HASSANUL HAQUE vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2026:UHC:3441-DB
Reserved
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 30.04.2026
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 07.05.2026
WRIT PETITION (M/B) No. 935 OF 2025 (1)_
Vineeta and others …….Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondent
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 3134 OF 2019 (2)
Motherhood Ayurveda Medical College, Roorkee
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 3136 OF 2019 (3)
Om Ayrveda Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre,
District-Haridwar. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 3140 OF 2019 (4)
Uttaranchal Ayurvedic Medical College, Dehradun.
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 3161 OF 2019 (5)
Smt. Manjira Devi Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital,
Uttarkashi. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 3167 OF 2019 (6)
Shivalik Institute of Ayurveda and Research, Dehradun.
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 207 OF 2021 (7)
Quadra Institute of Ayurveda ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 461 OF 2021 (8)
Doon Institute of Medical Sciences. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents
WRIT PETITION (M/B) No. 841 OF 2025 (9)
Hassanul Haque and others. ...Petitioners
1

2026:UHC:3441-DB

Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents
WRIT PETITION (M/B) No. 1053 OF 2025 (10)
Satya Dev and others. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents
WRIT PETITION (M/B) No. 1057 OF 2025 (11)
Farha Khan and others. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents
&
WRIT PETITION (M/B) No. 1064 OF 2025 (12)
Mohd. Suaib and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents

Counsel for the petitioners

: Sri Yogesh Pacholia, Sri Tilak Ram, Sri
Navneet Kaushik, Sri Niranjan Bhatt
and Sri Aditya Singh, learned counsel.

Counsel for the respondents

: Sri J.C. Pandey, learned Standing
Counsel with Sri M.S. Bisht, learned
Brief Holder for the State.
Sri Rajesh Sharma, Sri Saurav
Adhikari, Sri Manoj Kumar, learned
Standing Counsel for the Union of
India.
Sri Krishan Mohan Joshi, Advocate,
holding brief of Sri V.K. Kaparuwan,
learned Standing Counsel for the
Union of India.
Sri Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel
for Uttarakhand Ayurveda University.
Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel
for National Commission for Indian

System of Medicine.

JUDGMENT : (Per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
1. A common question which arises for consideration in
the present batch of writ petitions is whether the admissions
granted to students in AYUSH undergraduate courses during
the academic year 2019-20 by various private colleges,
bypassing the counseling process based on the result of
National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET), could be
2

2026:UHC:3441-DB
regularized; and whether the provisional registration granted
to the students by the University on basis of interim orders
passed in writ petitions filed by the colleges / students can be
held to be valid, so as to entitle such students, who have
pursued their courses for all these years, to appear in the final
examinations, and in cases where they have already
appeared, to have their results declared.
2. Broadly, there are two sets of writ petitions.
The one is by the individual colleges, wherein the colleges
have either challenged the Notification dated 03.01.2019
issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Ayurveda,
Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy
(AYUSH) providing that all admissions in AYUSH courses
shall mandatorily be made through the merit list of NEET
(UG)-2019, in view of the amendments made in the
Regulations by the Central Council of Indian Medicine with
the previous sanction of the Central Government by
th
Notification dated 7
December, 2018, or have sought a
mandamus to permit such students to appear in the
professional examinations in different years.
3. The other set of petitions is by the students
seeking a mandamus to the respondents to declare their
results of the final examination of B.A.M.S. course and/or
to permit them to appear in different professional
3

2026:UHC:3441-DB
examinations, thereby, enabling them to complete their
B.A.M.S. course, and / or to declare their results and issue
marksheets to them and / or to quash the order passed by
the University cancelling their temporary registration for
the course.
4. In some cases, interlocutory applications have
also been filed seeking different reliefs which, in pith and
substance, are essentially for grant of permission to
complete different stages of the course.
5. The brief facts are that by Notification dated
07.12.2018, the Central Council of Indian Medicine
introduced the Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum
Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) Amendment
Regulations, 2018. By Regulation 2(d), it was provided
that there shall be a uniform entrance examination for all
medical institutions for admission to undergraduate courses
in each academic year, to be conducted by an authority
designated by the Central Government. The said
Regulations were challenged by various colleges before the
Punjab and Haryana High Court. The writ petitions were
dismissed by judgment date 18.12.2019. Aggrieved
thereby, the colleges filed Special Leave Petitions before
the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided the
controversy by judgment dated 20.02.2020 in Union of
4

2026:UHC:3441-DB
India vs. Federation of Self-Financed Ayurvedic
Colleges Punjab and others, reported in (2020) 12 SCC
115 . The Supreme Court held that Section 22 of the
Indian Medicines Central Council Act, 1970, which
empowers the Central Council to prescribe minimum
standards of education in Indian Medicine, is wide enough
to enable the Council to provide for NEET examination and,
accordingly, the amendments made in the Regulations,
making provisions for admission through NEET
examination, were upheld. While so holding, the Supreme
Court, considering the fact that a large number of seats had
remained vacant in various private colleges, even after final
round of counseling, and that the colleges had admitted
students on the strength of interim orders passed by the
High Courts, permitted such students to pursue their
courses, provided they were admitted prior to the last date
th
of admission i.e. 15 October, 2019. The Supreme Court
clarified that the relaxation granted by it was a one-time
measure and would not be treated as a precedent. The
relevant observations, made in this behalf in Paragraph-15
are as follows:

“15. …..However, , in view of admission of a large
number of students to the AYUSH Under Graduate
courses for the year 2019-2020 on the strength of interim
5

2026:UHC:3441-DB
orders passed by the High Courts, we direct that the
students may be permitted to continue provided that they
th
were admitted prior to the last date of admission i.e. 15
October, 2019. The said direction is also applicable to
st
students admitted to Post Graduate courses before 31
October, 2019. This is a one-time exercise which is
permitted in view of the peculiar circumstances.
Therefore, this order shall not be treated as a precedent.”


