Veterinary
council of india vs. Indian council of agricultural research [2000] insc 7 (6
january 2000)
D.p.wadhwal,
s.rajendra babu 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 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." 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 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 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 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 (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 and others, (1981) 4 scc 296 and in ajay kumar singh and
referred to in the impugned judgment) wherein it was held that the process of
selection of candidates for admission to 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 of bihar
and others (cwjc no.9643/1995 decided on 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 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 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 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 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 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.
Back
