Education Alert – October - 2013
A.
High
Court Cases
1. Dr. Vidyasagar Madhavram and Ors. v. National
Board of Examination
decided on October 01, 2013 by the High Court of Delhi.
Facts:
The petitioners had
appeared for the entrance examination for admission in January 2013 intake for Diploma
of National Board (“DNB”) conducted
by National Board of Examination (“NBE”).
Despite being aware that no further rounds of counselling would be held, the
petitioners declined to take admission to the seats offered to them in the
second round of counselling. Subsequently, the Supreme Court permitted a fourth
round of counselling for admission to PG Medical Course and a number of seats
in the DNB course became vacant. In the meantime, these seats were offered to
candidates appearing for the July, 2013 intake. The petitioners requested the
NBE for a third counselling to be held for the vacant seats, which was refused
as those seats were already filled.
Ruling
and Order:
The Court held that
the petitioners were aware that there would not be a further round of
counselling. Thus, having declined the seats offered to them during the second
round of counselling, the petitioners can have no legitimate claim to the seats
which had fallen vacant after August 30, 2013. Further, the court also held
that since the seats were already allotted to certain students, who were not
before the court, an order taking away their right could not be passed.
2. Rinku Rathi v. Aditi Mahavidyalaya College and Anr.
decided on October 09, 2013 by the High Court of Delhi.
Facts:
The petitioner had
applied for issue of an NOC for migration to a different college from her
present college, that is, Aditi Mahavidyalaya College. The college did not reply
to the application filed. The respondent college contended that the Staff
Council of the College had taken a general decision not to grant any migration
of the students to another college and therefore the request of the petitioner
could not be have been acceded to. However, no order on the aforesaid application
of the petitioner had been passed by the college till the petition was filed. The
petitioner then filed a writ petition in the high court praying that the
respondents be directed to issue migration certificate to her.
Ruling
and Order:
The Court referred
to its earlier judgment in Himani Sharma
v. University of Delhi delivered on
September 10, 2013. In Himani Sharma’s
case, the Delhi High Court held that a blanket decision of the Staff Council
not to grant migration certificate irrespective of the merit of the cases was
wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair, which could not be sustained in law.
The court disposed off the present petition directing the respondent college to
consider the application of the petitioner in light of the decision in the case
of Himani Sharma and pass appropriate
order thereon within one week from the date of the judgement.
3. Meera Rani v. University of Delhi and Anr., decided
on October 09, 2013 by the High Court of Delhi.
Facts:
The petitioner
appeared in the post graduate entrance test for homeopathy conducted by the University of Delhi in 2013. She secured 2nd rank in the examination
and applied for revaluation citing wrong answers in the answer key. However,
the rank of the petitioner did not change. The
university had granted admission to the single seat for the course to Dr.
Nisha, who had secured the same marks as the petitioner in the entrance exam.
This was done on the basis of the Bulletin of Information, which provided the
action required to be taken in case of equal marks being obtained by two or
more students in the entrance exam.
The petitioner claimed
that as per the Bulletin of Information, she should have been given preference
in admission as she was older in age. The university contended as neither of
the two candidates had equal marks in the professional examinations, the age
rule could not be applied. Further, since Dr. Nisha had a higher score in the
BHMS course, she was given the higher rank and was preferred for admission.
Ruling
and order:
The Court held that
the age rule would apply only if two or more candidates have equal marks in the
BHMS degree. In the present case, in the absence of any criteria under the
Bulletin of Information, the university was justified in preferring the student
having higher marks on the BHMS course. The Court further declined the prayer
of the petitioner to allocate an extra seat to her on the ground that an order
for creating an additional seat cannot be granted in a writ of this nature.
4. Karanjit Singh Sandhu v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
and Anr., decided on October 10, 2013 by the
High Court of Delhi.
Facts:
The petitioner had
taken admission in the B.Arch course of Sushant School of Art & Architecture, which was affiliated to the respondent university. The petitioner
could not clear his 3rd year examination but was promoted to the 4th
year by the respondent no. 2 college. The petitioner was incorrectly issued
admit cards in May, 2013 for the two subjects of the third year in which he had
failed as well as for the 4th year. The result of the papers of the third year
was declared in August, 2013 and those papers were cleared by the petitioner.
