Manipal University vs Union Of India

CIVIL APPEAL No…8381 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.21772 of 2012)

MANIPAL UNIVERSITY & ANR. .... Appellant(s) Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ….Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.

The instant Appeal arises from a Writ Petition No.12673 of

2005 filed by Manipal University (formerly known as Manipal

Academy of Higher Education and Others), wherein the High

Court disposed off the Writ Petition giving effect to the

directions of this Court in PA Inamdar v. State of

Maharastra (2005) 6 SCC 537, until suitable law or

regulation is made by the University Grants Commission (UGC) Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHARANJEET KAUR Date: 2017.07.06 17:01:11 IST Reason:

or Central Government. Aggrieved, Manipal University has

1 preferred this Appeal.

2. Two medical colleges were established by Manipal Academic

Higher Education in 1953 and 1955 at Manipal and

Mangalore. In the year 1978, the UGC recommended to the

first Respondent to grant status of Deemed University to

Manipal Educational Complex consisting of medical &

engineering colleges which was rejected on the ground of

paucity of funds. The UGC enquired whether the Appellant

would be able to raise the resources if permission was

granted for admission of foreign and Indian students in the

ratio of 60:40 and sought an undertaking to that effect. The

Appellant informed the UGC that it would not seek any aid if

it was permitted to make admissions in the ratio of 60:40.

The first Respondent granted permission to the Appellant on

12.08.1991 to admit 350 foreign students out of total intake

of 550 students for that year.

3. The first Respondent declared the Appellant as a Deemed

University on 01.06.1993. Two medical colleges, two dental

colleges and one nursing college at Manipal and Mangalore

were part of the Appellant University. The General Body of

the second Respondent considered the continuance of

recognition of MBBS degree granted by the Appellant on

2 27.08.2002. The Appellant was asked to show cause why

action should not be initiated for making admissions to the

NRI quota in excess of 15 per cent of the intake in violation

of the directions of this Court. After consideration of the

explanation of the Appellant, the Second Respondent by its

letter on 27.09.2002 requested the first Respondent to

withdraw the recognition of MBBS degree granted by the

second Respondent for not following the directions of this

Court regarding the admission of NRI/foreign students. The

first Respondent did not take any action as recommended by

the Second Respondent.

4. Thereafter, the second Respondent by its letter dated

08.02.2005 directed the Appellant not to make admissions in

the NRI quota for 37 seats in the year 2005-2006, 37 seats

for the year 2006-2007 and 29 seats for the year 2007-2008

in Kasturba Medical College, Manipal. It was stated in the

said letter that the said direction was being issued to offset

the undue advantage gained by the Appellant by admitting

103 students in MBBS course in excess of the permissible 15

per cent NRI quota. A reference was made to an order

passed by this Court on 09.08.2004 in Islamic Academy v.

3 State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697, wherein

permission was granted to private unaided colleges to admit

NRI students to the extent of 15 per cent of the available

seats. The second Respondent also referred to an order

passed by this Court on 30.08.2004 in I.A. Nos.19-20 of in

SLP No.11244 of 2004 (R.L. Minority Profession Colleges

Association v. State of Karnataka and Ors.). By the said

order dated 30.08.2004 this Court permitted admission of

NRI/foreign students against 15 per cent of the management

quota seats in respect of medical, engineering and dental

courses in minority unaided professional colleges.

5. The Appellant challenged the directions issued by the second

Respondent by its letter dated 08.02.2005 in the High Court

of Karnataka by filing Writ Petition 12673 of 2005. The High

Court accepted the contention of the Appellant and held that

Section 10-A of the Medical Council Act confers power on the

second Respondent to determine the intake capacity only. It

was further held that the second respondent did not have

the power to regulate admissions to sub categories.

According to the High Court, the second Respondent lacked

jurisdiction to determine the quota for NRIs/foreign students.

4 The High Court was aware that the letter impugned in the

Writ Petition was on 08.02.2005 which was prior to the

judgment of this Court in PA Inamdar’s case. However, the

High Court held that the directions issued by this Court bind

all parties concerned. As the Appellant admitted NRI

students in excess of 15 per of the intake capacity, the High

Court held that the Appellant was not entitled to the relief

prayed for. The said judgment of the High Court is assailed

by the Appellant in this Appeal.

6. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

Appellant submitted that the second Respondent lacked

jurisdiction to direct reduction of the intake of NRI seats for

the year 2005 to 2008. Admittedly, the MCI is not

competent to determine and interfere with the admission to

sub categories and the internal quota for reserved categories

and NRIs. The direction issued by the second Respondent

not to make admission to NRI seats amounts to interference

with the quota which is liable to declared as illegal as it

suffers from the vice of lack of jurisdiction. He further

submitted that the High Court erred in holding that the

directions issued in PA Inamdar’s case are applicable to

the Appellant retrospectively. According to him, the

5 directions issued in PA Inamdar are not applicable to a

Deemed University. He also urged that the said directions

cannot operate retrospectively.

7. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

second Respondent conceded that the Medical Council of

India does not have the power to fix quotas for reserved

categories and NRIs. However, Mr. Singh relied upon

Regulation 5 of the Medical Council of India Regulations on

Graduate Medical Education, 1997 to contend that the

selection of students to medical colleges shall be based

solely on the merit of the candidates. He submitted that

interim orders were passed by this Court from the year 1994

permitting admissions to NRI/foreign students to the extent

of 15 per cent of the total intake. He further submitted that

in case admissions are made to NRI seats in excess of the 15

per cent of the intake, the quota reserved for other

categories will be reduced adversely affecting the merit

based selection. He also submitted that the 1997

Regulations empower the second Respondent to issue

suitable directions to ensure merit based selections.