6. It is noteworthy that in the writ petitions, filed by
the colleges, separate interim orders have been passed on
different dates in identical terms. For ready reference, the
operative part of the interim order passed in WPMS No.
3134 of 2019 titled ‘ Motherhood Ayurveda Medical College
Roorkee vs. State of Uttarakhand and others ’ is quoted
below:-

“ 8. In view of these facts, this Court is also inclined to
grant a similar protection to the petitioner. The petitioner
shall be permitted to admit the students in the ongoing
counselling for the academic year 2019-20 with the
following conditions:-
(i). In case in the petitioner’s college seats have
remained unfilled after the NEET qualified students
have made their choices and if seats remain
unfilled, due to the non availability of NEET
qualified candidates, such candidates who have the
minimum qualification to undergo the AYUSH
courses (BAMS, BHMS and BUMS), shall be
permitted to take part in the counselling.

6

2026:UHC:3441-DB
(ii). It is further made clear that such students
who have been admitted in the petitioner’s college
and who have not qualified the NEET examination,
their admission shall be provisional in nature and
depend upon the final determination in the writ
petition.

(iii). It is further made clear that these students
shall only be admitted as per their relative merit.
In other words, the more meritorious candidate
shall be given preference. ”


7. The submission of learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the students were admitted to B.A.M.S.
courses in academic year 2019-20 on basis of interim
orders passed in various writ petitions filed by the colleges.
Although, the interim orders stipulated that the admissions
would be provisional and would depend upon the final
outcome of the writ petitions, but now, in view of the order
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Federation of Self-
Financed Ayurvedic Colleges, Punjab and others
(supra), the said admissions stand regularized. It is,
therefore, prayed that the writ petitions be allowed and the
University be directed to treat the admissions as regular
and declare the result of the students.
8. Sri Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel, appearing
on behalf of the University, does not dispute that the
students, who have preferred different writ petitions before
this Court, are those who were admitted by the colleges in
7

2026:UHC:3441-DB
pursuance of interim orders passed in the writ petitions
filed by them and possessed the minimum qualification for
admission to AYUSH courses. Thus, although these
students were admitted directly by the colleges without
undergoing the process of counseling, in view of the order
of the Supreme Court granting one-time relaxation in
respect of admissions made before 15.10.2019, they would
stand regularized. Consequently, the University is obliged
to declare their results and / or permit them to appear in
any back examination, if scheduled in future, provided
there is no other impediment.
9. In some of the cases, counter-affidavits have
been filed by the University, in which it has not been denied
that the students were admitted by the colleges before
15.10.2019, the last date prescribed in this behalf, on basis
of the interim orders passed in favour of the colleges in
different writ petitions. However, in WPMS No. 207 of 2021
titled “ Quadra Institute of Ayurveda vs. State of
Uttarakhand others ”, it is contended that in the said case,
rd
interim order was passed for the first time on 3 February,
2021 permitting the College to take admission of four
students provisionally and, therefore, the students of the
said college are not entitled to the benefit of the order of
the Supreme Court.
8

2026:UHC:3441-DB
10. In order to appreciate the submission, we
hereunder reproduce the operative part of the interim order
dated 03.02.2021 passed in WPMS No. 207 of 2021:-

9. In the meantime, Uttarakhand Ayurveda University is
“
directed to provisionally permit the 4 students admitted
by the petitioner College during academic session 2019-
20 to appear in the first professional examination, which
is scheduled to be held in the month of March, 2021. This,
however, will be subject to petitioner depositing a sum of
₹ 1,00,000/-with the University, within two weeks from
today. ”

11. It is not disputed before us that the Institute had
deposited Rs. 1 lac with the University in terms of the
above order. It is also not disputed that all the four
students of the College, in respect of whom the interim
order was passed, were admitted prior to the last date of
admission, i.e. 15.10.2019. The students have appeared in
professional examinations held during these years on the
strength of the interim order. In such circumstances, we
are not inclined to differentiate the cases of said students
from that of other students of the same academic year and
hold that they would also be entitled to the benefit of one-
time relaxation granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
12. Thus, while the challenge to the amendment
made in the Regulations and the Notification issued by the
Central Government for making admissions through the
9

2026:UHC:3441-DB
process of counseling fails, the students admitted on the
strength of interim orders on or before 15.10.2019 are held
entitled to declaration of their results and / or to appear in
any back paper examination. It is ordered accordingly.
The University shall treat the admissions as regular and
declare the result of the students and also permit them to
appear in the back paper examination, if any, in accordance
with law.
13. The writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
14. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed
of accordingly.

_
____________________
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.


___________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.

th
Dt: 7 May, 2026
Rathour

Digitally signed by PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779d9e3aeb1097d
17dbb53d481cabd25946eed, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A40CC6179B8E0
10331BA695239171F906FD5C45C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA
SINGH RATHOUR
Date: 2026.05.07 10:51:28 +05'30'
PRAVINDRA
SINGH RATHOUR
10