Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7
PETITIONER:
VETERINARY COUNCIL OF INDIA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/01/2000
BENCH:
D.P.Wadhwal, S.Rajendra Babu
JUDGMENT:
A.S. ANAND, CJI :
Which out of the two organizations, i.e., the
Veterinary Council of India or the Indian Council of
Agricultural Research, is empowered to hold an All India
Common Entrance Examination to fill 15% seats in the
Veterinary Colleges/faculties, is the only meaningful
question which we are called upon to decide in these appeals
by special leave? Undisputed facts for answering the above
question are briefly set out hereunder : The Veterinary
Council of India (hereinafter "VCI") has been established
under Section 3 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984
(hereinafter "VC Act") for regulation of veterinary practice
and for matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto
under Section 22 of the Act. It is empowered to specify, by
regulation, the minimum standards of veterinary education
for granting recognised degrees/diplomas in veterinary
science by various institutions affiliated to or as a part
of the State Agricultural Universities. The Act has been
enacted by invoking Article 252 of the Constitution since
the subject matter of the Act falls in the State List (Entry
15 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution)
and the Concurrent List (Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh
Schedule), the Parliament was authorised to pass the
requisite legislation by the Legislatures of the States of
Haryana, Bihar, Orissa, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan
through resolutions passed by the Legislatures of these
States. The Parliament, therefore, enacted the V.C. Act in
1984. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research
(hereinafter "ICAR") is a Society, registered under the
Societies Registration Act, 1860, whose affairs are
controlled by the Central Government in the Ministry of
Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Research and
Education (hereinafter "DARE") in view of Schedule-II, Entry
B, Part-III, Item 12 of the Government of India (Allocation
of Business Rules), 1961 framed under Article 77(3) of the
Constitution of India. The main object of ICAR is : "(a)
To undertake, aid, promote and co-ordinate agricultural and
animal husbandry education, research and its application in
practice development and marketing in India and its
protectorates and any other areas in or in relation to which
the Government of India has and exercises any jurisdiction
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7
by treaty, agreement, grant, usage, sufferance or other
lawful means by all means calculated to increase secure its
adoption in every day practice."
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of
the Act and with the previous approval of the Central
Government, the VCI framed certain regulations relating to
minimum standards of veterinary education, which had earlier
been discussed in a National Workshop jointly sponsored by
the ICAR and the Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences
University on 6th and 7th of February, 1993 at Madras on
’Veterinary Education’. It was resolved in that Workshop
that an All India Common Test be conducted by the VCI.
Regulations, called the Indian Veterinary Council of India
(Minimum Standards of Veterinary Education) Degree courses
(B.V.Sc and AH) Regulations, 1993 (hereinafter "the
Regulations") were thereafter framed under Section 22 of the
Act and published in the Government Gazette on 7th of
February, 1994. Clause (8) of regulation 5 of the
Regulation (which is the bone of contention between the VCI
and ICAR ) reads thus : "(8) 15% of the total number of
seats of each Veterinary College shall be reserved to be
filled on All India basis through Common Entrance
Examination to be conducted by the Veterinary Council of
India."
Pursuant to the aforesaid regulation, the VCI
conducted an All India Common Entrance Examination for the
academic year 1995- 96 for allotments of students to various
Veterinary Colleges and faculties of the State Agricultural
Universities on 28th May, 1995 against the 15% quota. For
the academic year 1996-97, the VCI also published an
admission notice on 25th November, 1995 inviting
applications for appearing at the All India Entrance
Examination to fill 15% seats in exercise of the powers
conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act read
with clause (8) of regulation 5 of the Regulations. The
examination was held on 26th of May, 1996 and results
declared. It appears that an advertisement came to be
issued, on behalf of the ICAR, in the Employment News
Bulletin dated 28th March, 1996, stating that the ICAR will
conduct an All India Common Entrance Examination for filling
up 15% of the seats in the State Agricultural Universities
in each one of the faculties listed in the said
advertisement on 8th of June, 1996. Faculty of Veterinary
Science was included in the said list. On 22nd of April,
1996, the VCI filed a Suit (Civil Suit No.1047 of 1996) on
the original side of the High Court of Delhi, seeking a
declaration and permanent preventive injunction against
ICAR. A prayer for ad interim injunction war also made. By
an order dated 5.6.1996, a learned Single Judge of the High
Court granted an interim injunction in favour of VCI and
restrained the ICAR from conducting the All India Common
Entrance Examination for filling up of 15% of the seats in
the Veterinary Colleges in the States to which the VC Act
applies. According to the learned Single Judge : "I am of
the opinion that it is the plaintiff who is empowered to
hold the examination on all India basis in respect of 15% of
the total number of seats of each Veterinary College in the
State to which the Act applies. Accordingly, till further
orders, the defendant is restrained from conducting All
India Common Entrance Examination for filling up 15% of
total number of seats in the State Agricultural
Universities."