The result of the petitioner for the 4th year was withheld by the respondent
university. The respondent university contended that as per the ordinance of
the university, a student cannot be promoted to the next academic year if upon
declaration of the supplementary examination results that student fails in any
course or courses that aggregate to more than 8 course credits. The petitioner
prayed the result of the 4th year be declared by the respondent
university.
Ruling
and Order:
The court observed
that the petitioner had not cleared two papers which carry 22 credits cumulatively. Therefore, in terms of the ordinance of the university, the petitioner
was not eligible for being promoted to the 4th year. The Court held that the
ordinance of the university is binding on all the parties including the
petitioner, the college and the respondent university. The Court further held
that the college committed a mistake by promoting the petitioner to the 4th
year. However, the university was not bound by such an illegal act committed by
the college as it was contrary to the ordinance of the university. The Court
dismissed the petition.
5. Nitish Sharma and Ors.v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
and Ors. decided on October 21, 2013 by the
High Court of Delhi.
Facts:
The petitioners
were admitted to the MBA program conducted by Global Educational & Social Trust, which was provisionally affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha
University (“GGSIPU”) pursuant to
the interim order of a division bench of the Delhi High Court. The students had
furnished an undertaking to the effect that they would be bound by the final
outcome of the litigation between the trust and GGSIPU in respect of
affiliation. The division bench in its final order revoked the provisional affiliation
granted to Global Educational & Social Trust for its MBA course. The state
government was directed to admit the students in MD University, Rohtak. The
petitioners filed a writ petition praying that they be granted admission in any
college under the affiliation of GGSIPU.
Ruling
and Order:
The Court held that
GGSIPU had clearly stipulated in its counseling notification that special counseling was being conducted in view of the interim orders passed by the High
Court of Delhi and the admissions would be provisional and subject to further
orders. The court observed that the petitioners had also furnished undertakings
stating therein that they clearly understood that the admission was provisional
and subject to final orders of the court. The Court also observed that the
division bench had taken into consideration the fate of the students admitted
provisionally and had directed the state government to admit the students in MD
University. The Court dismissed the petition.
6. Sachin Mehta v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., decided on
October 25, 2013 by the High Court of Rajasthan.
Facts:
The petitioner
filed a public interest litigation challenging the fee notification issued by
the respondent Mahatma Gandhi University of Medical Sciences & Technology (“University”) for their MBBS and BDS
course. The petitioner contended that as per the decision of T.M.A. Pai v. State of Karnataka[1],
the state governments were required to set up ‘fee fixation committees’ for
fixing fees of institutions. The petitioner also pointed out that the state
government had set up a fee fixation committee and the fee fixed by the state
government committee was lower than the fee fixed by the University’s fee
fixation committee. Further, it is also relevant to note that the allotment of
students to the University was subject to several conditions including that the
fee structure would be as per the state fee fixation committee. The set up of a
personal fee fixation committee by the respondent university was a violation of
the decision laid down in the aforementioned judgement.
Ruling
and Order:
The Court held that
it was not within the jurisdiction and competence of the respondent-University
to effect any changes in the criterion relating to fee structure. The changes
were contrary to the fee which had been determined by the 'Fee Regulatory
Committee' constituted by the State of Rajasthan. The Court further held that
the constitution of the fee fixation committee by the respondent university was
in violation of the directions issued by the Supreme Court to have the fee
structure determined by an independent body in the T.M.A. Pai case. The court allowed the petition and quashed the
notification by which fee hike was introduced by the respondent university.
Editor’s
note: The judgement is silent on the aspect of the
constitutionality of the provision relating to fee fixation in the statute
passed by the state legislature under which the respondent University was
established. Further, the Court did not go into the arguments relating to Entry
25, List III of the Seventh Schedule. It, therefore, remains to be seen whether
other high courts will take a similar view or would they respect the state
legislature’s competence to enact a law under Entry 25 relating to fee
fixation.
