1982 (9) TMI 240 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a writ of certiorari lies against a privately owned and privately managed Medical College and Hospital.
2. Whether private institutions imparting higher medical education are instrumentalities or agencies of the State.
3. The applicability of Article 29(2) in conferring a fundamental right of equality of admission on merits in privately owned and managed educational institutions receiving aid from the State.
4. The statutory force and enforceability of Regulation II of the Medical Council of India regarding the selection of students.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether a writ of certiorari lies against a privately owned and privately managed Medical College and Hospital:
The court held that a writ of certiorari does not lie against a privately owned and privately managed non-statutory institution. This conclusion was based on the settled law that a writ of certiorari lies stricto sensu only against a body of persons enjoined to act judicially. The court affirmed the detailed reasoning in Pritam Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, holding that such private institutions are outside the range of a writ of certiorari.

2. Whether private institutions imparting higher medical education are instrumentalities or agencies of the State:
The court examined whether the respondent Medical College was an instrumentality or agency of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution. The petitioners argued that the Medical College was under the deep and pervasive control of the Central Government through the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the Punjab University Act, 1947. However, the court found that the Medical Council of India is a statutory, autonomous, and primarily elected body, distinct from the Central Government. The court applied the six tests laid down in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib to determine whether a body is an instrumentality or agency of the Government and found that none of these tests were satisfied in this case. Consequently, the court held that the respondent Medical College is not an instrumentality or agency of the State.

3. The applicability of Article 29(2) in conferring a fundamental right of equality of admission on merits in privately owned and managed educational institutions receiving aid from the State:
The petitioners contended that Article 29(2) confers a fundamental right to be considered for admission on merits alone to all educational institutions aided out of State funds. The court, however, held that Article 29(2) does not confer such a doctrinaire right. The court emphasized that Article 29(2) is couched in the language of prohibition, limited to discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, and language. The court also highlighted that the Article falls within the specific head of 'Cultural and Educational Rights' guaranteed to minorities and must be read in conjunction with Articles 29(1) and 30. The court concluded that Article 29(2) does not confer a general fundamental right of equality of admission to all educational institutions receiving State aid.

4. The statutory force and enforceability of Regulation II of the Medical Council of India regarding the selection of students:
The petitioners argued that Regulation II of the Medical Council of India, which mandates selection based on merit, has statutory force and can be enforced by a writ of mandamus. The court referred to the precedent in State of M.P. v. Nivedita Jain, where it was held that Regulation II is merely directory and in the nature of a recommendation, lacking statutory force. The court reiterated that to invoke the mandamus jurisdiction, there must be a clear public or statutory duty on the respondent and a corresponding legal right to enforce the same. Since Regulation II does not meet these criteria, the court rejected the claim for a writ of mandamus.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed all three Civil Writ Petitions, holding that:
1. No writ of certiorari lies against privately owned and managed non-statutory educational institutions.
2. The respondent Medical College is not an instrumentality or agency of the State.
3. Article 29(2) does not confer a fundamental right of equality of admission on merit to privately owned and managed educational institutions receiving State aid.
4. Regulation II of the Medical Council of India does not impose a statutory duty on the respondent Medical College nor confer a legal right on the petitioners to enforce it.

The court also noted the intricate legal and constitutional issues involved and left the parties to bear their own costs.