9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 2055X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nance are to be regularised dehors the mode of submitting the applications. It is not removing the defect in any existing law. The Ordinance has clearly annulled a judgment of Court which was laid down in order to ensure fair procedure. Perusal of entire impugned Ordinance, indicates that it is a blatant attempt of regularisation of admissions made which were declared to be invalid not only by the High Court of Kerala but by this Court after this Court had dealt with the order dated 14.11.2016 passed by the ASC after hearing the matter for several days and the Court had passed a reasoned order. While dismissing/disposing of the matters, this Court directed the 30 students who were illegally deprived of the admission, to be admitted in the next academic session 2017-18. It was clearly not a dismissal of the case in limine but a reasoned order. In the writ petitions filed by the colleges and Ors. the validity and legality of the order dated 14.11.2016 was questioned. However, this Court has upheld the same. It is also apparent that what the State Government has done by way of impugned Ordinance is not only impermissible and beyond legislative competence it also has the effect o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingh, Nachiketa Vajpayee, Subhash Choudhary, C.K. Sasi, Haris Beeran, Mushtaq Salim, Usman Ghani Khan, Dev Prakash, Pallavi Pratap, Sumit Saurav, Sachin Sharma and Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advs. JUDGMENT Arun Mishra, J. 1. The question involved in the writ petition/s is, whether the State of Kerala is competent to promulgate the Kerala Professional Colleges (Regularisation of Admission in Medical Colleges) Ordinance, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance ) notified on 20.10.2017, which is intended to nullify judgments and orders of this Court and encroaches upon the power of the judiciary. 2. The State of Kerala has promulgated the impugned Ordinance for regularising the admission of 180 students who were illegally admitted in the Kannur Medical College and Karuna Medical College run by Prestige Educational Trust and Safe Development Alms Trust respectively. The students were admitted to the said medical colleges in the academic year 2016-17. After enquiry, it was found by the Admission Supervisory Committee of the professional colleges (in short the ASC ) that admissions were illegal. The decision was upheld by the High Court of Kerala and by this Court. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2016 observed that the explanation submitted by the medical colleges was unsatisfactory and decided to revise the approval of the prospectus and issued a revised admission Schedule for the aforesaid medical colleges whereby the date for submitting online applications was revised and extended till 19.9.2016. 6. After conducting an enquiry, the ASC issued an order dated 15.9.2016 with respect to Kannur Medical College observing that the medical college had not called online applications as directed by the ASC by its order dated 10.9.2016 and directed that the admissions made, if any, shall stand cancelled. 7. The ASC passed another order after holding an enquiry on 15.9.2016 with respect to Karuna Medical College and held that the portal for online was closed on 6.9.2016 and there was a contravention of the directions passed by it in the order dated 10.9.2016 wherein the revised date for submitting online applications was up to 19.9.2016. On 17.9.2016 the ASC passed yet another order addressed to all the medical colleges situated in Kerala State, the directions issued by it were reiterated and it was also directed that the directions be placed on the website of the medical col ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of seats strictly on the basis of inter se merit and complete it by 7.10.2016. 11. On 7.10.2016, Kannur Medical College made a statement before the Kerala High Court that no student turned up before the CEE seeking admission in their college. On 13.10.2016 the Commissioner for Entrance Examination (CEE) submitted its report concluding that the procedure followed by Karuna Medical College was flawed and there were material irregularities committed by it while admitting 30 students. So far as Kannur Medical College was concerned, the representative of the said college appeared before the CEE on 7.10.2016 at about 11.30 a.m. and left by 12.10 p.m. after furnishing the records. No explanation or clarification was furnished by the representatives of the medical college, and the conduct was noted by the CEE. The person who claimed to be the representative of the college left immediately when he was asked to furnish the letter of authorisation from the college authorities. 12. The Kerala High Court vide judgment and final order dated 28.10.2016 cancelled as many as 150 admissions made by Kannur Medical College and 30 admissions made by Karuna Medical College through 'spot cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in Karuna Medical College, shall be adjusted in the next academic session i.e. 2017-18 and the corresponding number of seats shall be reduced for the said session for admissions. Review petitions were also filed which were dismissed by this Court on 2.5.2017. 