7. Padmanabh Ratnakar Muley, Amol Subhash Shingne and Pathan Shaukat
Subhan v. The
State of Maharashtra, (Through Secretary, Health Department) and Ors., decided on
October 10, 2013 by the High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench).
Facts:
The petitioners
were prohibited by the respondent university from appearing in the first year examination
of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (“BAMS”) as they had failed in previous six attempts. The petitioners
contended that there was no such prevailing limit on the number of attempts in
other professional courses like MBBS and BDS. Moreover, the Central Council for
Indian Medicine (“CCIM”) had introduced
the Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian
Medicine) (Amendment) Regulations, 2012 (“Regulations”),
whereby it had done away with such a limit on number of attempts. The
respondent university contended that such limiting of attempts was not invalid
and that a university has power to have its own rules which improve the quality
of education. The petitioners filed a writ petition before the High Court to
allow them to appear in the first year examinations of the BAMS course.
Ruling
and Order:
The Court held that
the notification issued by the respondent university to limit the number of
attempts was in direct conflict with the Regulations issued by CCIM and hence
could not co-exist. The Court held CCIM is the concerned authority to decide on
the limit of attempts and since it had done away with a cap on such limit the
notification on the same subject by the university was unsustainable in law.
The Court allowed the petitions.
8. Bajirao and Rekha Khemchand Pachalore v.
The State of Maharashtra Health Department, The Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and Aurangabad
Training College of B.Sc. Nursing at Bhalgaon,
decided on October 11, 2013 by the High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench).
Facts:
The petitioners were not
allowed to appear for their first year B.Sc. Nursing examinations by the
respondent university as they did not meet the minimum age criteria. The petitioners contended that such a criterion was laid
down in a circular and was sought to be applied retrospectively after the
petitioners had taken admission. The respondent university contended that such
a criterion for minimum age was in place since 2006 as per the directions of
the Indian Nursing Council. The petitioners filed a writ petition to allow them
to appear in the first year B.Sc Nursing examinations.
Ruling and Order:
The Court held that the
minimum age requirement was an old and prevailing criterion. The Court observed
that both the the parents of the petitioners and the respondent college where
the petitioners had taken admission were aware of the aforementioned criterion
and hence cannot agitate the same to further their cause. The Court further
observed that when enrolment of the petitioners were cancelled by the
respondent university, the respondent college did not inform the same to the
petitioners which was its duty. The Court dismissed the petition with a
direction that the respondent university to take steps in accordance with its
law to consider appropriate measures to be adopted against the respondent
college.
9. Miss. Sneha v. The National
Council for Hotel Management and Catering Technology, Union of India, through
the Secretary, The Institute of Hotel Management, through its Principal and The
Secretary, Secondary & Higher Secondary, Education Board, Pune, decided on October 11,
2013 by the High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench).
Facts:
The petitioner
had secured admission in B.Sc. course in hospitality and hotel administration
in an institute in Goa from open category. The petitioner filed a writ petition
praying to quash and set aside Rule 5.1 of the Rules framed by National Council
for Hotel Management and Catering Technology, which prohibits seats remaining
vacant in scheduled castes and scheduled tribes categories to be filled in by candidates
belonging to any other category. The petitioner contended that prohibition is
arbitrary and also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The
petitioners further contended that in various cases including Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India[2] stipulation had been made
to transfer vacant seat of reserved category students to general category
students.
Ruling
and order:
The Court
held that the stipulation made in the Ashok
Kumar Thakur’s case was in regard to OBC category seats and not in respect
of seats reserved for scheduled caste/scheduled tribe students. The Court
observed that it is not the petitioner alone but several other students who would
also be required to be considered, if those seats were to be thrown open to general
category. The Court held that the challenge to the rules is purely an academic
challenge and dismissed the petition. The Court parted with the observation
that if bona fide, there are vacant
seats in these categories, it was not clear why the available infrastructure
was not being put to proper use.
10. Somnath Eshanchandra Ray and Ors. v. The
Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and SSUD Ayurved Medical College and
Hospital, decided on October 15, 2013 by the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur
Bench).
