Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vikas Verma vs Raj. University Of V. & Animal Sci.,&Ors on 13 August, 2013
Bench: Amitava Roy, P.K. Lohra
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
****
:JUDGMENT:
Vikas Verma
Vs.
Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sci-
ences, Bikaner & Ors.
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.401/2012
Appeal under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High
Court Rules against the order dated 18.04.2012
passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.749/2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13th August, 2013
PRESENT
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Mr. Rajvendra Saraswat for Dr. Sachin Acharya, for the
appellant.
Mr. D.S. Rajvi, for respondent No.1 & 2
Mr. Ravi Bhansali, for Veterinary Council of India.
Reportable
BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE LOHRA, J):
1. Appalled by the judgment and order dated 18th of April 2012, passed by the writ Court, the appellant has laid this intra-Court appeal.
[2]
2. The appellant has approached the writ Court seeking di-
rection against the respondents to consider his case for mi- gration/transfer from Arawali Veterinary College, Sikar to College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bikaner. Narrat- ing his afflictions, the appellant has inter-alia averred in the petition that at the threshold he was admitted to prosecute Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry Course for Academic Session 2010-11 in the Arawali Veteri- nary College, Sikar and at the relevant point of time, said college was duly recognized by Veterinary Council of India (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'VCI') and affiliated with Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sci- ences, Bikaner. After pursuing his studies in the said col- lege for the complete academic year, the appellant ap- peared for B.V.Sc.&A.H. Examination 2011 and cleared the examination with first division and distinction marks on 24th of November 2011. On passing his first year B.V.Sc.&A.H. Examination, the appellant was keen to seek his migration/transfer from the said college and therefore in terms of regulation 8 of Veterinary Council of India Mini- mum Standards of Veterinary Education - Degree Course B.V.Sc.&A.H., Regulations 2008 (for brevity, hereinafter re- ferred to as 'the Regulations') applied for his migration from [3] his Sikar College to College of Veterinary and Animal Sci- ences, Bikaner vide his application dated 25th of November 2011. Relying on Regulation 8(3)(4) of the Regulations, the appellant has stated in the writ petition that looking to his merit position in the first year examination and his desire, his case for migration/transfer was permissible within the four corners/practice for the same.
3. The appellant has also averred in the writ petition that for facilitating his migration/transfer, he has obtained a No Objection Certificate from the second respondent. The appli- cation of the appellant for migration was not paid any heed by the second respondent and that tempted appellant's fa- ther to contact in the office of second respondent on umpteen times but all his efforts went in vain. Ultimately, when appellant's father contacted second respondent on 18th of January 2012, a very obscure response was given. Inaction on the part of the second respondent and paucity of time, inasmuch as the commencement of the third Semester was fast approaching, prompted the appellant to approach the writ Court for redressal of his grievance. For imploring the inactions on the part of the respondents, the appellant has categorized the omissions of the second re- spondent as arbitrary and against fair play by taking shelter [4] of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Reiterating his stand about his eligibility for migration/transfer, the appel- lant has also castigated the second respondent for violating principles of natural justice. Attributing inordinate delay on the part of the second respondent in consideration of his application for migration/transfer, the appellant has urged in the writ petition that denial of migration/transfer to him is for extraneous reasons and as such the same is not sus- tainable. The respondent No.1 in its brief reply has coun- tered the claim of the appellant for migration and averred in the reply that for effecting migration of a student from one college to another college, concurrence of both the colleges is necessary. That apart, the first respondent has also op- posed the prayer of the appellant for migration on the ground that the academic session of second year B.V.Sc.&A.H., had commenced from 12th of September 2011 and the application for migration was submitted by the ap- pellant after expiry of one month from the date of com- mencement of the said academic session, therefore, it was not possible to accede to the request. The first respondent has also objected to the prayer of the appellant for migra- tion on the ground that Arawali Veterinary College, Sikar is derecognized by the VCI, and submitted that taking note of this fact it has declined consent for migration. [5]
4. In response to the reply of the first respondent, the ap-
pellant submitted his rejoinder and reiterated all the facts which he has averred in the writ petition. Taking a dig at first respondent's reply, by categorizing the same as eva- sive, the appellant has pleaded in the rejoinder that in want of denial of the averments contained in the writ petition, as per principles of pleadings, the averments are to be taken as admitted. Joining the issue with the first respondent, the appellant has categorically stated in the rejoinder that Arawali Veterinary College, Sikar has not been derecognized by the VCI.