15. After the aforesaid controversy was set at rest by the judgment of this Court, the State Government notified the impugned Ordinance on 20.10.2017 whereby admission of the students who were illegally admitted in the MBBS course in the year 2016-17 in the said medical colleges, were sought to be regularised. The Ordinance promulgated by the Government of Kerala is extracted hereunder: THE KERALA PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES (REGULARISATION OF ADMISSION IN MEDICAL COLLEGES) ORDINANCE, 2017) Promulgated by the Governor of Kerala in the Sixty-eighth Year of the Republic of India AN ORDINANCE to provide for regularisation of admission of students in certain medical colleges in the State during the academic year 2016-17 Preamble-WHEREAS, the admission of certain students in the discipline of medicine for the academic year 2016-17 was cancelled by the Admission Supervisory Committee of the State for non-compliance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ified in Section 2 to the discipline of medicine in any medical college and their admission was cancelled, may, within fifteen days from the date of commencement of this Ordinance, apply for regularisation of such admission. (2) Every application for regularisation of admission under this Ordinance shall be submitted to the Government through the University concerned and the University shall, within seven days of receipt of such application, forward the same to the Government with a report containing its remarks on the following matters, namely: (i) whether the student who got admission is qualified and is eligible as per the rank list prepared on the basis of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test, for admission in the discipline of medicine as per laws and orders in force applicable for the academic year 2016-17; (ii) whether the students as mentioned in the application has duly attended the course during the academic year 2016-17; (iii) whether the student is otherwise eligible to continue the course. (3) An officer not below the rank of a Secretary to Government, as may be authorised by the Government by special order in this behalf, shall be the Competent Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch medical college shall be liable to pay a regularisation fee of three lakh rupees per student for such regularisation: Provided that where any management collects such fee from any student, such management shall be liable to pay a fine of six lakh rupees per student. (2) The competent authority Under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 shall be competent to impose the fee as provided in Sub-section (1) and it shall be specified in the order issued Under Sub-section (3) of Section 3. Date 20.10.2017 GOVERNOR 16. Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior Counsel appearing for the MCI, urged that the Ordinance is ultra vires of the powers of the State Government and is contrary to the various Constitution Bench decisions of this Court which he has relied upon. He has further submitted that the judgment has been nullified by the Ordinance. It is not that there was any lacunae or flaw in the laws which has been removed. There is an entrenchment by way of Ordinance upon the power of judicial review of the court. This Court has adjudicated upon the legality of the order dated 14.11.2016 passed by the ASC which was questioned in this Court and the entire material was filed in the Court wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udents in question. It is also stated in it that the Legislative Assembly of the State of Kerala is not in session and the Governor of Kerala is satisfied, the circumstances render it necessary for him to take immediate action. In exercise of the power conferred under Clause (1) of Article 213 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Kerala is pleased to promulgate the impugned Ordinance. 19. It is provided in Clause 2 of the Ordinance that notwithstanding anything contained in the Kerala Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-exploitative Fee and other measures to ensure equity and excellence in Professional Education) Act, 2006 or in any judgment, decree, order or any proceeding of any court or the Admission Supervisory Committee or any other authority or in any agreement or instrument made under any law for the time being in force, it shall be lawful for the Government to regularise the admission of candidates who were qualified for admission in the discipline of medicine in any medical college in the State during the academic year in question, though their admissions had been cancelled by any court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fy the judgment/orders passed by the Kerala High Court or by this Court. It was not a case of removal of a defect in existing law. Various Constitution Bench decisions of this Court have settled the principles of law governing the field. It passes comprehension how the State Government has promulgated the Ordinance in question. 22. In Janapada Sabha Chhindwara v. The Central Provinces Syndicate Ltd. and Anr. 1970 (1) SCC 509, a Constitution Bench of this Court has observed that it is not open to legislation to render a judgment ineffective. It is open to the Legislature within certain limits to amend the provisions of an Act retrospectively and to declare what the law shall be deemed to have been, but it is not open to the legislature to say that the interpretation of the law shall be otherwise than as declared by the Court. This Court has observed thus: 10. The nature of the amendment made in Act 4 of 1920 has not been indicated. Nor is there anything which enacts that the notifications issued without the sanction of the State Government must be deemed to have been issued validly Under Section 51(2) without the sanction of the Local Government. On the words used in the Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to accept the submission that the question of grant of interim relief falls outside the submission that the question of grant of interim relief falls outside the purview of the said provisions and can be agitated Under Article 131 of the Constitution. Hence any executive order or a legislative enactment of a State which interferes with the adjudicatory process and adjudication by such Tribunal is an interference with the judicial power of the State. In view of the fact that the Ordinance in question seeks directly to nullify the order of the Tribunal passed on June 25, 1991, it impinges upon the judicial power of the State and is, therefore, ultra vires the Constitution. 