Education
Alert
This update for the
month of October, 2012 is being provided to the recipient solely for the
purpose of his/her/its information. It is meant to be merely an informative
summary and should not be treated as a substitute for considered legal advice.
This update covers:
(i) case laws relating to higher and school education
in India, which could have an impact on the operations of entities engaged in this
sector decided by various courts and tribunals in the month
of October, 2012. Please note that the coverage of case laws in this update is
restricted to the Supreme Court, various high courts and the National and State
consumer disputes redressal commissions. We have not included cases involving
service matters and taxation; and
(ii) update on any new regulation, circular or other
notification passed by any of the University Grants Commission (“UGC”), the Distance Education Council
(“DEC”) and the All India Council
for Technical Education (“AICTE”),
which could have an impact on the operations of educational institutions
issued during the month of October, 2012.
Supreme Court Cases
1.
Environment and Consumer Protection Foundation v. Delhi Administration and others,
decided on October 03, 2012.
Facts:
The petitioner, a registered charitable society, sought directions
for improving the conditions of various government and aided schools and also
schools run by the local authorities so that the constitutional objective of
providing free and compulsory education under Article 21A of the Constitution
of India would be a fulfilled. Since the filing of this petition, the court had
passed several interim orders giving directions to the states and the union territories
to provide the basic infrastructure facilities like toilet facility, drinking water,
class rooms, appointment of teachers and all other facilities so that children
can study in a clean and healthy environment.
Ruling and
Order:
The Court disposed off the writ petition with a direction to all the
states to give effect to the various directions already given by the Supreme Court
since the presentation of the petition in the year 2004, like providing toilet
facilities for boys and girls, drinking water facilities, sufficient class
rooms, appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff etc., if not already
provided, within six months from the date of the judgment.
High Court Cases
1. Hamidur Rahman v. Jamia Milia Islamia and Others, decided on October 05, 2012 by the
Delhi High Court.
Facts:
The petitioner was aggrieved by the action of the respondents of not
granting admission to him in M.A. (Persian), which according to him was
illegal, arbitrary, mala fide,
discriminatory and without any jurisdiction. The petitioner’s case was that
although he had appeared for written exam and viva voce, he was denied admission to the M.A. (Persian) course.
The petitioner also alleged that out of 30 available seats, only 20 seats had
been filled and his merit had been overlooked.
Ruling and Order:
The Court observed that
the petitioner was denied admission by the Vice-Chancellor of the university as
a preventive measure and by way of abandon caution. The Court held that since
the respondents had placed the material on record on the basis of which a
decision had been taken by the Vice-Chancellor it could not be said that the
Vice-Chancellor had exercised his discretion in an arbitrary, illegal or
vindictive manner.
The Court referred to the case of Mohd. Zareeq Khan & Ors. v. Jamia Millia Islamia[1] wherein it was held that all powers
related to discipline and disciplinary action in relation to the students vests
in the Vice-Chancellor. It was also held that such a power includes power not
to admit students to a course or courses of study as a candidate has no vested
right for admission. The Court held that there was no infirmity in the decision
taken by the Vice-Chancellor and that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, the Court could not force the college to
admit a student who was likely to cause indiscipline or was a threat to the
peaceful atmosphere of the university.
2. M/s Muniyal Institute of Ayurveda Medical Sciences, v. Union of India, Ministry of
Health and Family welfare, decided on October 8, 2012 by the High Court of
Karnataka.
Facts:
The petitioner i.e. the
Muniyal Institute called into question the respondent's order, dated September
7, 2011 directing them not to make any admissions to BAMS Course and to post graduate
course for the academic year 2011-2012. The petitioner started the BAMS Course
in the year 1998 and M.D. Course in 'Rasashastra' in the year 2005 after
obtaining the necessary clearances and approvals from the authorities. The
respondent issued notice to the petitioners regarding certain deficiencies in
the infrastructure. The proceedings culminated in the issuance of the impugned
order, dated September 7, 2011 directing the petitioners not to make admissions
to the said courses for the academic year 2011-2012. The petitioners removed
all the deficiencies and submitted the compliance report on December 12, 2011.
As the students admitted for the academic year 2011-2012 were not approved and
were not permitted to appear for the examination, these petitions came to be
filed. Subsequently, the Central Government reconsidered the matter and granted
permission for the academic year 2012-2013.
Ruling and Order:
The Court held that if the respondents wanted
that no admissions should be made by the petitioner institution on account of
the infrastructural deficiencies, they were required to pass the orders and
send them before the commencement of the academic year. The Court, in this
regard, referred to the judgement of the Division Bench in the case of Central Council of Indian Medicine v. Union of India and Others[2]
wherein it was held that once the permission to
continue the course for a particular academic year was granted, it was to be
concluded that the deficiencies and shortcomings notified with regard to the
previous year have been complied with even in respect to the year for which the
permission had been withdrawn. Following the aforesaid decision the court, in
respect of the present case, held that the deficiencies pointed out for
2011-2012 stood complied with.
The Court allowed the petitions by quashing the impugned orders. The
respondent was directed to accord approval to the admissions of the students of
the petitioner college - 38 students admitted to first year BAMS Course and 3
students admitted to M.D. Course in 'Rasashastra' for the academic year
2011-2012, subject to the petitioners meeting the eligibility criteria in all
other respects.
3. Dhanwantri
Ayurvedic Medical College and Research Centre and Anr. v. Union of
India and Anr., decided on October 9, 2012 by the Delhi High Court.