5. Asserting with full emphasis at his command, the appel-
lant has specifically pleaded in the rejoinder that at the time of admission of the appellant, the college was duly recog- nized, and therefore the subsequent de-recognition is of no consequence so as to deny him his right of migration/trans- fer. Citing example of an incumbent of previous batch, the appellant has placed on record Annex.6, whereby migration was allowed to the students after declaration of result on 25th of October 2010 by order dated 14th December 2010. Subsequent to the rejoinder, the first respondent yet again submitted an additional affidavit. Alongwith the additional [6] affidavit, a communication dated 7th July 2011 was an- nexed, which was addressed to the Registrar of the respon- dent University by VCI intimating that Arawali Veterinary College, Sikar has been derecognized. In Para 4 of the addi- tional affidavit, the specific date is mentioned for com- mencement of Session for the second year B.V.Sc.&A.H., as 12th September 2011. Once again reiterating its earlier stand that no migration/transfer is permissible from unrec- ognized college to a recognized college, the first respondent in its counter affidavit has made valiant attempt to demol- ish the case of the appellant.
6. At the appellate stage before this Court, in the present matter, coordinate Bench of this Court, while hearing the appeal felt it necessary to extend opportunity of hearing to VCI and on 21st August 2012, made following order:
"Having regard to the submissions sought to be made and question likely to arise for constriction in this matter, it appears appropriate to extend an opportunity of hearing to the Veterinary Council of India also through the said Council has not been joined as a party herein as such.
Mr. Ravi Bhansali, the learned counsel who is appearing for Veterinary Council of India in this Court in other matters, has been requested to and has put in appearance. Requisite sets of paper-book be supplied to enable him to complete his instructions.
List this matter on 30.08.2012. The record [7] of the decided writ petitions relating to this appeal (Civil Writ Petition No.749/2012) be placed alongwith this appeal.
7. In adherence of the aforesaid directions of the Court, VCI filed reply to the appeal and submitted that it is a statutory body constituted under the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1984') has been established with the solemn object of regulation of veterinary practice, education and maintenance of register of veterinary practitioners possessing recognized veterinary qualification included in Schedules to the Act of 1984. Emphasizing that the Act of 1984 is applicable vis-à-vis State of Rajasthan, VCI has referred to Section 2(e) of the Act of 1984 providing recognized veterinary qualification. The VCI has also laid emphasis on Section 15 of the Act of 1984 containing provisions with regard to recognition of veterinary qualification granted by VCI in India. Elaborating Section 21 of the Act of 1984, VCI has submitted that the said Section contains provisions for withdrawal of recognition. In general, in the reply, the VCI has concentrated on the scheme of the Act of 1984 and Regulation 8(3) of the Regulations, which govern the province of migration/transfer of students from one recognized [8] institution to another.
8. On the issue of recognition, VCI has specifically averred in the return that Council recommended the Central Government for conditional admissions in the respondent college during the academic session 2010-11 vide its letter dated 22nd of September 2010. It is further submitted in the reply that as per provisions of Section 15(2) of the Act of 1984, the ultimate power for recognition of B.V.Sc.&A.H. is vested with the Central Government and the Central Government at no point of time allowed admissions at Arawali Veterinary College, Sikar, affiliated to the respondent University. Asserting with full emphasis, VCI has averred in the return that the qualification of B.V.Sc.&A.H. imparted at Arawali Veterinary College, Sikar is not considered a recognized veterinary qualification in respect of the said college as the same has not been included in the first schedule to the Act of 1984. For substantiating the said assertion, Gazette Notifications issued by the Central Government in respect of Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner and Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bikaner, were placed on record as Annexure R/1 & R/2 respectively.
