9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 1366 - SC - Indian LawsAdmission procedures in private professional educational institutions - Validity/vires of the provisions of the statute passed by the State Legislature, which is known as Niji Vyavasayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 challenged - appellants also challenged vires of Admissions Rules, 2008 and the Madhya Pradesh Private Medical and Dental Post Graduate Courses Entrance Examination Rules, 2009 which regulate primarily the admission of students in post graduate courses in private professional educational institutions and the provisions are also made for fixation of fee - Held that - The High Court in its judgment has analysed the provisions of the Act and found that provisions for merit based admissions and procedure for fee fixation did not violate fundamental right of the private institutions to conduct admissions and to fix fee. We are in agreement with the said view and hold that provisions relating to admission as contained in the Act and the Rules are not offensive of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Though the fee can be fixed by the educational institutions and it may vary from institution to institution depending upon the quality of education provided by each of such institution, commercialisation is not permissible. In order to see that the educational institutions are not indulging in commercialisation and exploitation, the Government is equipped with necessary powers to take regulatory measures and to ensure that these educational institutions keep playing vital and pivotal role to spread education and not to make money. So much so, the Court was categorical in holding that when it comes to the notice of the Government that a particular institution was charging fee or other charges which are excessive, it has a right to issue directions to such an institution to reduce the same. When we scan through Section 9 of the Act, 2007 we find that the parameters which are laid down therein that has to be kept in mind while fixing the fee are in fact the one which have been enunciated in the judgments of this Court referred to above. It is also significant to note that the Committee which is set up for this purpose, namely, Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee, is discharging only regulatory function. The fee which a particular educational institution seeks to charge from its students has to be suggested by the said educational institution itself. The Committee is empowered with a purpose to satisfy itself that the fee proposed by the educational institution did not amount to profiteering or commercialisation of education and was based on intelligible factors mentioned in Section 9(1) of the Act, 2007. In our view, therefore, it is only a regulatory measure and does not take away the powers of the educational institution to fix their own fee. Provisions relating to admission of students through Government test to be conducted by the State and the provision relating to fixation of fee by setting up a Committee to oversee that institutions are not charging a fee which amounts to capitation or profiteering are reasonable restrictions and do not suffer from any constitutional vice. The very object of setting up institutions for the State is a welfare function, for the purpose of excelling in educational standards. On the other hand, the primary motivation for private parties is profit motive or philanthropy. When the primary motivation for institutions is profit motive, it is natural that many means to achieve the same shall be adopted by the private institutions which leads to a large degree of secrecy and corruption. As such, the mechanism of regulations as envisaged under the impugned laws is legal, constitutional, fair, transparent and uphold the primary criteria of merit. The same does not infringe on the fundamental rights of either the minorities or the non-minorities to establish and administer educational institutions and must as such be upheld as valid. Entry 25 of List III is subject to Entry 66 List I, it is not possible to exclude the entire gamut of admissions from Entry 25 of List III. However, exercise of any power under Entry 25 of List III has to be subject to a central law referable to Entry 25. In view of the above, there was no violation of right of autonomy of the educational institutions in the CET being conducted by the State or an agency nominated by the State or in fixing fee. The right of a State to do so is subject to a central law. Once the notifications under the Central statutes for conducting the CET called NEET become operative, it will be a matter between the States and the Union, which will have to be sorted out on the touchstone of Article 254 artof the Constitution. We need not dilate on this aspect any further. State has the legislative competence to enact the impugned legislation-Act 2007 to hold common entrance test for admission to professional educational institutions and to determine the fee and the High Court has rightly upheld the validity of the impugned legislation. Regulations sought to be imposed by the impugned legislation on admission by common entrance test conducted by the State and determination of fee are in compliance of the directions and observations in T.M.A. Pai 2002 (10) TMI 739 - SUPREME COURT , Islamic Academy of Education 2003 (8) TMI 469 - SUPREME COURT and P.A. Inamdar 2005 (8) TMI 614 - SUPREME COURT . Regulations on admission process are necessary in the larger public interest and welfare of the student community to ensure fairness and transparency in the admission and to promote merit and excellence. Regulation on fixation of fee is to protect the rights of the students in having access to higher education without being subjected to exploitation in the form of profiteering. With the above reasonings, I concur with the majority view in upholding the validity of the impugned legislation and affirm the well merited decision of the High Court.
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the provisions relating to admission. 2. Challenge to the provisions relating to fixation of fee. 3. Challenge to the provisions for reservation. 4. Challenge to the provisions relating to eligibility for admission. 5. Competence of the State Legislature to enact the impugned legislation. Detailed Analysis: 1. Challenge to the Provisions Relating to Admission: The appellants argued that private unaided medical and dental colleges have a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to lay down eligibility criteria for admission and admit students. They contended that the provisions of the Act, 2007, and Rules, 2008, and 2009, which mandate admissions based on a Common Entrance Test (CET) conducted by the State, violate this right. The High Court upheld these provisions, stating they are in consonance with the Supreme Court's judgments in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and P.A. Inamdar, which allow the State to regulate admissions to ensure transparency, fairness, and merit-based selection. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, emphasizing that the provisions are reasonable restrictions aimed at achieving larger public interest. 2. Challenge to the Provisions Relating to Fixation of Fee: The appellants claimed that the provisions allowing the State to fix fees infringe on their right to determine their fee structure. The High Court held that the Act and Rules merely regulate to ensure no profiteering or commercialization of education, aligning with the principles laid down in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and P.A. Inamdar. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the regulatory measures are necessary to prevent exploitation and ensure transparency. The Court emphasized that the fee fixation mechanism ensures fees are reasonable and based on relevant factors such as infrastructure, staff salaries, and necessary surplus for growth. 3. Challenge to the Provisions for Reservation: The appellants argued that private institutions should not be obligated to admit students from reserved categories, asserting that excessive reservations leave insufficient seats for unreserved categories. The High Court upheld the reservation provisions, noting that the Constitution (Ninety-Third Amendment) Act, 2005, which inserted Article 15(5), allows the State to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes, including in private unaided institutions. The Supreme Court affirmed this, referencing the Constitution Bench judgment in Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust, which upheld Article 15(5). 4. Challenge to the Provisions Relating to Eligibility for Admission: The appellants contested Rule 10(2)(iii) of the Rules, 2009, which required candidates to be registered with the Madhya Pradesh Medical/Dental Council. The High Court declared this rule ultra vires, a decision that was not appealed by the State, thus becoming final. 5. Competence of the State Legislature to Enact the Impugned Legislation: The appellants contended that the subject matter falls within the domain of the Parliament under Entry 66 of List I (Union List), which deals with the coordination and determination of standards in higher education. The High Court rejected this argument, stating that the Act, 2007, falls within the State's competence under Entry 25 of List III (Concurrent List), which includes education. The Supreme Court upheld this view, noting that while the Union has the power to set standards, the State can legislate on admissions and fee regulation, provided it does not conflict with central laws. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, affirming the validity of the Act, 2007, and the Rules, 2008, and 2009. The Court emphasized that the provisions for CET, fee regulation, and reservations are reasonable restrictions aimed at ensuring transparency, fairness, and merit-based admissions, and preventing commercialization and profiteering in education. The Court also confirmed the State's legislative competence to enact the impugned legislation, provided it aligns with central laws and maintains educational standards.
|
