9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 1628 - SC - Indian LawsValidity of Sections 3(6) 3(6a) and 3(6b) of the Himachal Pradesh Private Medical Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act 2006 as amended vide amendment Act No. 24 of 2015 - HELD THAT - The High Court has not touched upon the core issue relating to the autonomy of the Appellant No. 2 - University including its authority to start a constituent medical college as prescribed by the 2010 Act. Admittedly the Appellant No. 2 - University has been established under the 2010 Act. This Act received the assent of the Governor on 15th September 2010 and was brought into force w.e.f. 16th June 2010. The intendment of the 2010 Act is to provide for establishment incorporation and Regulation of the Appellant No. 2 - University for higher education to regulate its functioning and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 2(b) defines the expression Campus as the area of University within which it is established . This Act also predicates imparting of education by Appellant No. 2 -University by distance education by combination of any two or more means of communication namely broadcasting telecasting correspondence courses seminars contact programmes and any other such methodology - The expression study centre means a centre established and maintained or recognized by the University for the purpose of advising counseling or for rendering any other assistance required by the students of the Appellants in the context of distance education as set out in Section 2(t). The expression University has been defined in Section 2(v) to mean Maharishi Markandeshwar University Solan in Himachal Pradesh. It is indisputable that the 2010 Act purports to establish an independent University in the State of Himachal Pradesh having full autonomy as that of any other full-fledged University including the authority to start Multi-Faculty Education Courses within its campus and also constituent colleges off campus. The Appellant No. 2 - University has been bestowed with the power to confer Degrees and Diplomas in terms of Section 35 of the Act - The Appellant No. 2 - University therefore has all the trappings of a full-fledged University to not only start imparting education in prescribed courses but also to set up its constituent colleges to effectuate the purpose for which the University has been established. Indubitably a constituent college of the University would be an integral part of the University. As noticed from the legislative scheme of the 2010 Act the Appellant No. 2 has been established as an independent autonomous University like any other full-fledged University. No doubt some of the functions of the University be it the Appellant No. 2 - University or the Himachal Pradesh University have been controlled and regulated by the 2006 Act. The limited issue raised by the Appellants however is with regard to the mandate of the amended Section 3 requiring all the Private Medical Institutions set up within the State to take affiliation from Himachal Pradesh University - This Act no doubt uniformly applies to all the institutions affiliated to the Universities within the State of Himachal Pradesh be it Himachal Pradesh University or the Appellant No. 2 - University. However the object of this Act is limited only to regulate admissions as per the extant and applicable pronouncements of this Court; and to determine the fee structure in colleges imparting medical courses within the State. In the present case it has been asserted that the Appellant No. 1 - College is a constituent of the Appellant No. 2 - University. In such a situation it is unfathomable that the requirement of taking affiliation from another University (Himachal Pradesh University) established under a separate State Legislation can and ought to be insisted upon. If insisted it would inevitably entail in making an inroad into the autonomy of the Appellant No. 2 - University - Section 7 of the 2010 Act does not empower the Appellant No. 2 - University to affiliate or otherwise admit to its privileges any other institution. But that will have no application to the case on hand. For the Appellant No. 1 - College is none other than a constituent college of Appellant No. 2 - University itself. The Medical Council of India as well as the Union Government have therefore justly stated that it was not necessary for the Appellant No. 1 - College to take affiliation from the Himachal Pradesh University. Thus the amended provisions in particular Section 3(6a) would impinge upon the autonomy of an independent University established under a separate State Legislation. Further the field of affiliation is governed by the State legislation under which the respective Universities have been established. The power of granting affiliation to colleges under the control of the concerned University must vest with the respective University to which the college will be affiliated - since the Appellant No. 1 - College is a constituent of the Appellant No. 2 - University the question of compelling it to take affiliation from another University (Himachal Pradesh University) cannot be countenanced. The impugned judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated 20.12.2016 in CWP No. 4773 of 2015 is set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Sections 3(6), 3(6a), and 3(6b) of the Himachal Pradesh Private Medical Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006. 2. Whether the Appellant No. 1 (college and hospital) should be governed only by The Maharishi Markandeshwar University (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2010. 3. Conflict between the autonomy of the Appellant No. 2 - University and the requirement to affiliate with Himachal Pradesh University. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Sections 3(6), 3(6a), and 3(6b) of the Himachal Pradesh Private Medical Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006: The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the validity of Sections 3(6), 3(6a), and 3(6b) of the 2006 Act. The Appellants argued that these amendments impinged upon the autonomy of the Appellant No. 2 - University, established under the 2010 Act, by mandating that all private medical institutions in the State must affiliate with Himachal Pradesh University. The Supreme Court found that the amended provisions, particularly Section 3(6a), were unreasonable, irrational, and in conflict with the special State Legislation under which the Appellant No. 2 - University was established. The Court concluded that the requirement for the Appellant No. 1 - College, a constituent of the Appellant No. 2 - University, to take affiliation from another University (Himachal Pradesh University) was unconstitutional and struck down Section 3(6a) of the 2006 Act. 2. Whether the Appellant No. 1 (college and hospital) should be governed only by The Maharishi Markandeshwar University (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2010: The Appellants contended that the Appellant No. 2 - University, having been established under the 2010 Act, is an autonomous and independent University authorized to start "campus/study centres" of its own. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the 2010 Act endowed the Appellant No. 2 - University with full autonomy to discharge its powers and functions, including setting up constituent colleges. The Court emphasized that the Appellant No. 1 - College, being a constituent of the Appellant No. 2 - University, should not be compelled to take affiliation from Himachal Pradesh University, as this would undermine the autonomy of the Appellant No. 2 - University. 3. Conflict between the autonomy of the Appellant No. 2 - University and the requirement to affiliate with Himachal Pradesh University: The Supreme Court analyzed the legislative scheme of the 2010 Act, which established the Appellant No. 2 - University as an independent, autonomous University with the authority to grant affiliation to its constituent colleges. The Court found that the amended Section 3(6a) of the 2006 Act, which required all private medical institutions in the State to affiliate with Himachal Pradesh University, was in direct conflict with the autonomy granted to the Appellant No. 2 - University under the 2010 Act. The Court noted that the power of granting affiliation must vest with the respective University to which the college will be affiliated and cannot be overridden by the 2006 Act. Consequently, the Court struck down Section 3(6a) of the 2006 Act as it impinged upon the autonomy of the Appellant No. 2 - University. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and striking down Section 3(6a) of the 2006 Act as unconstitutional. The Court directed the Regulatory Authorities to proceed without insisting on the affiliation of the Appellant No. 1 - College from Himachal Pradesh University. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
|