[9]
9. During pendency of this appeal, the appellant has also tendered his additional affidavit on 19th of December 2012 expressing willingness for his migration/transfer in the second academic session at the College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bikaner which had already commenced in the month of November 2012. In the additional affidavit, the appellant has also asserted that the fee deposited by him with the present institution may be returned back to him or the same may be adjusted against the fee of the college where he is seeking migration/transfer.
10. Before this Court, the respondent University has also filed an additional affidavit of one Dr. R.K. Singh on 27.01.2013 and reiterated its stand which was urged before the learned Single Judge. The said affidavit was further followed by yet another affidavit. Ultimately, the respondent University has submitted a comprehensive additional affidavit of Dr. R.K. Singh in compliance of the directions issued by this Court. In the additional affidavit, the University has referred to No Objection Certificate issued by the Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Rajasthan, in favour of Astha Society, c/o Kichar Hospital & Medical Research Centre, Nawalgarh Road, Sikar, Jaipur [10] Road, N.H.11, Near Goyal Petrol Pump, VPO Bajor, Sikar on 3rd September 2007. The said NOC was further extended for two years by the State Government. Thereafter, the competent authority forwarded the status report on 18th August 2009. Considering the fact situation, the University in its meeting of Board of Management, vide Resolution dated 6th of August 2009, approved provisional affiliation of the Arawali Veterinary College, Sikar, for the Session 2009- 10 subject to fulfilling minimum staff and other requirements as per VCI norms before commencement of classes of B.V.Sc.&A.H.. Soon thereafter, inspection of the college was conducted by VCI and on receipt of letter dated 22nd September 2009 the University permitted the College for admission of students for the Session 2009-10. In adherence of the recommendations of the Inspecting Committee of the University, the affiliation of the College with the University was also extended for subsequent academic session upto 2012-13.
11. The University, in its affidavit has also stated that there was protracted correspondence between the University and the VCI for the purpose of including name of College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bikaner in the first schedule and ultimately B.V.Sc.&A.H. decree course in [11] respect of College of Veterinary and Animal Science, Bikaner of Rajasthan University of Veterinary Science, Bikaner was included in the first schedule vide Gazette Notification dated 15th March 2011. The stand of the University is that on 7th July 2011, a communication was received from VCI intimating the University not to initiate the process of admission for the Session 2011-12 vis-à-vis private veterinary colleges including Arawali Veterinary College, Sikar. Thereafter, yet again a communication was received on 22nd July 2011 from VCI instructing the University to stop admission for the Session 2011-12. From the additional affidavit of the University, it is also crystal clear that for the Academic Sessions 2011-12 and 2012-13, the private colleges including Arawali Veterinary College, Sikar were not allotted students by the University for Admission. In the additional affidavit, a reference is also made to a letter dated 12th of July 2011 from the Central Government addressed to VCI in respect of developing SOP for implementation of regulating minimum standards of Veterinary Education in colleges in a time bound manner.
12. Referring to Section 2(e) of the Act of 1984, in the additional affidavit it is stated that recognized veterinary college means Veterinary College affiliated to University and [12] recognized by VCI. The University has taken a categorical stand in the additional affidavit that for the academic session 2010-11 admissions to various veterinary colleges affiliated to the University were granted through RPMT/RPVT 2010 and the Counseling was held at Medical College, Ajmer. As per norms, veterinary colleges can fill up 50% of their seats through management quota. Stating in clear terms that the appellant was admitted in the college through management quota in the counter affidavit the University has asserted that there is no semblance of proof that he has appeared in the competitive examination for admission or not. The management quota, as per the version of the University, is within the discretion of the college concerned and norms for the same are also set out by the concerned institutions. The University has clarified that in the matter of admission through management quota, it has no role to play.
13. The matter came up before this Court again on 11th of January 2013 and following order was passed:
"List again on 28.1.2013.