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7
ICAR filed an appeal against the aforesaid interim
injunction [FAO(OS) 231 of 1996] on 6th of June, 1996. The
ICAR also filed a Writ Petition ( CW No.2334 of 1996) on 6th
of June, 1996 seeking the relief of "declaring/quashing
Regulation 5(8) of the Regulations" as illegal/invalid/
ab-initio-void and as such ultra vires of the Constitution.
The VCI was also sought to be restrained from declaring the
result of the All India Entrance Examination conducted by it
for filling up the 15% of the All India seats. By the
impugned order, the appeal against the interim injunction as
well as the writ petition filed by the ICAR, have been heard
and disposed of together. The VCI has filed these appeals
by special leave. Learned counsel for the parties conceded
that the inspiration to hold an All India Entrance
Examination for admission to the Veterinary Colleges against
15% All India Quota was drawn from the judgment of this
Court in Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Ors. Vs. Moti Lal Nehru
Medical College, Allahabad & Ors., AIR 1985 SC 1059, which
had laid down certain guidelines for filling up of the 15%
of the All India seats in various Medical Colleges in the
country, on merits, to be determined through an All India
Entrance Examination but differed on the question as to who
is to conduct that examination. Whereas the learned
Additional Solicitor General, Shri Altaf Ahmad submitted
that the VCI alone is competent to hold such an All India
Entrance Examination being concerned with the maintenance of
"standards of education", learned counsel for the ICAR
submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench of the
High Court did not merit any interference and ICAR, which
regulates Agricultural Universities, alone can regulate
admission of students through the All India Entrance
Examination to fill the 15% of the All India seats. Similar
arguments had been advanced in the High Court also. The
Division Bench of the High Court agreed with the submissions
made on behalf of ICAR. It noticed that in view of the
conflicting stands taken by the VCI and the ICAR regarding
the conduct of The All India Common Entrance Examination,
the matter had been taken up at a high level meeting
convened by the Agricultural Minister, where a judgment of
the Karnataka High Court in Veterinary Council of India Vs.
State of Karnataka, ILR 1996 Kar 67, decided on 27th of
November, 1995 had also been considered by the delegates,
and it was resolved that the ICAR and not the VCI would
conduct the All India Entrance Examination for the year
1996. The Division Bench, therefore, opined that the VCI,
after the passing of that resolution, should have stayed its
hands and should not have "indulged into ill advised
adventurism of conducting the All India Entrance Examination
much to the serious inconvenience, expenses and uncertainty
of events to thousands of aspirants for admission to State
Agricultural Universities against all India quota of 15%
seats." According to the Division Bench, since the VC Act
did not contemplate any examination being conducted by VCI
for regulating admissions to veterinary institution, it was
not open to the VCI to conduct the All India Entrance
Examination. It was held : "For the foregoing reasons, CWP
2334/96 is allowed. Sub-para (8) of para 5 of the
Veterinary Council of India (Minimum Standards of Veterinary
Education) Degree Course (B.V.Sc and A.H.) Regulations, 1993
is struck down as ultra vires the Veterinary Council of
India and ultra vires the Veterinary Council Act, 1984. The
entrance examination held by the Veterinary Council of India
on 26.5.1996, pursuant to its notice that 25th November,
1995 is also held void and without any authority of law.
FAO(OS) 231/96 is allowed and the order of the learned
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7
Single Judge dated 5th June, 1996 is set aside. The
injunction restraining the ICAR from conducting All India
Common Entrance Examination for filling up 15% of total
number of seats in the State Agricultural Universities is
hereby vacated. Costs in both the proceedings shall be
borne as incurred by both the parties."
