2004(3) Supreme 540
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
S. Rajendra Babu & G.P. Mathur, JJ.
Bharati Vidyapeeth [Deemed University] and Ors. -Appellants
versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7660 of 2002
With
C.A. Nos. 5543-5544 of 1994
Decided on 26-2-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Harish N. Salve, Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, P.P. Rao, Bhimrao N. Naik, Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Advocates, Sanjay R. Hegde, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Vivek Singh, Ravi Prakash, Chander Prakash, S.P.Sharma, Ashwani Bhardwaj, Abhishek Atrey, Shishir Singh, Vikas Singh, Yunus Malik, Ms. Amrita Narayan, Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, G. Balaji, Sumanth Sharma, Prashant Chaudhary, Satyajit Saha, Ms. Meenakshi Grover, Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Uday Umesh Lalit, Ravindra K. Adsure, Mukesh K. Giri, B.Y. Kulkarni, Bhupender Yadav, D. Bharat Kumar, S.S. Shamshery, R.C. Kohli, Amitesh Kumar, Navin Prakash, Maninder Singh, Mrs. Pratibha M. Singh, Angad Mirdha, Kirti Man Singh, S.V. Deshpande, Ms. Anuradha Rustagi, Chinmoy Khaladkar, S.K. Nandy, Prashant Kumar, Goodwill Indeevar, Advocates.
JUDGMENT
C.A. No. 7660/2002
Bharati Vidyapeeth, located in Pune, was established as a society. Several Colleges affiliated to Pune University were run by the said Society. It applied to the U.G.C. for treating the society as a deemed university and the State Government strongly recommended the case of appellants to the U.O.I. for grant of the status of Deemed University. The Central Government on advice of U.G.C. declared various institutions of Bharati Vidyapeeth at Pune as "Deemed to be University" for the purpose of the U.G.C. Act vide Notification dated 26.4.1996. On 13.6.1996 U.G.C. issued office memorandum declaring Bharati Vidyapeeth as a Deemed University in terms of Section 3 of the U.G.C. Act.
2. When the matter stood thus, it appears that the Bharati Vidyapeeth as deemed University allowed admissions to be made in their respective medical, engineering and dental colleges up to the academic year 1995-1996 under the stream of the Common Entrance Test conducted by the State authority. Thereafter, they decided to keep themselves outside the scope of the State authority. At that stage, appellants herein filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the Admission Rules to Medical, Engineering and Dental colleges for the year 1996-97 whereby the colleges run by Bharati Vidyapeeth were included in the admission proposed to be controlled by the CET authority. The High Court after considering various arguments of the learned counsel appearing on either side dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
3. This Court granted an interim order on 19.5.1997 to the following effect which is continuing till today:
"....We are informed that the examination process has already began as early as February, 1997. In the larger public interest, we are of the view that the petitioner will conduct an All India Entrance Test and will grant admission strictly on the basis of the merit of the candidates. Admission so granted will be subject to the final orders, that will be passed by this Court."
4. The High Court in reaching the conclusion that the petitioner (appellant herein) had not made out any case, mainly adverted to Section 65 of the Maharashtra State University Act and held that the State can frame rules in respect of admission of students and the manner in which the admissions are to be made under those rules has also been spelt out. Inasmuch as the institution with which we are concerned did not fall under the Schedule to the Maharashtra Act, the High Court took the view that the Rules framed under Section 65 of the Maharashtra Act would not be attracted. However, the High Court placed reliance upon Article 162 of the Constitution and held that the rules, though framed under Section 65 of the Maharashtra Act could as well be treated as framed in exercise of powers under Article 162 of the Constitution and, therefore, stated that such power was available and hence these Rules could be made applicable to the appellants institutions. The argument addressed on behalf of the petitioner before the High Court is that once the appellant institution comes under the umbrella of deemed university, it is no longer open to the State to exercise any of its powers under Entry 25 of List III inasmuch as the same are the powers exercised by the University Grants Commission under the U.G.C. Act which has been enacted in terms of Entry 66 of List I of the Constitution. It is in this background that the matter falls for our consideration.
5. Shri Harish N. Salve, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant after developing history of the law in relation to the Entries in the Constitution and how they have been understood, specifically submitted that the institutions in question are governed by the University Grants Commission Act and the terms under which it had been granted the status of deemed University as well as the regulations framed and therefore, it is no longer open to the State or University to impose Rules u
Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P. & Ors.
The Gujarat University, Ahmedabad v. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar and Ors.
State of M.P. & Anr. v. Kumari Nivedita Jain & Ors.
The State of T.N. & Anr. v. Adhiyaman Educations & Research Institute & Ors.
Ajay Kumar Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Islamic Academy of Education & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.