Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2017 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 1628 - SUPREME COURTValidity of Sections 3(6), 3(6a) and 3(6b) of the Himachal Pradesh Private Medical Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006 as amended vide amendment Act No. 24 of 2015 - HELD THAT:- The High Court has not touched upon the core issue relating to the autonomy of the Appellant No. 2 - University including its authority to start a constituent medical college, as prescribed by the 2010 Act. Admittedly, the Appellant No. 2 - University has been established under the 2010 Act. This Act received the assent of the Governor on 15th September, 2010 and was brought into force w.e.f. 16th June, 2010. The intendment of the 2010 Act is to provide for establishment, incorporation and Regulation of the Appellant No. 2 - University for higher education, to regulate its functioning and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 2(b) defines the expression "Campus", as 'the area of University within which it is established'. This Act also predicates imparting of education by Appellant No. 2 -University by distance education by combination of any two or more means of communication, namely broadcasting, telecasting, correspondence courses, seminars, contact programmes and any other such methodology - The expression "study centre", means a centre established and maintained or recognized by the University for the purpose of advising, counseling or for rendering any other assistance required by the students of the Appellants in the context of distance education, as set out in Section 2(t). The expression "University" has been defined in Section 2(v) to mean Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Solan in Himachal Pradesh. It is indisputable that the 2010 Act purports to establish an independent University in the State of Himachal Pradesh, having full autonomy as that of any other full-fledged University including the authority to start Multi-Faculty Education Courses within its campus and also constituent colleges off campus. The Appellant No. 2 - University has been bestowed with the power to confer Degrees and Diplomas in terms of Section 35 of the Act - The Appellant No. 2 - University, therefore, has all the trappings of a full-fledged University, to not only start imparting education in prescribed courses but also to set up its constituent colleges to effectuate the purpose for which the University has been established. Indubitably, a constituent college of the University would be an integral part of the University. As noticed from the legislative scheme of the 2010 Act, the Appellant No. 2 has been established as an independent, autonomous University like any other full-fledged University. No doubt, some of the functions of the University, be it the Appellant No. 2 - University or the Himachal Pradesh University, have been controlled and regulated by the 2006 Act. The limited issue raised by the Appellants, however, is with regard to the mandate of the amended Section 3, requiring all the Private Medical Institutions set up within the State to take affiliation from Himachal Pradesh University - This Act, no doubt uniformly applies to all the institutions affiliated to the Universities within the State of Himachal Pradesh, be it Himachal Pradesh University or the Appellant No. 2 - University. However, the object of this Act is limited only to regulate admissions as per the extant and applicable pronouncements of this Court; and to determine the fee structure in colleges imparting medical courses within the State. In the present case, it has been asserted that the Appellant No. 1 - College is a constituent of the Appellant No. 2 - University. In such a situation, it is unfathomable that the requirement of taking affiliation from another University (Himachal Pradesh University) established under a separate State Legislation, can and ought to be insisted upon. If insisted, it would, inevitably, entail in making an inroad into the autonomy of the Appellant No. 2 - University - Section 7 of the 2010 Act does not empower the Appellant No. 2 - University to affiliate or otherwise admit to its privileges any other institution. But that will have no application to the case on hand. For, the Appellant No. 1 - College is none other than a constituent college of Appellant No. 2 - University itself. The Medical Council of India as well as the Union Government have, therefore, justly stated that it was not necessary for the Appellant No. 1 - College to take affiliation from the Himachal Pradesh University. Thus, the amended provisions, in particular Section 3(6a), would impinge upon the autonomy of an independent University established under a separate State Legislation. Further, the field of affiliation is governed by the State legislation under which the respective Universities have been established. The power of granting affiliation to colleges under the control of the concerned University, must vest with the respective University to which the college will be affiliated - since the Appellant No. 1 - College is a constituent of the Appellant No. 2 - University, the question of compelling it to take affiliation from another University (Himachal Pradesh University) cannot be countenanced. The impugned judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated 20.12.2016 in CWP No. 4773 of 2015 is set aside - appeal allowed.
|