SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 9835, 9836, 9837 & 9838-9839 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26558, 26572, 26567 & 27918-27919 of 2016)
Decided On : 28-09-2016
(2016) 7 SCC 353; Contempt Petition (C) No. 584 of 2016 in Civil Appeal No. 4060 of 2009 – Relied upon
(2016) 7 SCC 487; (2002) 8 SCC 481 – Referred
(b) Medical education – Admission to MBBS course – NEET conducted by CBSE – Thereafter deemed universities conducting their own counseling and admitting students – Not proper – However not disturbed for current year – Stay by High Court vacated. (Para 12)
(c) Medical education – Admission to MBBS course – Third and fourth counseling – To be conducted by Committee of the State Government. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
Respondents herein are deemed universities. The issue pertains to the admission of students in MBBS/BDS courses. An All India Test known as National Eligibility–cum–Entrance Test (NEET) has been conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi in order to have the centralised admission process. On the basis of NEET, Merit List showing All India Ranking has been drawn of the successful candidates. Admission is to be given on the basis of the said Merit List by the educational institutions. However, the process of admission is to be preceded by counselling of eligible candidates/students.
Vide the Letter and Resolution, which have been stayed by the High Court, a decision is taken by the Central Government/State Government that the centralised counselling shall be conducted by the State Government. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned decisions and communications which are administrative in nature, having no force of law, cannot take away the right of the deemed universities to admit the students. This is the main issue which is to be adjudicated upon and to be decided by the High Court in the writ petitions filed by the respondents.
In the impugned interim order, the High Court has come to the prima facie view that the State Government cannot transgress the powers of the deemed universities by issuing Government Resolution, when the field of holding the counselling and right to admit the students is occupied by the Central legislation like the Amendment Notification dated August 05, 2016 issued by the Medical Council of India under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the aforementioned Regulation, 2016.
Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7 SCC 353 – – Relied upon [Para 5]
Finding of the Court:
View taken by the High Cour4t cannot by sustained.
Result: Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Leave granted.
2. All these appeals arise out of the common order dated August 30, 2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein. In the said writ petitions, Rule has been issued and during the course of arguments we are informed that these are now listed for final hearing on September 29, 2016.
3. Subject matter of challenge in these appeals is the interim order which is passed by the High Court granting stay of Letter dated August 09, 2016 issued by the Government of India through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the Government Resolution dated August 20, 2016 passed by the State of Maharashtra and the consequential Notice dated August 21, 2016 of the State of Maharashtra.
4. Respondents herein are the deemed universities established under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'UGC Act'). The issue pertains to the admission of students in MBBS/BDS courses. An All India Test known as National Eligibility–cum–Entrance Test (NEET) has been conducted in order to have the centralised admission process. This NEET has been conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi, on the basis of which Merit List showing All Indian Ranking has been drawn of the successful candidates. It is the common case of the parties that admission is to be given on the basis of the said Merit List by the educational institutions. However, the process of admission is to be preceded by counselling of eligible candidates/students. It is this counselling which has become the bone of contention.
5. Vide the aforementioned Letter and Resolution, which have been stayed by the High Court, a decision is taken by the Central Government/State Government that the centralised counselling shall be conducted by the State Government. For this purpose, the appellants, i.e. the State of Maharashtra, supported by the Union of India, relied upon the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Modern Dental College and Research Centre & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 353 and some other Constitution Bench judgments including the orders passed in Sankalp Charitable Trust & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 487 whereby system of NEET is restored coupled with centralised counselling. On the other hand, the respondent universities maintain that being deemed universities, they are autonomous bodies and, therefore, it is their right to undertake the counselling process and the only rider is that they are supposed to admit the students only from the Merit List drawn from the NEET and that too on merit. According to them, the impugned orders issued by the Central and State Governments are ultra-vires as the State Government has sought to exercise its powers under the Maharashtra Act No. XXVIII of 2015 which does not apply to the deemed universities, nay, specifically excludes the institution declared to be a deemed university under Section 3 of the UGC Act, as per the definition of 'Private Professional Educational Institution' provided under Section 2(q), to which institutions the said Act applies, regulating their admission and fees. It is also argued that right to admit students is the fundamental right of these deemed universities guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Act as per the eleven Judge Bench decision of this Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481 and any reasonable restrictions thereupon can be imposed only by 'law'. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned decisions and communications which are administrative in nature, having no force of law, cannot take away the right of the deemed universities to admit the students. This is the main issue which is to be adjudicated upon and to be decided by the High Court in the writ petitions filed by the respondents.
6. In the impugned interim order, the High Court has taken note of the provisions of the University Grants Comm
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.