The Division Bench of the High Court was of the
opinion that Section 22(1) of the VC Act did not authorise
any examination being conducted by the VCI much less for the
purpose of appropriating allocation of 15% seats to the
State Agricultural Universities for All India students,
through framing of any regulations. That the VCI was only
concerned with maintenance of "standards of education" for
granting recognised Veterinary Qualifications by
institutions imparting veterinary education in the State and
there is a ’world of difference’ between specifying the
minimum standards of veterinary education and holding an
entrance examination for appropriating quota of certain
percentage of seats for admission to ’veterinary
institutions’. The Division Bench, consequently, held that
Regulation 5(8) could not have been framed by exercising
delegated powers to legislate under Section 22(1) of the VC
Act and that such a Regulation was ultra-vires the Act and
invalid. It was also opined that the grant of approval to
the Regulations or consultation with the ICAR on the issue
of framing of such Regulations at the National Workshop at
Madras was ’irrelevant and immaterial’. The Division Bench
heavily relied upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court
in Veterinary Council of India Vs. State of Karnataka
(supra). In that case, the University of Agricultural
Sciences Bangalore had refused to admit the candidates
nominated for admission to BVSc AH Degrees pursuant to an
entrance examination conducted by the VCI. On a Writ
Petition filed by the VCI, the Karnataka High Court had
opined :
"On a plain reading of Section 22, it is quite clear
that under this provision the Council can make Regulations
only for specifying minimum standards of Veterinary
education required for granting recognised Veterinary
qualifications by Veterinary Institutions in state/s to
which the provisions of the Act has been extended. This
Section does not confer upon the Council any authority to
regulate the admissions to Veterinary Institutions.
Similarly Section 66(1) read with Section 66(2) (n) also
cannot be construed as conferring any authority on the
Council for the said purpose. There is no provision under
the Central Act which empowers the Council to make
Regulations for regulating the admissions of students to
Veterinary Institutions... The Regulations framed by the
Council for regulating admissions laying down the pattern of
admission to Veterinary Colleges are merely advisory in
nature and does not necessarily bind any University or the
Veterinary Institutions. (emphasis supplied)" The view
taken by the Division Bench to the effect that the power to
prescribe minimum standards of education does not take
within its ambit, the power to conduct entrance examination
for regulating admission to the colleges, also appears to
have been influenced by the view of the three-Judge Bench of
this Court in State of M.P. and another Vs. Nivedita Jain
and others, (1981) 4 SCC 296 and in Ajay Kumar Singh and
others Vs. State of Bihar, (1994) 4 SCC 401, (though not
referred to in the impugned judgment) wherein it was held
that the process of selection of candidates for admission to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7
a medical college has no impact on the standard of medical
education and that the standard of medical education really
comes into the picture only in the course of studies in the
medical colleges or institutions ’after’ the selection and
admission of candidates. The Division Bench also
distinguished the judgments of the Patna High Court and the
Kerala High Court in Munish Kumar Pane & others Vs. State
of Bihar and others (CWJC No.9643/1995 decided on
18-12-1995) and Jothi Shah B. & others Vs. Administrator
Union Territory of Lakshadweep and others (W.A. No.129/1996
decided on 19-3-1996), holding that by virtue of the
Regulations framed by the VCI in 1993, it had the authority
to conduct the All India Entrance Examination for allocation
of 15% of seats on merits. We find ourselves unable to
subscribe to the view of the Division Bench. There is force
in the submission of Mr. Altaf Ahmad, the learned
Additional Solicitor General, that sub-section (1) of
Section 66 of the VC Act confers powers to frame regulations
to carry out the purposes of the Act and read with Section
21(1)(b) and 22 of the VC Act which provide : "21.
Withdrawal of recognition. (1)(b) that the staff,
equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities for
instruction and training provided in such veterinary
institution or in any college or other institution
affiliated to it do not conform to the standards prescribed
by the Council.
22. Minimum standards of veterinary education.
(1) The Council may, by regulations, specify the minimum
standards of veterinary education required for granting
recognised veterinary qualifications by veterinary
institutions in those States to which this Act extends."
the VCI is authorised to frame regulations relating to
prescribing standards of veterinary education for granting
veterinary qualifications and such an authority must include
the power to regulate admissions to the course so as to
maintain the ’standards of education’. It is not disputed
that Section 22 (supra) is a valid piece of legislation
enacted by the P????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????? ??????
