Anita Sharad Shegaonkar vs Medical Assessment Rating Board For Indian System Of Medicine

$~55
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: October 16 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010508952026
+ W.P.(C) 15639/2026 & CM APPL. 73268/2026, CM APPL.
73269/2026
ANITA SHARAD SHEGAONKAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vinod Pawar and Ms.
Harshita Sharma, Advocates.
versus
MEDICAL ASSESSMENT RATING BOARD
FOR INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Kumar Prashant, Advocate
for R1.
Mr. Bipul Kumar, GP for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. By the present petition, the petitioner essentially challenges the
order dated 01.09.2026 (hereafter ‘ impugned order ’) passed by the
learned President, National Commission for Indian System of
Medicine pursuant to which the petitioner’s teacher code was
withdrawn and kept in abeyance for a period of one year on the
ground that the petitioner failed to prove herself as a regular teacher
and a penalty of ₹1.5 lakhs was imposed.
2. Succinctly stated, the petitioner was duly selected and
appointed as a professor in the Department of Rachana Sharir at
Sumandeep Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital with effect from
10.02.2026. On 10.03.2026, at about 02:10 PM, a surprise visit was
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15639/2026 Page 1 of 5
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:19.10.2026
17:44:31

conducted by Respondent No. 1. In the surprise inspection, it was
found that certain faculty members had not marked attendance in the
Biometric Attendance through AEBAS and their leave records had not
been supplied by the principal. In the said inspection, the petitioner
was found to be merely an on paper teacher and it was found that the
petitioner deliberately remained absent. A personal hearing was
afforded to the petitioner on 06.05.2026 where the petitioner supplied
geo tagged photographs showing her presence in the institution,
attendance records containing recorded in and out time entries,
physical attendance register, leave applications substantiating that the
petitioner was suffering from Carcinoma Breast and undergoing
medical treatment. Upon a consideration of the same, by the impugned
order, it was found that the petitioner had failed to substantiate that
she was a regular teacher. Consequently, the teacher code of the
petitioner was withdrawn and kept in abeyance for a period of one
year and a penalty of ₹1.5 lakh was imposed.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent failed to
consider the material supplied by the petitioner and wrongly
considered the petitioner as an on paper teacher. It is further the case
of the petitioner that the respondent authorities disregarded the
petitioner’s medical condition and attendance records and imposed a
detrimental penalty without following any due process.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent
submits that all the circumstances were duly considered by the
authorities before passing the impugned order. He consequently
submits that the impugned order does not warrant any interference by
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15639/2026 Page 2 of 5
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:19.10.2026
17:44:31

this Court.
5. Upon a holistic appraisal of the pleadings on record, and the
rival contentions of the parties, this Court does not find any ground to
interfere with the impugned order.
6. On a scrutiny of the material on record, it transpires that the
principal grievance of the petitioner stems from the manner of
appreciation and evaluation of the material supplied by the petitioner
by the respondent authorities while passing the impugned order. It is
the case of the petitioner that the respondent authorities failed to
construe the material supplied in its proper light and rendered an
erroneous finding that the petitioner was not a regular teacher to
impose the penalty.
7. Pertinently, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of
hearing on 06.05.2026 to present her case. The impugned order
records that the petitioner had supplied geo tagged photographs for
two days before the surprise visitation and six photographs of six
dates after the date of visitation which did not prove that the petitioner
was regularly present in the institute. It was further noted that there
was a discrepancy between the attendance recorded through biometric
means and the attendance recorded in the physical register. The
respondent authorities noted that while the petitioner had marked
attendance through biometric means for 27 days, the physical register
contained 30 entries. It was noted that the signatures of the petitioner
taken during the course of the hearing did not match with the
signatures contained in the attendance register which demonstrated
that the attendance register had been manipulated. It was noted that
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15639/2026 Page 3 of 5
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:19.10.2026
17:44:31

the CCTV footage supplied by the petitioner for 43 days also did not
go on to establish the regularity of the teacher in the institute.
8. The respondent authorities also considered the hard copy of the
leave applications furnished by the petitioner and noted that the
petitioner had failed to mention the period for which the leave was
being sought. The respondent authorities further considered the
medical certificates submitted by the petitioner and came to the
conclusion that the medical certificates were fake. Upon evaluating
the same, it was concluded that the material produced did not establish
regular attendance and the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that she
was functioning as a regular teacher at the institution.
9. As noted above, the petitioner essentially disputes the
inferences drawn from the material. The petitioner relies on the
biometric attendance, geo tagged photographs, CCTV footage and
medical record to contend that her physical presence and bona fide
absence were sufficiently established. The mere fact that the petitioner
places a different interpretation upon the same material, does not, by
itself, establish that the conclusion reached by the authority is perverse
and unsupported by evidence.
10. It is not the function of this Court, in exercise of its
extraordinary jurisdiction, to determine afresh whether the 27
biometric entries, 30 disputed register entries, photographs, CCTV
footage, medical record, when viewed individually or cumulatively
were sufficient to establish regular attendance. This Court cannot
substitute its own assessment of the credibility, reliability or
sufficiency of the petitioner’s explanations for that of the authority
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15639/2026 Page 4 of 5
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:19.10.2026
17:44:31

entrusted to do the same.
11. Pertinently, as noted above, the petitioner was afforded an
opportunity to present her case and merely because the petitioner
disagrees with the factual conclusion drawn by the respondent
authorities, without more, cannot be a ground to exercise jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to make a de novo
assessment of the evidence.
12. Significantly, the respondent authorities have taken a plausible
view in the facts of the present case. The relief sought by the
petitioner at this juncture is predicated upon the determination of
disputed questions of facts. Such questions necessitate proper
appreciation and evaluation of evidence, a course that falls beyond the
ordinary scope of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
13. The petitioner has failed to highlight any demonstrable
perversity in the impugned order for this Court to exercise jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
14. The present petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending
applications also stand disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
OCTOBER 16, 2026
DU
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15639/2026 Page 5 of 5
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:19.10.2026
17:44:31