Facts:
The
petitioners had taken admission in the respondent college on the assumption
that it is recognised by the respondent university by placing reliance on a
list maintained by the Association of Managements of Unaided Private Medical
and Dental Colleges, Maharashtra. There was litigation pending in the Bombay
High Court on withdrawal of affiliation granted to the college by the
respondent university.
Ruling
and order:
The Court
observed that it has already earlier upheld the decision of the respondent
university to withdraw the grant of affiliation of the respondent college as
the respondent college had suppressed material facts to procure the
affiliation. The Court was of the view that when all information is available
on the website maintained by the university, it is difficult to hold that the
petitioners were not aware of the status of the college. The Court held that
the petitioners would not be entitled to any equitable relief. The Court held
that as the pending writ petitions have been dismissed, the court cannot grant
any relief to the petitioners. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s
ruling in Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health
Sciences and Ors.[3] where the Supreme Court
had ruled that students who pursue any higher education course would not be
entitled to any equitable relief at the final decision.
11. Akansha Gupta and Ors. v. University
of Delhi and Ors, decided on October 30, 2013 by the High Court of Delhi.
Facts:
The
petitioners were undergraduate students of School of Open Learning, Delhi
University (“Open School”). These
petitioners had appeared for entrance examinations before the declaration of
the final year result for admission to various post graduate courses of the
University of Delhi. The admission granted to the petitioners was cancelled on
the ground that they had failed to submit the result of the graduate
examination by the stipulated date. The petitioners filed a writ petition
before the High Court praying that the respondent university be directed to
declare the result of the final year examinations of the undergraduate course
and the notice for cancellation of admission be withdrawn. The respondent
university contended that considering the large number of students admitted in
School of Open Learning and the infrastructural constraints, it is not possible
to declare their results along with the result of the regular students.
Ruling
and order:
The Court on
the ground that the petitioners were allowed to appear in the entrance test and
granted provisional admission to the post graduate course by the respondent
university itself, even before declaration of the result of the qualifying
graduate examination. The Court held that the respondent university could not
be allowed to take advantage of its own delay in declaring the result of the
qualifying graduate examination for students enrolled under the Open School on
the ground of infrastructural shortcomings. The Court directed the respondent university
to declare the results of the qualifying graduate examination of the
petitioners within four weeks and directed that those students who had passed
the qualifying examination would continue to pursue the post-graduation course.
B.
NEWS
1. RUSA gets Cabinet nod[4]
The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs approved
about one lakh crore to the new centrally sponsored scheme for higher education
Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (“RUSA”).
It will focus on state higher educational institutions. Funding will be made
available to private government-aided institutions also, subject to their
meeting certain pre-conditions for permitted activities based on laid down
norms and parameters. In order to be eligible for funding under RUSA, states
will have to fulfill certain prerequisites which include creation of a State
Higher Education Council, creation of accreditation agencies, preparation of
the state perspective plans, commitment of certain stipulated share of funds
towards RUSA, academic, sectoral and institutional governance reforms, filling
faculty positions etc. Under the scheme, an initial amount will be provided to
the State governments to prepare them for complying with the above
requirements. Once eligible for funding under RUSA, after meeting the
prerequisite commitments, the States will receive funds on the basis of
achievements and outcomes. At the national level, the scheme will be
implemented by the RUSA Mission Authority and assisted by the Project Advisory
Group, Technical Support Group and Project Directorate. The main agency through
which RUSA will work in the States will be the State Higher Education Council
(SHEC), an autonomous body that will function at an arm’s length from the state
and central governments. SHEC will be assisted by State Project Directorate and
Technical Support Group. In every institution, the Governing Body and a Project
Monitoring Unit will oversee the project progress.
2. 45 autonomous colleges with
NAAC 'A' grade allowed to grant degrees[5]
The Ministry of Human Resource Development (“MHRD”) has decided to convert 45
autonomous colleges into universities to allow them to grant degrees. The
Central Government will also provide monetary aid to these autonomous colleges
for the purpose of converting them into universities. This decisions was taken
by UGC Standing Advisory Committee on Autonomous Colleges under the Chair of
Prof Syed Hasnain, which will finalize its recommendations within two months
including draft regulations for autonomous colleges. The central government
will explore ways to confer degree granting powers on autonomous colleges by
way of amending the UGC Act.