etermining comparative merit of the candidates so that
admissions are granted to students who qualify at the All
India Entrance Examination to the various institutions and
faculties, on merits. The impugned regulation, therefore,
did not suffer from any vice whatsoever. It has been framed
to further the object of the Act. It could not have been
declared ultra vires the Act or otherwise invalid on any
other ground. In view of the judgment of the Constitution
Bench in Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another Vs. State of
M.P. and others, (1999) 7 SCC 120, it is no longer possible
to argue that norms for admission come into picture only
after admissions are made and have no connection with
’standards of education’. On the contrary, regulation of
admissions has a direct impact on the maintenance of
standards of education and in exercise of its power to
prescribe and maintain standards of education, the VCI has
the right as well as an obligation to regulate admissions to
the veterinary institutions against the 15% All India quota
by framing appropriate regulations. In Dr. Preeti
Srivastava’s case (supra) to which one of us (namely, CJI)
was a party, the Constitution Bench opined : "It would not
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7
be correct to say that the norms for admission have no
connection with the standard of education, or that the rules
for admission are covered only by Entry 25 of List III.
Norms of admission can have a direct impact on the standards
of education. Of course, there can be rules for admission
which are consistent with or do not affect adversely the
standards of education prescribed by the Union in exercise
of powers under Entry 66 of List I. For example, a State
may, for admission to the postgraduate medical courses, law
down qualifications in addition to those prescribed under
Entry 66 of List I. This would be consistent with promoting
higher standards for admission to the higher educational
courses. But any lowering of the norms laid down can and
does have an adverse effect on the standards of education in
the institutes of higher education. Standards of education
in an institution or college depend on various factors.
Some of these are :
(1) the calibre of the teaching staff; (2) a proper
syllabus designed to achieve a high level of education in
the given span of time; (3) the student-teacher ratio; (4)
the ratio between the students and the hospital beds
available to each student; (5) the calibre of the students
admitted to the institution; (6) equipment and laboratory
facilities, or hospital facilities for training in the case
of medical colleges; (7) adequate accommodation for the
college and the attached hospital; and (8) the standard of
examinations held including the manner in which the papers
are set and examined and the clinical performance is judged.
While considering the standards of education in any
college or institution, the calibre of students who are
admitted to that institution or college cannot be ignored.
If the students are of a high calibre, training programmes
can be suitably moulded so that they can receive the maximum
benefit out of a high level of teaching. If the calibre of
the students is poor or they are unable to follow the
instructions being imparted, the standard of teaching
necessarily has to be lowered to make them understand the
course which they have undertaken; and it may not be
possible to reach the levels of educational and training
which can be attained with a bright group. Education
involves a continuous interaction between the teachers and
the students. The pace of teaching, the level to which
teaching can rise and the benefit which the students
ultimately receive, depend as much on the calibre of the
students as on the calibre of the teachers."
(Emphasis ours)
The Constitution Bench in Dr. Preeti Srivastava’s
case (supra), expressly disagreed with the views earlier
expressed in Nivedita Jains and Ajay Kumar Singhs case
(supra) in this regard. Thus, in view of the law laid down
by the Constitution Bench in Dr. Preeti Srivastavas case
(supra), it must be held that since the power to regulate
the standards of education in veterinary science prescribed
by the Council is vested in VCI under the VC Act, the
corresponding duty to conduct an All India Entrance
Examination for filling up of 15% of seats, on merits, of
All India Quota, must also vest in it. The impugned
judgment, in view of what has been noticed above, cannot be
sustained. Both the appeals consequently succeed and are
allowed. The view expressed by the Patna High Court in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7
Munish Kumar Pane & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. and by
the Kerala High Court in Jothi Shah B. & Ors. Vs.
Administrator Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Ors., to
the effect that the VCI was competent to hold the All India
Entrance Examination for filling up of 15% of the seats thus
lays down the correct law while the view of the Karnataka
High Court in Veterinary Council of India Vs. State of
Karnataka (supra) can no longer be considered to be good
law. It is accordingly held that VCI is competent and has
the requisite powers, with a view to maintain the standards
of education, to hold the All India Entrance Examination for
filling up of 15% of total number of seats under Clause (8)
of Regulation 5 (supra). The question posed in the earlier
part of this order is answered accordingly. On 11.10.1996,
when Leave was granted in the special leave petitions, on
the statement of learned counsel representing the ICAR, to
the effect that 34 students who had passed the entrance
examination conducted by the VCI and had been duly admitted
to the courses, would not be disturbed, no further interim
order was made. As a consequence of our judgment there is,
therefore, now no impediment in the way of those candidates
selected by the VCI at the Common Entrance Examination to
continue and complete their studies. Appeals are allowed.
No costs.