VERY IMPORTANT POINT
AIIMS is not a University and its Academic Committee is not a Senate nor its Governing Body a Court within the meaning of Section 3 (d) of the Dentist Act, 1948. The degrees and diplomas awarded by it in dental education enjoy statutory recognition in view of Section 23 of AIIMS Act, 1956 but that will not convert it into a University established by law (as a deemed University u/s 3 of UGC Act 1956).

Headnote:The Dentist Act, 1948-Section 3(d)-Meaning of words University , Senate , Court -Provisions of AIIMS Act, 1956- Institute , Academic Committee , Governing Members -Whether AIIMS is a University and its Academic Committee a Senate or Governing Members a Court within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the Dentist Act, 1948-High Court holding yes -Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether mere fact of being empowered under the AIIMS Act to confer degrees or diplomas, would convert an Institute into a University established by law? (No)-Intention of legislature-Whether view taken by High Court sustainable? (No)-Result-AIIMS can confer degrees in Dental Science but is not a University under the Dentist Act-Whether Governing Body or the Academic Committee of the AIIMS is equivalent to Senate or Court (does not arise)-Position of respondent No. 1-Had become infructuous-Appeal allowed accordingly-(General Clauses Act, 1897-Section 3(58)-State shall include Union Territory-Effect)-(UGC Act, 1956).
       Held : The thrust of the submission made by Shri Rao is that the eminence of the AIIMS in the field of medical education is undisputed but the fact remains that the language of Section 3(d) of the Act requires that representation under that clause is available only to a University established by law and not any other institution though established by law imparting dental education and conferring degrees. In this context, the High Court placed very heavy reliance upon the provisions of the AIIMS Act which enacted that AIIMS imparts dental education and confers or grants degrees, which is normally the function of a University and, therefore, in a general sense by adopting the dictionary meaning, it should be stated that it is a University, while the contention on behalf of the appellant is that it must be a University established by law . We may in this context notice the provisions of Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as the UGC Act ]. Section 22 of the UGC Act provides that the right of conferring or granting degree shall be exercised by three categories of institutions, namely,-
        (1) a University established or incorporated by a Central or a State Act;
        (2) an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the UGC Act; and
        (3) an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees.
       The fact that there are three kinds of authorities empowered to grant degrees or diplomas is too well known in educational field and is legislatively taken note of as aforesaid. Thus it is clear that there are various institutions in India other than Universities which are empowered to confer or grant degrees and diplomas and AIIMS is one such institution. Therefore, it cannot be said that mere fact of being empowered under the AIIMS Act to confer degrees or diplomas would convert it into a University established by law. The intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used in the statute, thus paying attention to what has been said as also to what has not been said. When the words used are not ambiguous, literal meaning has to be applied, which is the golden rule of interpretation. To interpret the meaning of the expression University the High Court proceeded to examine various dictionaries. That exercise could not have been undertaken by the High Court in view of the fact that the expression used in Section 3(d) of the Act is a University established by law . The expression used is not just a University but University established by law and the expression University cannot be divorced from the following words established by law . Entire expression "University established by law" constitutes one concept and is well known in law as indicated in Section 22 of the UGC Act. Hence, construction of the expression used in the Act with reference to dictionaries is not called for. Such a course will result in either omission of words in the Act such as established by law or to add different words which is not permissible in the language of the Act. The learned counsel for respondents referred to large number of decisions where the meaning of the expression used in an enactment has been given a wider meaning or even to cover a situation which could not have arisen when the law was enacted. But we are afraid, these principles cannot be applied in the present context, for the Parliament is well aware of the situation of University, deemed University and the institutions constituted and empowered under relevant enactments to confer degrees and the Act has been amended from time to time, to suit fresh needs as and when they arose. Thus, the Act has not remained static but is catching up with times. Therefore, what is not included by the legislature cannot be undone by us by adopting the principle of purposive interpretation. AIIMS is an institution, which is specially empowered by Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees. As a result thereof AIIMS may impart education in dentistry and also confer degrees or diplomas as provided under the AIIMS Act but that circumstance would not itself convert such an institution into a University established by law. If Parliament had intended that all categories of institutions which impart dental education will also be covered by Section 3(d) of the Act, it would not have provided that it is only a University established by law imparting dental education could send its representative to the Council. The object of Section 3(d) of the Act being to provide representation to the University established by law, to give any other meaning would strain the meaning of the expression University established by law so as to treat any other institution empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees at par with University established by law for the purpose of representation on the Council. May be Parliament found that such an institution to be merely covered by Section 3(c) of the Act so that the institution is merely treated as a dental college in a State training students for recognised dental qualifications from whom the Principals, Deans, Directors and Vice Principals or Head of the Dental Wing would also be elected, if found fit. Again, it is for the Parliament to amend the law to give representation appropriately in the Council to the AIIMS and the High Court ought not to have proceeded to consider other modes of interpretation when the language of the provision itself is absolutely clear. Therefore, we think the view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained. The other question whether the Governing Body or the Academic Committee of the AIIMS is equivalent to a Senate or a Court in a University does not arise for consideration in the view we have taken in the matter. Insofar as respondent No. 1 is concerned, inasmuch as his term on the Council came to an end in 1996 his petition had become infructuous by the time it was disposed off and hence nothing need be said on that aspect of the matter. Appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. (Paras 5 to 10 )