Therefore, the second Respondent was competent to issue

directions to restrict admissions to NRI seats for the years

6 2005 to 2008. He relied upon a judgment of this Court in

Mridul Dhar v. Union of India (2008) 17 SCC 435,

wherein it was held that excess admission made by an

institution in the management quota can be offset by

reduction of seats in the succeeding years. He further

submitted that there was no need for the second Respondent

to challenge the findings of the High Court that Section 10-A

of the Medical Council Act does not confer power on the

second Respondent to regulate or supervise the admissions

to sub categories.

8. The issues before us are:-

I. Whether the MCI is the competent authority/justified to issue direction disallowing the Appellant to make

admissions in the NRI quota for three years? II. Whether the decision in PA Inamdar (supra) operates retrospectively with respect to the letter dated 08.02.2005?

III. Whether the decision in PA Inamdar applies to Deemed Universities or only to private colleges?

9. There is no doubt that the Appellant was granted the status

of a Deemed University in the year 1993. There is also no

controversy about the directions issued by this Court

7 regarding pegging of the NRI quota in medical colleges at 15

per cent. Admittedly, the Appellant has made admissions to

NRI quota beyond 15 per cent. Both sides agree that the

Medical Council of India does not have the power to fix the

quotas to sub categories within the total intake. The

principal question that arises for our consideration is

regarding the correctness of the directions issued by the

second Respondent to the Appellant not to fill up 103 seats

in the category of NRI/foreign students during the years

2005 to 2008.

10. Determination of a quota for NRI seats is beyond the domain

of the second Respondent. The direction given by the

second Respondent by its letter dated 08.02.2005 directing

the Appellant not to make admissions in the NRI quota to the

extent of 103 seats during the years 2005 to 2008 amounts

to interfering with the quota. We do not agree with the

submission made by Mr. Vikas Singh that the second

Respondent has power to issue such directions in the

interest of merit based selection as provided by Regulation 5

of the 1997 Regulations. It is no doubt true that the second

Respondent has a duty to ensure merit based selections.

However, no direction can be issued by the second

8 Respondent interfering with the regulation or supervision of

sub categories. The direction issued by the second

Respondent by its letter dated 08.02.2005 is ultra vires and

is liable to be declared illegal. Exercise of power by an

authority has to be within the contours conferred by the

statute and for the purpose of promoting the objectives of

the statute. There is no express power conferred on the

second Respondent in the Medical Council of India Act to

interfere in allocation of quotas for sub categories. In the

facts and circumstances of this case it is not possible to hold

that the second Respondent has power to issue directions

pertaining to NRI quota even by reasonable implication. It is

relevant to refer to a judgment of the House of Lords in

Baroness Wenlock v. River Dee Co., (1885) 10 AC 354

at 362:

"But I cannot assent to the doctrine which was contended for by Mr. Rigby. Whenever a corporation is created by an Act of Parliament, with reference to the purposes of the Act, and solely with a view to carry on these purposes into execution, I am of opinion, not only that the objects which the Corporation may legitimately pursue must be ascertained from the Act itself, but that the powers which the corporation may lawfully use in furtherance of these objects must either be expressly conferred or derived by reasonable implication from its provisions. That appears to me to be the principle recognised by this House in Ashbury Company v. Riche (Law

9 Rep. 7 H.L. 653) and in Attorney-General v. Great Eastern Railway Company (5 App. Cas. 473)”.

11. There is no dispute that this Court permitted the Medical

Colleges to admit NRI students to the extent of 15 per cent

of their quota. There is also no dispute that the Appellant

made admissions beyond 15 per cent to the NRI quota of the

total intake. The question is whether the second

Respondent has jurisdiction to restrict admissions to the NRI

quota on the ground that the Appellant acted in violation of

the interim orders of this Court. The Appellant being a

Deemed University is governed by the provisions of the UGC

Act and the competent authority to take any action for

violation of the provisions of the Act regarding maintenance

of standards is the Commission.

12. The 1997 Regulations obligate the second Respondent to

ensure merit based selection to admissions in medical

colleges. However, the second Respondent cannot issue

directions interfering with the quota in the guise of

exercising power under Regulation 5 of the said Regulations.

It is settled law that what cannot be done directly, cannot be

done indirectly. See State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. K.

Shyam Sunder and Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 737(Para 43). 10

13. As we have held that that the direction issued by the second

Respondent in its letter 08.02.2005 is vitiated as it suffers

from the vice of lack of jurisdiction, it is not necessary to

deal with the other submissions made on behalf of the

Appellant. We also take note of the fact that the direction

issued by the Medical Council of India was not implemented

either for the years 2005 to 2008 or thereafter.

14. For the aforementioned reasons, the direction issued by the

second Respondent to the Appellant not to make admissions

to the extent of 103 NRI seats for the years 2005 to 2008 is

declared ultra vires and without jurisdiction. The Appeal is

allowed. No costs.

........................................J [S. A. BOBDE]

..……................................J [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

New Delhi, July 3, 2017

11 ITEM NO. 1501 COURT NO. 8 SECTION IV-A (For judgment) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal ©. No(s) 21772/2o12 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19.12.2011 in WP No. 12673/2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore)

MANIPAL UNIVERSITY AND ANR. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF IDNIA AND ANR. Respondent(s)

Date : 03/07/2017 This matter was called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Dhawal Mohan, Adv.

Mr. Amandeep Kaur, Adv.

Mr. Prateek Bhatia, Adv.

Ms. Vara Gaur, Adv.

Mr. G.S. Makker, Adv.

–--

Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde and His Lordship.

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed . No costs.

[ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Indu Kumari Pokhriyal ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Branch Officer

[ Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file ]

12