241/2026
FACULTY OF AYURVEDA MANSAROVAR GLOBAL
UNIVERSITY
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr Adv. Mr. Animesh
Kumar, Adv Mr. Nishant Kumar, Adv

versus

NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR INDIAN SYSTEM OF
MEDICINE & ANR.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Kumar Prashant, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH


: JASMEET SINGH, J ( ORAL )


1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking the following reliefs :-
“a) Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in nature of
certiorari quashing the letter dated 04.09.2026 issued by
Respondent No. 2.
AND/OR
b) Pass any other or further order(s) or relief(s) which this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper considering
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:55
W.P.(C) 14773/2026 Page 1 of 11

the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest
of justice, equity, and fair play.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an institution
conducting the BAMS course with an intake of 100 students since the
Academic Session 2021 - 2022.

3. On 16.01.2026, the respondents conducted a surprise hybrid visitation of
the petitioner institution. During the visitation, 15 faculty members were
physically present in the faculty area, whereas the AEBAS data reflected
that 44 teachers had marked their attendance on the day of the visitation.
Proceeding on the basis of this discrepancy, the respondents concluded
that the remaining 29 teachers were physically absent and were merely
shown as faculty members on paper. Consequently, the impugned action
was taken against the petitioner institution.
4. I have heard Mr. Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner, and Mr. Prashant, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
5. The respondents issued a hearing notice dated 13.02.2026 to the
petitioner institution following the visitation. The relevant portion of the
said notice reads as under:

Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:55
W.P.(C) 14773/2026 Page 2 of 11

Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:55
W.P.(C) 14773/2026 Page 3 of 11

Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:55
W.P.(C) 14773/2026 Page 4 of 11

6. A perusal of paragraph 3 of the aforesaid notice indicates that the
discrepancy relied upon by the respondent was that, while the AEBAS
data reflected the attendance of 44 faculty members, only 15 faculty
members were found physically present during the visitation.
7. The petitioner submitted a point-wise reply to the said notice, explaining
the circumstances in which certain faculty members were not present in
the faculty area at the time of the visitation and furnishing supporting
documents in this regard. The petitioner, inter alia, relied upon the
deployment of faculty members for community outreach medical camps
and the attendance records maintained through the AEBAS mechanism.
8. Thereafter, the respondent passed the impugned order dated 04.09.2026,
whereby a monetary penalty of Rs. 1 crore was imposed upon the
petitioner institution and 29 faculty members were declared to be
“on-paper teachers”. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as
under:
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:55
W.P.(C) 14773/2026 Page 5 of 11

Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:55
W.P.(C) 14773/2026 Page 6 of 11

9. The principal question that arises for consideration is whether the
respondents could have arrived at the aforesaid conclusion and imposed
the consequential penalty without following the procedure prescribed
under the Standard Operating Procedure dated 10.02.2025 (SOP).
10. In this regard, my attention has been drawn to the SOP dated 10.02.2025,
particularly paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 thereof, which prescribe the procedure
for identifying and verifying faculty members suspected of being
physically absent but shown as present on paper. The relevant provisions
read as under:
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:55
W.P.(C) 14773/2026 Page 7 of 11

Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:55
W.P.(C) 14773/2026 Page 8 of 11

11. A cumulative reading of the aforesaid provisions indicates that a
discrepancy between the attendance reflected in the AEBAS data and the
physical presence of faculty members at the time of visitation cannot, by
itself, be treated as conclusive proof that the faculty members concerned
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:55
W.P.(C) 14773/2026 Page 9 of 11

are merely present on paper. The SOP contemplates verification of
records for the preceding six months. It further provides for scrutiny of
attendance against the prescribed threshold of 75%, in accordance with
the criteria stipulated therein, before arriving at such a conclusion.
12. In the present case, a perusal of the hearing notice dated 13.02.2026 and
the impugned order dated 04.09.2026 indicates that the petitioner was
not put to notice regarding the proposed reliance upon the attendance
data for the preceding six months, nor was the petitioner called upon to
explain the position with reference to the said data in the manner
contemplated under the SOP. The notice proceeded primarily on the
discrepancy between the AEBAS attendance recorded on 16.01.2026
and the number of faculty members physically present during the
visitation.
13. The respondents have, therefore, proceeded to declare 29 faculty
members as “on-paper teachers” and impose a monetary penalty of Rs. 1
crore without demonstrating compliance with the verification procedure
prescribed under its own SOP. The impugned order, insofar as it records
the aforesaid finding and imposes the consequential penalty upon the
petitioner, cannot be sustained in the absence of such compliance.

14. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the view that the impugned order dated
04.09.2026, to the extent that it declares the 29 faculty members to be
“on-paper teachers” and imposes a monetary penalty of Rs. 1 crore upon
the petitioner institution, is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside.
15. It is, however, clarified that this Court has not examined the merits of the
allegations against the petitioner or the concerned faculty members. The
respondents shall be at liberty to initiate or undertake proceedings
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:55
W.P.(C) 14773/2026 Page 10 of 11

afresh, if so warranted, in accordance with the procedure prescribed
under the SOP .
16. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.



JASMEET SINGH, J
OCTOBER 13, 2026 / (MS)
(Corrected and released on 17.10.2026)
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:55
W.P.(C) 14773/2026 Page 11 of 11