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-1. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows :

1.1 Dr. Sidhu, Professor & Head of the Department of Dental Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences [for brevity AIIMS ] was a member of the Dental Council [ Council for brevity] under Section 3(d) of the Dentists Act, 1948 [ the Act for brevity] for the period between 23.2.1991 to 22.3.1996. He having retired from the services of the AIIMS in 1993, to fill up the said vacancy respondent No.1 was stated to have been elected by the Dental Faculty of the AIIMS, which was approved by the Chairman, Academic Committee and his name was forwarded to the Council as member of the Council representing the AIIMS for the unexpired period of Dr. Sidhu s nomination. A communication was sent by the Acting President of the Council that respondent No. 1 has not been elected by the members of the Senate or the Court and the AIIMS has no Senate or Court and his membership to the Council as representative of the AIIMS was being terminated and his name would stand deleted and that AIIMS was not also eligible to send its elected representative to the Council. Aggrieved by that action, a writ petition was filed before the High Court. The stand of respondent No.1 is that the medical degrees granted by the AIIMS are recognised as medical qualifications for the purpose of the Act and has been included in the Schedule to the Act as recognised dental qualification within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act; that the provisions of Section 3(d) of the Act must be liberally construed in such a manner as to treat AIIMS as a University and the Academic Committee of the AIIMS as the Senate of the University and the Governing Body as Court of the University within the meaning of the said Section. On behalf of the Council, contention put forth is that respondent No. 1 could not be elected under the provisions of Section 3(d) of the Act as AIIMS cannot be treated to be a University established by law in any State; that the language of Section 3(d) of the Act is clear and unambiguous and there is no scope for interpreting the same except as it is stated therein. The High Court, on the contentions raised, formulated the question as to whether AIIMS is a University and its Academic Committee a Senate or Governing Members a Court within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the Act.

1.2 The High Court noticed that the Act is a pre-constitutional Act and when the Act came into force, there were hardly three institutions in the country, one at Lucknow, the second at Amritsar and the third at Bombay, which, imparted dental education. It is only much later other institutions took up dental education. The High Court, after making a detailed reference to the provisions of the AIIMS Act, held that if the provisions of Section 3(d) of the Act are applied as the language stands, the nomination of respondent No.1 to the Council cannot be stated to be valid because: (1) AIIMS cannot be said to have been established by law as a University ; and (2) respondent No.1 was not elected either by members of the Senate or the Court from amongst the members of the Dental or Medical Faculty of the University.

1.3 Thereafter, the High Court went on to state as to in what circumstances liberal construction should be adopted and particularly when the expression University had not been defined its etymological meaning could be adopted. By analysing Section 3(d) of the Act and various provisions of the AIIMS Act, the High Court, concluded as follows:

".........one of the main objects being to develop patterns of teaching in under-graduate and post-graduate medical education, which includes establishment of dental college for the purpose of dentistry and for the practical training of the students in those branches of medical education; and above all the recognition of the post-graduate decree awarded by the AIIMS as recognised dental qualification as defined in Section 2(g) of the Act by its inclus

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 1181

Cases Referred (1)