By or before that date, Mr. DS Rajvi, learned counsel for the respondents and Mr. Ravi Bhansali, learned counsel who appears for the Veterinary Council of India, would bring on record through affidavit or by producing the relevant official materials to indicate; (1) law, [13] if any, governing the procedure for affiliation and/or recognition of the institutions imparting education in Veterinary Science and other subjects as contemplated by Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984; (b) in case, there is no law as aforementioned, administrative guidelines, if any, to the above effect; and (c) the procedure followed in the instant case vis-à-vis the admission of the students in the course/academic session in which the appellant at first had been admitted in B.V.Sc.& AH in Arawali Veterinary College Sikar affiliated to Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bikaner."
14. In compliance of the order dated 11th January 2013, VCI submitted an additional affidavit on 19th February 2013. In the additional affidavit, VCI has clarified that under the Act of 1984 there is no provision for affiliation or recognition of veterinary college. Mentioning Section 19 of the Act of 1984, VCI has averred in the affidavit that the said provision empowers VCI to conduct inspection of any veterinary college for the purpose of recognition of the veterinary qualification. VIC has very candidly admitted in the additional affidavit that no administrative guidelines were framed before allowing admission at the Arawali Veterinary College. Quoting complete text of Section 15 of the Act of 1984, on behalf of VCI it is averred in the additional affidavit that said provision simply defines recognized veterinary qualification. In the additional affidavit, a reference is made to Section 19(1) of the Act of [14] 1984 and submitted that a committee constituted under Section 12 may, subject to regulations if any made by the Council, appoint such number of Veterinary Inspectors as it may deem requisite to inspect any veterinary institution or any college or any other institution where veterinary education is given or to attend any examination held by any veterinary institution for the purpose of recommending to the Central Government recognition of veterinary qualification granted by that veterinary institution. Laying emphasis on the No Objection Certificate issued by the State Government vis-à-vis Arawali Veterinary College, Sikar, the VCI has stated in the additional affidavit that the said NOC was with the rider and pre-condition that the institution shall fulfill the minimum requirements as laid down in VCI Regulations before allowing admission to the college and college shall seek prior permission from Government of India/VCI. VCI has also placed on record inspection report pertaining to the inspection dated 7th and 8th November 2009 pointing out some deficiencies in the respondent college and has averred in the additional affidavit that the deficiencies noticed by the inspecting team were conveyed to the Central Government but the then President of the VCI recommended admission of students for first year of B.V.Sc.&A.H. course at Arawali Veterinary [15] College, Sikar during the academic session 2009-10. The said decision of the President was ratified by the VCI in its 65th meeting of the Executive Committee.
15. It is clearly stated in the additional affidavit that the Central Government has not allowed admission of students in the institution. With a view to undertake the inspection of the college periodically, VCI has stated in the additional affidavit that again inspection team commissioned for inspecting the college concerned under Section 19 of the Act of 1984 and the requisite inspection was carried out during 8th to 10th July 2010. The inspection report was thereafter considered by the Executive Committee and the Council in its meeting held on 10th August 2010 and 16th August 2010 respectively observed deficiencies in respect of TVCC, ILFC, space in each department, hostel facilities and odder production facilities. In terms of the decision of the Council, the Central Government was informed vide letter dated 22nd of September 2010 that college may be permitted admission for the academic session 2010-11 subject to condition that the college shall fulfill the minimum requirements particularly in terms of academic calendar, ILFC, TVCC as per VCI Regulation within a period of six months.
[16]
16. Clarifying that permission of Central Government is mandatory as per the terms and conditions of NOC issued by the State Government and University for affiliation, the Council has reiterated that the Central Government has not allowed admission to the college. The VCI has also averred in the additional affidavit that the college was yet again inspected on 3rd June 2011 and the said report was placed before the Executive Committee of the Council in the meeting held on 11.07.2011 and 15.07.2011 respectively. The Council finally decided to stop admission at the college as per present physical facilities including manpower which were grossly inadequate as reported by the inspectors. A decision was thereafter taken by the VCI that the University concerned may be requested not to admit the students for the academic session 2010-11 and to issue a public notice furnishing information to stop admission and the fact that the college is not recognized as per the provisions of the Act of 1984. The said decision was immediately conveyed to the Central Government vide communication dated 2nd August 2011 and public notice was also issued.
