Dislaimer

The postings on this blog have been prepared by Sarthak Advocates & Solicitors. Unless otherwise indicated, the blog posts are intended to be informative summaries or the opinions of the author concerned. These postings should not be considered as substitutes for considered legal advice. If you have any comments, suggestions or clarifications, please do get in touch with us at knowledge@sarthaklaw.com.

Sunday, November 25, 2012

Education Alert - October 2012


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.          



[1] 1999 III AD (Delhi) 498
[2] ILR 2011 KAR 5105
[3] (1998) 6 SCC 131