STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. A CITIZEN OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE genesis of this litigation is the receipt of a letter from R. Shiva Bhaskaraswamy bringing to the notice of this Court a letter sent by the Secretary, Medical Council of India on 21-11-1994 to the Government of Karnataka, that certain medical colleges in Karnataka are admitting students in excess of the intake fixed by the Medical Council of India and sought for directions to take corrective steps to reduce the number of admissions in excess of the number approved by the Medical Council of India. That letter sent by R. Shiva Bhaskaraswamy was treated as a writ petition by registering it as such in public interest. On 26-8-1996, learned Single Judge made an order directing the State Government to ensure no medical or dental college admits any students for which the seats do not stand the test of mandatory provisions of Sections 10-A to 10-C of the medical Council Act, 1956 and the Dental Council Act. Against that order, a writ appeal was preferred in Writ Appeal No. 7913 of 1996 which was allowed and the order made was set aside with an observation that, before passing further orders, reasonable opportunity may be afforded to the State of Karnataka.

(2.) THE Registrar-Vigilance of this Court was appointed as an Enquiry Officer for the purpose of collecting data from the State Government and from the Medical and Dental Colleges in the state of Karnataka relating to the admission capacity. A report was made by the said Registrar. Based on the data furnished by him in the report, learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by an order made on 20-9-1996. In the course of the said order, the following findings have been given: (1) that Section 53 (10) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 and Section 4 (1) (b) of the karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 which empowers the State Government and the Universities in the State to determine the admission capacity of the colleges are void and inoperative; (2) that the power in relation to fixing the admission capacity for medical colleges is governed only by the provisions of Sections 10-A to 10-C of the Medical Council Act, 1956; (3) that no medical college can admit any student in excess of the capacity determined by the medical Council and approved by the Central Government; (4) that regulations framed under Sections 19a and 33 or the Medical Council Act are mandatory in nature; (5) that the Central or State Government cannot exercise executive powers under Article 73 or 162 of the Constitution of India irrespective of any aspect of medical education for which provisions have been made under the Central or State legislature; and (6) that the extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 does not extend to regularising and approving admissions in excess of permissible intake.

(3.) ALONG with this appeal filed by the State, we have heard several other appeals challenging the same order made by the learned Single Judge. In fact, some of the learned Counsel went to the length of submitting that the letter addressed by R. Shiva Bhaskaraswamy which resulted in the registration of the writ petition itself is not bona fide and the identity of the writer of the letter is not known and in the absence of which it was neither expedient nor proper for the learned Single judge to have embarked upon a roving or fishing enquiry into the affairs of the medical and dental colleges in the State of Karnataka and when no material was forthcoming in the letter, it was wholly unnecessary for the learned Single Judge to have appointed the Registrar-Vigilance of this High Court to enquire into the matter and gather necessary data to enable the Judge to pass an order in the matter. It was further submitted that the learned Single Judge has unnecessarily enlarged the scope of enquiry in the matter and all that was needed to be considered was whether the admissions made in the medical or dental colleges was within the permissible limits or not and in the event if there has been any excess admissions beyond the quota fixed, what action should be taken. It was criticised at the Bar the manner in which the learned Single Judge has researched to project a novel thesis on the principles applicable in the matter of admission in colleges; and the scope of judicial review by Courts in such admissions, exhorting thorough overhaul by adopting new standards not only by the Government, universities and medical/dental colleges but also by the High Court. It was very vehemently contended that the whole exercise was unnecessary, and unwarranted in the circumstances of the case. It was stated that the letter of the Medical Council of India dealing with intake in medical colleges was being appropriately dealt with by the concerned parties including State Government and respective colleges and before either Medical Council of India or Central Government on recommendation of Medical Council of India could take any action, the learned Single Judge, suo motu, need not have interfered with that process by judicial imprimatur preempting the whole process.