17.Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Rajvendra Saraswat with full eloquence has argued that under the Act of 1984 [17] conditional permission to permit an institution to admit students is not contemplated and as such the permission accorded to the institution amounts to recognition. Articulating his submissions in this behalf, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that during the academic session when the appellant was admitted in the institution, the same was recognized by the VCI and therefore declining his request for migration/transfer to College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bikaner in terms of regulations of 2008 is per-se an arbitrary and unreasonable decision of the respondents, which is not sustainable. Assailing the verdict of the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant would urge that the learned writ Court has erred in non-suiting the appellant solely on the ground that his request for migration/transfer was belated as the session for the second year of B.V.Sc.&A.H. has already commenced. Arguing with lucidity, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant has applied for migration immediately after declaration of the result of first year B.V.Sc.&A.H. course and in these circumstances attributing delay on his part is a misnomer and on this count alone the impugned order passed by the writ Court calls for interference in this intra-Court appeal. [18]
18. Mr. Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellant, has also argued that the crucial date for considering his request for migration/transfer is the date when he was admitted in the institution from where he has sought his migration and not a subsequent date when the said institution was derecognized by VCI. Thus, in nut-shell, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the delayed action on the part of the respondents and the VCI has created a very precarious situation and looming uncertainty in academic career of the appellant which deserves cognizance by this Court for judicial scrutiny.
19. Invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the learned counsel would urge that conditional permission to allow admission clearly tantamount deemed recognition and it would be unjust for the respondents and VCI to decline request of a student for migration/transfer after completion of the academic session in the guise of derecognition. Categorizing the stand of VCI as inconsistent, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that having permitted the institution to admit students, how and in what manner VCI can change its stand by urging that the institution was never recognized.
[19]
20. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contentions has placed reliance on a decision of Apex Court in case of Suresh Pal & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (AIR 1987 SC 2027). In the said verdict, the Apex Court, while considering the fact that the certificate course in Physical Education of the institution was recognized by the Government for the purpose of appointment to the post of Physical Training Instructor in Government Schools in Haryana, when the students joined the course, has held that its subsequent derecognition by the Government cannot deprive the students from their just rights. The Court observed that it is unjust and consequently directed the State Government to recognize the certificates obtained by the incumbents. The Apex Court made following observations in Para 3 of the verdict:
3. We are of the view that since at the time when the petitioners joined the course, it was recognised by the Govt. of Haryana and it was on the basis of this recognition that the petitioners joined the course, it would be unjust to tell the petitioners now that though at the time of their joining the course it was recognised, yet they cannot be given the benefit of such recognition and the certificates obtained by them would be futile, because during the pendency of the course it was derecognized by the Sate Govt. on 9th January, 1985. We would, therefore, allow the appeal and direct the State Govt. to recognise the certificates obtained by the petitioners and others similarly situate as a result of completing the certificate course in Shri Hanuman Yayayam Prasarak Mandal Amravati for the purpose of appointment as Physical Training Instructor in Govt. Schools in Haryana. Of [20] course, if any person has joined the certificate course after 9th January, 1985 he would not be entitled to the benefit of this order and any certificate obtained by him from the said Institute would be of no avail. There will be no order as to costs of the appeal.