Facts:
The petitioner college was established and granted
permission to start BAMS course with an intake capacity of 50 students on
August 27, 2009. As per the extant regulations, the degree course is required
to be completed in five and a half years with three professional terms of a
year and a half each and an internship of one year. The permission for admission
to the sessions in the academic years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 was declined on
account of infrastructural infirmities such as non-availability of sufficient
teaching staff. The first batch (admitted in 2009 – 10) were due to complete
the second professional term around June, 2013. It was pointed out before the
court that the requirements such as number of teaching staff can be fulfilled
in a satisfied manner.
The issue before the court was whether the
petitioner could be declined permission for intake of students for the academic
session 2012-2013 having regard to the deficiencies relating to teaching stuff,
which relate to the requirements for the third professional term whereas the petitioner
had only one batch of students in the second professional term, which was
likely to be completed in June, 2013.
Ruling and Order:
The Court quashed the order rejecting permission to intake students
for the academic session 2012 – 13 on the ground that the college had only one batch
of students who were not yet in the third professional term. The Court directed
the respondent to grant permission to the petitioner to admit students for the
academic session 2012-2013 subject to an undertaking being furnished within
four days from the date of receipt of the order by the petitioner that they
would provide necessary faculty for the third professional term prior to the
inspection, which is normally held between January to March of each year.
4. Dr. Namrata Anil Ghorpade v. The State of Maharashtra, decided on
October 9, 2012 by the Bombay High Court.
Facts:
The petitioner appeared at the PGA-CET 2012
Examination for the M.D/M.S. (Ayurvedic) post graduate course. The petitioner
secured 10th position amongst students of the physically handicapped category
and in the final merit list the petitioner's name figured at serial number 3 in
the physically handicapped students’ quota. When the petitioner appeared for
counseling and verification of the documents, she was informed by the
Verification Committee that she was not eligible for admission in the
physically handicapped students quota, because her disability could not be
considered as locomotive disability of lower limbs between 50% and 70%.
Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner prayed for direction to the
respondent authorities to take fresh selection process of PGA-CET 2012 for the
admission to M.D./M.S. (Ayurvedic) post graduate Courses particularly in
physically handicapped quota.
Ruling and Order:
The court held that it was unable to give any relief to the
petitioner as the petitioner's disability had been assessed by the Special
Medical Board as less than 40%. The court could not uphold the procedure being
followed by the respondents to grant provisional admission on the basis of
prima facie opinion formed by the two officers (Medical Officers) of the
Ayurvedic Department. Granting provisional admission by making prima facie verification
of disability could not be said to be proper procedure in accordance with the
rules under the Procedure for Selection to Post Graduate Courses in Ayurveda
for 2012-13 (“Rules”). The decision
to give admission to a student of a seat reserved for the physically
handicapped candidate could only be taken after the Special Medical Board
examines the concerned candidate.
The Court directed the respondents to ensure that admissions to
seats in Medical/Engineering Colleges reserved for physically handicapped
students should be given only after receiving the report of the Special Medical
Board constituted for verification of the disability of the concerned
candidates. After notifying the constitution of the Special Medical Board, the
date and place of verification by the Special Medical Board should be intimated
to candidates who have applied for admission to the physically handicapped
student quota, with certificates of civil surgeons. In case where number of
candidates applying under the physically handicapped quota far exceeds the
number of seats available, it may become time consuming and detrimental to the
timely completion of the admission process, to send all candidates at once to
the Board. In such circumstances, it would be open to the authorities to send
first three meritorious candidates, per seat, to the Medical Board. In case
none of the three candidates are found suitable by the Medical Board then next
three candidates could be sent and so on.
5. Anurag Gupta and Others v. Union of India and Others, decided on October 10, 2012 by the
Delhi High Court.
Facts:
The petitioners applied for the super specialty
courses in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and College, which is affiliated to
Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. They moved the court seeking a writ
of certiorari to quash the decision
of the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University on June 30th, 2012 in regard
to reducing the intake capacity of DM Cardiology Course from six to three in
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia
Hospital.
Ruling and Order:
The court after examining the terms
of the prospectus wherein it had also been stated that the seat allocation is
provisional in nature and the super-speciality Medical Courses/Institution
seats are likely to change depending upon the approval of Medical Council of
India/Government of India/University for the academic session 2012-2013, held
that the number of seats allotted were provisional and were likely to change
depending on the approval of the medical college, government of India, and also
the University.
The Court referred to the judgement of the
Supreme Court in the case of Medical
Council of India v. State of Karnataka[3] and dismissed
the petition by holding that the seats in medical colleges could not be
increased indiscriminately without regard to proper infrastructure as per the regulations
of the Medical Council of India.
Consumer
Cases
The National Consumer Disputes and Redressal
Commission and the various State Consumer Disputes and Redressal Commissions
have not decided any cases having a bearing on operations of educational
institutions during the month of October, 2012.
Regulations
AICTE permits
Companies/ Industries with Turnover of more than 100 crores to set up technical
institutions
As per the Approval Process Handbook
2013 – 14 issued by the AICTE in October, 2012, the AICTE has permitted
private/ public companies with a turnover of more than 100 crores for the
preceding three years to set up technical institutions in the fields of engineering
and technology, pharmacy, architecture and town planning, and hotel management
and catering technology by seeking the approval of the AICTE in accordance with
the process laid down for the year 2013 – 14. The private/ public companies
setting up such technical institutions would be able to offer under graduate,
post-graduate and diploma courses in line with the intake norms prescribed by
AICTE.
The UGC and/or DEC have not
issued any circulars/ notifications having a bearing on operations of higher
educational institutional during the month of October, 2012.
