2003 (10) TMI 672 - HC - Indian Laws

Deemed University under the UGC Act - two Dental Colleges - statute as AIIMS or a deemed University - Whether a deemed University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act 1956 falls within the phrase University established by law used in Section 3(d) of the Dentists Act 1948 - HELD THAT - The language used in Section 3(d) is plain and it conveys the intention of the legislature in unmistakable terms i.e. only University established by law which is competent to send a representative to the Council under Section 3(d) of the Act whereas deemed University can always send their representative under Clause 3(c) of the Act. Therefore there is no scope whatsoever for construing the word University established by law which is used in Section 3(d) to include a deemed University u/s 3 of the UGC Act. But in spite of several amendments brought to the Act if the phrase established by law in Section 3(d) is retained as it is and not amended it is impermissible for the Courts to interpret the word University de horse the words established by law used in the said Section so as to include all categories of institutions which impart dental education whether they are creatures of a statute or whether they are deemed to be University by virtue of Section 3 of the UGC Act or an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees. Whether it is an institution created by a statute as AIIMS or a deemed University u/s 3 of the UGC Act the said institution is nothing but a college - In the case of AIIMS college is established whereas in the case of a deemed University a college which was earlier affiliated to the University has been recognized as a deemed University under the UGC Act. Therefore a representation to colleges is provided for under subsection (c) of Section 3. The legislature did not feel it proper to amend Section 3(d) to include such institutions. It is also to be remembered number of colleges are affiliated to a University whereas in the case of an institution established by law or an institution which has been conferred with the status of a deemed University such numbers are missing. It may be one two or three. It would be in the nature of a branch of a primary college. Therefore to equate such institution as a University established by law won t be proper. Probably it is because of this though an institution is conferred with the recognition as a deemed University under Section 3 of the UGC Act the Parliament in its wisdom thought it fit to introduce Section 23 of the UGC Act making its intent very clear and debarring any institution other than a University established or incorporated by law from using the word University in its name. Thus it is clear that the fourth respondent was an Institution which was imparting higher education and had an excellent track record. It was running two dental colleges and two medical colleges and a nursing college. Therefore in exercise of the powers conferred u/s 3 of the UGC Act the Central Government on the advice of the Commission has declared the fourth respondent as a deemed University for the purposes of the UGC Act. The fifth respondent is the Principal of one such college. He has been the Dean of the college of Dental Surgery at Mangalore. He in fact contested for the Council membership from the constituency under Clause 3(c) of the Act. He lost the election. It is thereafter he has been elected from the fourth respondent institution u/s 3(d) of the Act. The fourth respondent is not a University established by law and is only a deemed University for the purpose of the UGC Act they had no right to send any representative of their s to the Council. If that is so the fifth respondent s election as a member of the Council from the fourth respondent is void ab initio and cannot be sustained. Therefore my answer to the question raised above is as under Though the fourth respondent is a deemed University u/s 3 of the University Grants Commission Act 1956 it does not fall within the phrase University established by law used in Section 3(d) of the Dentists Act 1948 and therefore they have no right to send their representative in the constituency carved out u/s 3(d) of the Dentists Act to the Council.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a "deemed University" u/s 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 falls within the phrase "University established by law" used in Section 3(d) of the Dentists Act, 1948.

Summary:

Issue 1: Definition and Status of Deemed University
The primary issue was whether a "deemed University" u/s 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 qualifies as a "University established by law" under Section 3(d) of the Dentists Act, 1948. The court examined the provisions of the UGC Act, which defines "University" and includes institutions recognized by the Commission. Section 3 of the UGC Act allows the Central Government to declare an institution as a deemed University for the purposes of the Act. However, Section 22 of the UGC Act distinguishes between a University established by law, a deemed University, and an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer degrees. Section 23 further prohibits any institution other than a University established by law from using the word "University" in its name.

Issue 2: Interpretation of "University Established by Law"
The court emphasized the importance of interpreting statutes according to the intention expressed in the Acts themselves. The Supreme Court's decision in Dental Council of India v. Hari Prakash clarified that the term "University established by law" cannot be extended to include institutions merely empowered to confer degrees. The court held that the phrase "University established by law" in Section 3(d) of the Dentists Act refers exclusively to Universities established or incorporated by a Central, Provincial, or State Act, and not to deemed Universities.

Issue 3: Election Validity
The fifth respondent, elected from the fourth respondent (a deemed University), contested the election under Section 3(d) of the Dentists Act. The court ruled that since the fourth respondent is not a University established by law, it had no right to send a representative to the Council under Section 3(d). Consequently, the election of the fifth respondent was declared void ab initio.

Procedural Objections
The respondents raised procedural objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions and the locus standi of the petitioners. The court found these objections to be without merit, noting that the petitioners had previously sought a direction for holding fresh elections, demonstrating their connection to the matter.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that a deemed University u/s 3 of the UGC Act does not fall within the phrase "University established by law" used in Section 3(d) of the Dentists Act. Therefore, the inclusion of the fourth respondent as a constituency under Section 3(d) was null and void, and the election of the fifth respondent was quashed. The writ petitions were allowed, and the rule was made absolute.