21. Reiterating the principles of legitimate expectation with full emphasis, the learned counsel has urged that the principles are applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. On this proposition, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a verdict of Apex Court in case of Sethi Auto Service Station Vs. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. [(2009) 1 SCC 180]. The Apex Court while considering the import of doctrine of legitimate expectation has made following observations in Para 32 & 33:
32. An examination of the aforenoted few decisions shows that the golden thread running through all these decisions is that a case for applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, now accepted in the subjective sense as part of our legal jurisprudence, arises when an administrative body by reason of a representation or by past practice or conduct aroused an expectation which it would be within its powers to fulfil unless some overriding public interest comes in the way. However, a person who bases his claim on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, in the first instance, has to satisfy that he has relied on the said representation and the denial of that expectation has worked to his detriment. The Court could interfere only if the decision taken by the authority was found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or in gross abuse of power or in violation of principles of natural justice and not taken in public interest. But a claim based on mere legitimate expectation without anything more cannot ipso [21] facto give a right to invoke these principles.
33. It is well settled that the concept of legitimate expectation has no role to play where the State action is as a public policy or in the public interest unless the action taken amounts to an abuse of power. The court must not usurp the discretion of the public authority which is empowered to take the decisions under law and the court is expected to apply an objective standard which leaves to the deciding authority the full range of choice which the legislature is presumed to have intended. Even in a case where the decision is left entirely to the discretion of the deciding authority without any such legal bounds and if the decision is taken fairly and objectively, the Court will not interfere on the ground of procedural fairness to a person whose interest based on legitimate expectation might be affected. Therefore, a legitimate expectation can at the most be one of the grounds which may give rise to judicial review but the granting of relief is very much limited. (Vide Hindustan Development Corpn.)
22. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent University, Mr. D.S. Rajvi has urged that migration/transfer of students in terms of Regulations of 2008 is permissible from one recognized institution to other and therefore after derecognition of the Arawali Veterinary College, Sikar, there was a clear embargo for his migration and as such the action of the University cannot be faulted. Mr. Rajvi, learned counsel for the respondent University has further contended that the application submitted by the appellant for his migration was delayed inasmuch the same was submitted after commencement of academic session and as [22] such it was not possible to accede to his request for migration/transfer. Stoutly defending the verdict of the writ Court, Mr. Rajvi submits that the learned writ Court has examined the matter in its entirety and thereafter by its impugned order has declined the prayer of the appellant which is not liable to be interfered with in this intra-Court appeal. Arguing with full vehemence, learned counsel for the respondent University, Mr. Rajvi, submits that a conditional recognition cannot be treated as deemed recognition by VCI more particularly when the said institution has not been included, as an institution authorized to impart veterinary education, in the first schedule appended with the Act of 1984.
23. For substantiating his arguments, Mr. Rajvi has placed reliance on a decision of Apex Court in Shrish Govind Prabhudesai Vs. State of Maharashtra [(1993) 1 SCC 211]. In this verdict, while considering case of migration/transfer of students from one medical college to another, the Apex Court has held that such migration is only permissible when the college where the students are prosecuting their studies is recognized by MCI. The Court made following observations in Para 7 of the verdict:
7. The recommendations on Graduate Medical Education are by an expert body of the [23] Medical Council of India which is entrusted with certain statutory functions relating to medical education by the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
the Medical Council of India having chosen to accept these recommendations, such a condition of eligibility for migration/transfer from one medical college to another adopted by the recognised medical colleges cannot be termed unreasonable or arbitrary. The qualitative difference between the non-recognised medical colleges generally as compared to the medical colleges recognised by the Medical Council of India, the recognition being based on certain objective standards relating to medical education, and the competitive merit forming the basis for admission to a recognised medical college justify as reasonable such a restriction for grant of permission for migration/transfer from one medical college to another. One of the purposes served by such a restriction is to permit this inter-college movement of students after passing the first MBBS examination only between students of recognised medical colleges and to prevent indirect entry into recognised medical colleges of students who had failed initially to secure entry into a recognised medical college. Movement of students between recognised medical colleges only is quite often to facilitate the students thereof in certain circumstances without conferring on them any additional benefit after the initial entry to a medical college duly recognised. Viewed in this manner, such a condition of eligibility for migration/transfer to a recognised medical college permitting only students of recognised medical colleges is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. There being no inherent right in a student admitted to a non-recognized medical college to claim such migration/transfer, this restriction for migration/transfer imposed by the recognised medical colleges on the basis of the recommendations adopted by the Medical Council of India, there is no foundation for the claim for such migration/transfer made by the students of non-recognised medical colleges.