78. Further, admittedly, the effect of the Ordinance is to affect the flow of the waters of the river Cauvery into the territory of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry which are the lower riparian States. The Ordinance has, therefore, an extra-territorial operation. Hence the Ordinance is on that account beyond the legislative competence of the State and is ultra vires the provisions of Article 245(1) of the Constitution. 79. The Ordinance is also against the basic tenets of the Rule of law inasmuch as the State of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration of powers between legislature, executive and judiciary is not different from the Constitutions of the countries which contain express provision for separation of powers. 126.2 Independence of courts from the executive and legislature is fundamental to the Rule of law and one of the basic tenets of Indian Constitution. Separation of judicial power is a significant constitutional principle under the Constitution of India. 126.3 Separation of powers between three organs - the legislature, executive, and judiciary - is also nothing but a consequence of principles of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, breach of separation of judicial power may amount to negation of equality Under Article 14. Stated thus, a legislation can be invalidated on the basis of breach of the separation of powers since such breach is negation of equality Under Article 14 of the Constitution. 126.4 The superior judiciary (High Courts and Supreme Court) is empowered by the Constitution to declare a law made by the legislature (Parliament and State Legislatures) void if it is found to have transgressed the constitutional limitations or if it infringed the righ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itutional limitations. The legislature cannot declare any decision of a court of law to be void or of no effect. It can remove the defects of the law pointed out by the court or on coming to know of it aliunde; otherwise, a court's decision must always bind unless the conditions on which it is based are so fundamentally altered that the decision could not have been given in such altered circumstances. The legislature can make a validating law. Making validation as such, it removes the defect which the court finds in the existing law. There cannot be an attempt to interfere with the judicial process, and such law may be invalidated. The questions to be examined are: whether the legislation targeted at the decided case, what are the terms of law; the issues with which it deals and the nature of the judgment that has attained finality? If law interferes with the judicial functions on the aforesaid tests laid down in para 126.7, the Court may declare the law as unconstitutional. 25. In S.R. Bhagwat and Ors. v. State of Mysore (1995) 6 SCC 16, the provisions of Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulations of Promotion, Pay Pension) Act, 1973 came up for consideration of this Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rly directed Respondent-State to give to the Petitioners concerned deemed dates of promotions if they were otherwise found fit and in that eventuality to give all benefits consequential thereon including financial benefits, the State could not invoke its legislative power to displace such a judgment. Once this decision had become final and the State of Karnataka had not thought it fit to challenge it before this Court presumably because in identical other matters this Court had upheld other decisions of the Karnataka High Court taking the same view, it passes one's comprehension how the legislative power can be pressed in service to undo the binding effects of such mandamus. It is also pertinent to note that not only Sub-section (2) of Section 11 seeks to bypass and override the binding effect of the judgments but also seeks to empower the State to review such judgments and orders and pass fresh orders in accordance with provisions of the impugned Act. The Respondent-State in the present case by enacting Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the impugned Act has clearly sought to nullify or abrogate the binding decision of the High Court and has encroached upon the judicial power en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of legislature must be declared to be unconstitutional. The Court has observed: 13. It is settled law by a catena of decisions of this Court that the legislature cannot directly annul a judgment of a court. The legislative function consists in making law [see: Article 245 of the Constitution] and not in declaring what the law shall be [see: Article 141 of the Constitution]. If the legislature were at liberty to annul judgments of courts, the ghost of bills of attainder will revisit us to enable legislatures to pass legislative judgments on matters which are inter-parties. Interestingly, in England, the last such bill of attainder passing a legislative judgment against a man called Fenwick was passed as far back as in 1696. A century later, the US Constitution expressly outlawed bills of attainder [see: Article 1 Section 9]. 