3. UGC may lose funding powers[6]
The Human Resource Development (HRD) ministry
is working on a plan to gradually divest the University Grants Commission (UGC)
of funding powers after the clearing of the RUSA by the Cabinet. The RUSA,
which will operate as a funding mechanism for state universities, already
threatens to dwarf the UGC in terms of grant-giving powers. Reliable sources say
that the HRD ministry is of the view that the same body should not be wielding
the power to regulate as well as to fund.
4. HP High Court issues notices
to UGC, state on norms violation by private varsities[7]
Himachal Pradesh High Court has issued
notices to the UGC, the state government and 16 private universities of the
state over alleged violation of educational norms by these institutes. The High
Court initiated suo moto action
against the UGC on the issue of unconcerned attitude of the UGC enforcing the
regulations pertaining to establishment and operations of private universities.
5. Private Universities not
covered under RTI Act: PMO[8]
The private universities and institutions are
not covered under the Right to Information Act (RTI), replied the Prime Minister’s
office (PMO) to a RTI query filed by the Indian Council of Universities. V
Narayanasamy, Minister of State in PMO replying to the query regarding
jurisdiction of RTI Act over private universities and other privately run
institutions has stated that “private universities and institutions are not
covered under RTI.” Though private universities and institutions do not come
under the RTI Act but information about private universities can be obtained
under RTI from the University Grants Commission (UGC).
6. Delhi High Court cancels CMAT[9]
The Delhi High Court has cancelled the common
management admission test (C-MAT), administered by the AICTE. The bench said
MBA courses do not fall under technical education as defined in the AICTE Act. The
High Court in its order has relied on the Supreme Court order of April 25, 2013
in which the apex court ruled that the AICTE did not have the authority to
control or regulate professional colleges which are affiliated to universities.
7. AICTE allows private company
to set up technical institution[10]
AICTE has permitted a private company to
start a technical institution in the country. The private industrial firm would
set up its first institution in the southern state of Tamil Nadu, a senior
AICTE official said. The Government, last year, had allowed private and public
companies with an annual turnover of at least Rs 100 crore over a 3-year period
to set up technical institutes to meet the increasing demand of such
institutes. They can establish new technical institution in engineering and
technology, pharmacy, architecture and town planning and hotel management
catering technology.
8. PCI proposes amendment to
Pharmacy Act to end dual regulation of pharmacy education[11]
In order to end the system of dual regulation
of pharmacy education by AICTE and Pharmacy Council of India (PCI), PCI is now
planning to move an amendment to the Pharmacy Act proposing that pharmacy
education at all level shall be governed by the PCI alone. PCI is also in the
process of filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court for
clubbing all cases filed in various High Courts across the country related to
litigations arising out of conflicting policies of PCI and AICTE like running
of pharmacy courses in the second shift. Cases have also come to the knowledge
of PCI wherein institutions have failed to comply with the statutory norms and
have been given No Objection Certificate by the AICTE.
*****************************************
Disclamer
This newsletter 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 significant legal developments in the field of
higher and school education in India during the month of October, 2013,
including judgments, laws and notifications issued by courts and the regulatory
bodies, as applicable. If you wish to receive more information about any content
of this newsletter, please feel free to contact:
Sarthak Advocates &
Solicitors
A – 35, Sector – 2, NOIDA
201 301
T: +91 120 430 9050
E:
mani.gupta@sarthaklaw.com
[1] (2002) 8
SCC 481
[2] (2008) 6 SCC 1.
[3] 2012 (6) SCALE 287.
[4] Source:
Press Information Bureau, October 04, 2013.
[5] Source:
India Education Review, October 08, 2013.
[6] Source:
Indian Express, October 10, 2013.
[7] Source:
India Education Review, October 29, 2013.
[8] Source: India Education Review, October 30, 2013.
[9] Source:
Business Standard, October 30, 2013.
[10] Source: The
Economic Times, November 06, 2013.
[11] Source:
Pahrmabiz.com, November 07, 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment