NIRMALKUMAR Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks to challenge Regulation 9(18) of the Veterinary Academic Regulations, 2002 framed by the Maharashtra Animal & Fishery Sciences University, Nagpur as ultra virus to the Veterinary Council of India (Minimum Standards of Veterinary Education Degree Course -B.V. Sc. & A.H.) Regulations, 1993, so also the communication dated 21.09.2013 informing the petitioner that he will not be allowed to complete B.V. Sc. & A.H. degree course by granting additional time.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was admitted to B.V. Sc. & A.H. degree course in June, 2003. The petitioner has completed 8th semester, however is not allowed to appear for the 5th year 9th semester vide communication dated 21.09.2013 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to complete the course within 10 years. Learned counsel submits that when the petitioner had taken admission in June, 2003, the impugned Regulations of 2002 were not in force. The said Regulations cannot have retrospective effect as the said Regulations are made applicable from the academic year 2004 -2005. According to learned counsel, when the petitioner had taken admission in Academic year 2003 -2004, Regulations then existing and prevailing would be applicable. There was no Regulation in force thereby restricting period for completing B.V. Sc. & A.H. degree course.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relies on Part II of Regulations 1993. Learned counsel also relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of State of Rajasthan & ors. Vs. Basant Agrotech (India) Ltd. and others, reported in : (2013) 15 SCC 1 to contend that the authority exercising powers of subordinate legislation cannot enact law with retrospective effect. The Delegate authority, exercising power of delegated legislation, can make rules only within four corners of the powers laid down under the central enactment and no statute shall be constructed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act, or arises by necessary and distinct implication. Learned counsel also relies on the judgment in the case of Vice -Chancellor, M.D. University, Rohtak Vs. Jahan Singh, reported in : (2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 77 and submits that the Central Government does not confer any power on the University to enact Regulations with retrospective effect. According to learned counsel, even if this Court upholds the Regulations framed by the University, still the same does not have retrospective operation and the petitioner is entitled to complete the course. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner be allowed to complete the course.