14. It is for this reason that our Constitution permits a legislature to make laws retrospectively which may alter the law as it stood when a decision was arrived at. It is in this limited circumstance that a legislature may alter the very basis of a decision given by a court, and if an appeal or other proceeding be pending, enable the Court to apply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. That Act applied now as an independent Act to each of the areas and is subject to the legislative competence of the legislature in that area. The Act has been amended in the new States in relation to the area of that State and it is inconceivable that this could not be within the competence. If the argument were accepted then the Act would remain unamendable unless the composite State came into existence once more. The scheme of the States Reorganization Acts makes the laws applicable to the new areas until superseded, amended or altered by the appropriate legislature in the new States. This is what the legislature has done and there is nothing that can be said against such amendment. The aforesaid passage makes it clear as crystal that after the legislature came into existence, it has the competence to enact any law retrospectively or prospectively within the constitutional parameters. 26. The second issue that emanates for consideration is whether the base of the earlier judgment has really been removed. Before stating the factual score, it is necessary to state how this Court has viewed the said principle. In Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. and Anr. v. Broach Borough Mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 came into force w.e.f. 1.5.1972, and the right, title and interest of the owners in relation to Coking Coal Mines stood transferred to and vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. The provisions of the said Act were challenged before this Court in the case of Tara Prasad Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1980) 4 SCC 179 and the Constitution Bench upheld the validity of the said Act. The writ Petitioner before the High Court making a grievance that the Custodian had debited the expenses for raising the coal while the Coking Coal Mine was under the Management of the Custodian but had not credited the price for the quantity of the coal raised, which was lying in stock on the date prior to the date the said Coal Mine vested under the Central Government. The High Court allowed the writ petition and a direction was issued that account be recast and payment be made to the Petitioner. The appeal before this Court by special leave was dismissed, as this Court was of the view that sale price of stock of extracted coal lying at the commencement of the appointed date had to be taken into account for de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the mine in question was under the management of the Central Government, because it shall be deemed that the compensation awarded to the Petitioner included the price for such coal lying in stock on the date prior to the appointed day. Neither any compensation is to be paid for such stock of coal nor the price thereof is to be taken into account for the purpose of Sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. Being of this view, the Court dismissed the writ petition. 29. In State of H.P. v. Narain Singh (2009) 13 SCC 165 while dealing with the validation of statute the Court ruled that: 26. It is therefore clear where there is a competent legislative provision which retrospectively removes the substratum of foundation of a judgment, the said exercise is a valid legislative exercise provided it does not transgress any other constitutional limitation. To arrive at the said conclusion, the two-Judge Bench reproduced from the decision in Constitution Bench in State of T.N. v. Arooran Sugars Ltd. (1997) 1 SCC 326 which is to the following effect: 28. ... '16. ...It is open to the legislature to remove the defect pointed out by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reach or colourable legislation. There is no dispute with the aforesaid proposition that the legislature has the power to retrospectively amend the laws and thereby remove the causes of ineffectiveness or invalidity on which judgment is based, and that would not be an encroachment upon judicial power when the legislature does not directly overrule or reverse a judicial dictum. 28. Reliance has also been placed by the Respondents on Goa Foundation and Anr. v. State of Goa and Anr. (2016) 6 SCC 602 wherein the Court has discussed the matter thus: 24. The principles on which first question would require to be answered are not in doubt. The power to invalidate a legislative or executive act lies with the Court. A judicial pronouncement, either declaratory or conferring rights on the citizens cannot be set at naught by a subsequent legislative act for that would amount to an encroachment on the judicial powers. However, the legislature would be competent to pass an amending or a validating act, if deemed fit, with retrospective effect removing the basis of the decision of the Court. Even in such a situation, the courts may not approve a retrospective deprivation of accrued righ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mending or a validating Act, if deemed fit, with retrospective effect removing the basis of the decision of the Court by amending the law. Thus, once the provisions in Clause 4(viii) were removed, the basis of the earlier judgment stood extinguished. 29. In Goa Glass Fibre Ltd. v. State of Goa and Anr. (2010) 6 SCC 499, a question arose whether under the Goa (Prohibition of Further Payment and Recovery of Rebate Benefits) Act, 2002, Sections 2, 3, 5 and 6 were unconstitutional. The contention was raised that the impugned Act nullifies the judgment of the Court. The Court has observed: 15. It is well settled that a Statute can be invalidated or held unconstitutional on limited grounds viz., on the ground of the incompetence of the Legislature which enacts it and, on the ground, that it breaches or violates any of the fundamental rights or other Constitutional Rights and on no other grounds. (See State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co. (1996) 3 SCC 709, Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India and Ors. (2006) 7 SCC 1. 16. The scheme of the Act appears to be simple. The Act imposes a Prohibition [Under Section 2], requires recovery [Under Section 3] and extinguishes all liabilities of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09) 10 SCC 689, this Court considered the provisions of Land Acquisition (U.P. Amendment Validation Act, 1991, in particular Sections 2 and 3 thereof adding proviso to Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and held the same to be constitutional. The contention that the U.P. Amendment Act merely sought to overrule judgments in Kashmir Singh's case AIR 1987 All. 113 or State of U.P. v. Radhey Shyam Nigam (1989) 1 SCC 591 and did not remove the basis or foundation thereof and was, therefore, ultra vires Articles 245 and 246 was rejected. The question arose regarding the constitutional validity of the Land Acquisition (Amending) Act. Notification Under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) was issued on 4.12.1984 which was published in the Gazette on 8.12.1984. Declaration Under Section 6 was made on 4.12.1984 and published in the Gazette on 8.12.1984. It was found that simultaneous notifications Under Sections 4 and 6 could not be made and therefore the acquisitions were bad as held in Kashmir Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1987 All. 113 which was upheld by this Court. Thereafter, the Ordinance was promulgated. The Statement of Objects and Reasons referred to the judgment in K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lature's power to make retrospective legislation and thereby validating the prior executive and legislative acts retrospectively is recognized. Of course, the same has to be done only after curing the defects that led to the invalidation. We respectfully agree with the propositions laid down in paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 thereof. In Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Broach Borough Municipality reported in 1969 (2) SCC 283, which is referred to in paragraph 16 of the decision, it is stated that: the Legislature may follow any one method or all of them and while it does so, it may neutralize the effect of earlier decision of the Court which becomes ineffective after the change of the law. It is further stated therein that the validity of the validating law, therefore, depends upon whether the Legislature possesses the competence which it claims over the subject matter and whether in making the validation it removes the defect which the Courts had found in the existing law. The Amending Act has clearly passed these tests. All the relevant cases on this subject have been considered in this judgment. The Court has observed that the State legislature has the power to make retr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the scrutiny of the Admission Supervisory Committee also immediately on the expiry of the last date for submission of applications. (iii) Since the counsel for the Admission Supervisory Committee has voiced a complaint that some of the colleges have not obtained approval of the Admission Supervisory Committee, for their Prospectus, the admission process shall be proceeded with only on the basis of a Prospectus, for which approval of the Admission Supervisory Committee has been obtained. (iv) The Admission Supervisory committee is directed to either approve or disapprove the Prospectus, submitted to them for approval, within three days of such submission. 15. It is relevant that against the interim order of the Kerala High Court dated 26.8.2016, Union of India has filed an SLP which was disposed of by this Court on 28.9.2016 in C.A. No. 9862 of 2016. This Court set aside only that part of Condition No. 1 wherein the respective Colleges are allowed to conduct the counselling and admit the students without going into the merits. This Court, however, specifically observed that this Court is not interfering with the admissions of students which have been done by the respecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the writ petitions filed by the colleges and Ors. the validity and legality of the order dated 14.11.2016 was questioned. However, this Court has upheld the same. We also note that voluminous records were filed in this Court by both the medical colleges. The students were also heard when the decision was rendered. Thereafter also several petitions were filed which were dismissed by this Court. Thus, when this Court has upheld the order dated 14.11.2016 on the ground of illegality and irregularities and not following the due procedure, such admissions could not have been regularised at all. In case such a power of covering up illegal action is given to the State Government in individual cases of two colleges, the day is not far off when every judgment can be annulled. It is crystal clear in the instant case that the State Government has exceeded its powers and has entrenched upon the field reserved for the judiciary. It could not have nullified the judgment. The online procedure was laid down by the judgment. The provision of any existing law framed by legislation has not been changed by the State Government by the impugned Ordinance but illegalities found in the admissions were sou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may say dismissed on merits . Such an order may be passed even ex-parte, that is, in the absence of the opposite party. In any case, the dismissal would remain a dismissal by a non-speaking order where no reasons have been assigned and no law has been declared by the Supreme Court. The dismissal is not of the appeal but of the special leave petition. Even if the merits have been gone into, they are the merits of the special leave petition only. In our opinion, neither doctrine of merger nor Article 141 of the Constitution is attracted to such an order. Grounds entitling exercise of review jurisdiction conferred by Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure or any other statutory provision or allowing review of an order passed in exercise of writ or supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court (where also the principles underlying or emerging from Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure act as guidelines) are not necessarily the same on which this Court exercises discretion to grant or not to grant special leave to appeal while disposing of a petition for the purpose. Mere rejection of special leave petition does not take away the jurisdiction of the court, tribunal or fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rticle 136 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court may reverse, modify or affirm the judgment-decree or order appealed against while exercising its appellate jurisdiction and not while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction disposing of petition for special leave to appeal. The doctrine of merger can, therefore, be applied to the former and not to the latter. (iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case, it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed. (v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e. gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents were submitted before this Court and it was argued for several days at length. This Court has heard the matter and thereafter has expressed the opinion and recording finding as to the legality of the order dated 14.11.2016 for the first time as the order was not before High Court, vide the order passed on 22.3.2017 observing that: Heard learned Counsel for the parties. We do not find any ground to interfere in Order dated 14.11.2016. As 30 students have been found by ASC, in the case of Karuna Medical College, who have been illegally deprived of their admission in spite of being meritorious, we deem it proper to issue direction to the college and all other concerned authorities to admit them in the next academic session 2017-18 in Karuna Medical College and the corresponding number of seats, available to it, shall be reduced by 30 for the college in question for academic session 2017-18. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications stand disposed of. It is apparent from the aforesaid order passed by this Court that this Court did not find any ground to interfere with the order dated 14.11.2016. The SLPs. against the order pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r admission to postgraduate medical courses in a State and observed that common entrance examination provides unique criteria for judging the merits of all candidates who come from different universities. The common entrance test alone will balance the competing equities of having competent students for specialised education. This Court has made the following observations: 28. This argument ignores the reasons underlying the need for a common entrance examination for post-graduate medical courses in a State. There may be several Universities in a State which conduct M.B.B.S. courses. The courses of study may not be uniform. The quality of teaching may not be uniform. The standard of assessment at the M.B.B.S. examination also may not be uniform in the different universities. With the result that in some of the better universities which apply more strict tests for evaluating the performance of students, a higher standard of performance is required for getting the passing marks in the M.B.B.S. examination. Similarly, a higher standard of performance may be required for getting higher marks than in other universities. Some universities may assess the students liberally with the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions which have attained finality and are binding upon all concerned. 39. Reliance has been placed by the Respondents on a decision of this Court in Anitta Job and Ors. v. The State of Kerala decided on 20.4.2018 (supra) so as to contend that this Court did not interfere with the admissions which were made without applying the mind as the students had appeared in the NEET examination and the college had admitted other similar students also. This Court has passed the order Under Article 142. In the instant case in view of the previous verdicts, such a power cannot be exercised and apart from that when the judgments have attained finality, they are binding on all concerned including this Court. Power Under Article 142 cannot be exercised to nullify its own judgment and to perpetuate illegality. The question involved in the case is the power of the State Government to promulgate the impugned Ordinance. It was not the question in the said decision of Anitta Job (supra). The decision is of no application to the instant case. The power Under Article 142 cannot at all be exercised by this Court in view of the previous decisions and also in view of the fact that it was not competent to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