[24]
24. Mr. Ravi Bhansali, learned counsel for VCI, while supporting arguments of Mr. Rajvi, the learned counsel for the University, has argued that as per Regulations of 2008, migration of a student is possible only from one recognized college to another recognized college and that too within one month of the start of the second year of the receiving college. He further submits that migration is only permissible for second year after completion of first year. With these arguments, Mr. Bhansali submits that neither the first condition i.e. institution where the appellant was prosecuting his B.V.Sc.&A.H. Course was recognized, nor the second condition that he has applied for migration within one month from the commencement of the academic session of the second year B.V.Sc.&A.H., and therefore, denial of migration/transfer to the appellant cannot be categorized as infirm as per the Act of 1984 and the Regulations of 2008.
25. Repelling the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the institution was recognized by VCI and the Central Government, learned counsel Mr. Bhansali would urge that the institution was never recognized by the Government of India or by the VCI. Joining issue with the appellant, learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Bhansali [25] submits that in the year 2009 VCI allowed the college to admit students subject to fulfillment of certain necessary infrastructure and conditions according to Regulations of 2008 and ratification of the same for the subsequent academic year was also with the same riders. Therefore, in nut-shell, the argument of learned counsel for VCI is that permission to admit students does not amount to recognition as prescribed under Section 15 of the Act of 1984. Mr. Bhansali has urged that the permission to admit the students was not extended qua the institution for the academic session 2011-12 and the institution was conveyed in clear and unequivocal terms not to admit students keeping in view series of deficiencies pointed out by the Inspectors during inspection in June 2011.
26. Highlighting the deficiencies in the Arawali Veterinary College, Sikar, learned counsel Mr. Bhansali has submitted that the college in the present status in terms of physical facilities, is not equipped with adequate manpower, and there are deficiencies in respect of TVCC, ILFC, space in each department, hostel facilities and odder provision facilities, as such, is not at all fit and conducive for imparting veterinary education. Mr. Bhansali, learned counsel for VCI has argued that VCI was not party to the [26] litigation before the learned Single Judge, and therefore, it was not possible for it to render assistance before the writ Court at its behest. Countering the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was a deemed recognition of the institution, learned counsel for VCI would urge that from any stretch of imagination permitting the college to admit students cannot be termed as deemed recognition and recognition of a college is an affirmative act by the VCI by way of resorting to Section 15 of the Act of 1984, which was never pressed into service vis-a-vis the institution. Once again emphasizing the patent deficiencies in the institution, learned counsel for the respondent VCI submitted that an ill-equipped and falling short of requisite infrastructure college is not expected to produce veterinary doctors of caliber, who can serve the society. For substantiating his arguments, Mr. Bhansali has also placed heavy reliance on a decision of Apex Court in case of Shrish Govind Prabhudesai (supra) and has urged that no indulgence can be granted to the appellant, and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not liable to be interfered with in this intra-Court appeal.
27. Mr. Bhansali, learned counsel for the VCI has also placed reliance on a latest verdict of the Apex Court in case [27] of Shri Morvi Sarvajank Kelavni Mandal Sanchalit MSKM Bed College Vs. National Council for Teachers' Education & Ors. [(2012) 2 SCC 16] and would urge that withdrawal of recognition entails derecognition right from the inception of the institution, and in such situations sympathetic consideration is unwarranted. The Apex Court made following observations in this behalf in Para 16 & 17 of the verdict:
16. We do not think so, firstly, because the recognition of the institution stood withdrawn on 20th July, 2011 which meant that while it had no effect qua admissions for the academic session 2010-2011 it was certainly operative qua admissions made for the academic session 2011-12 which commenced from 1st August, 2011 onwards.
The fact that there was a modification of the said order of withdrawal on 24th August, 2011 did not obliterate the earlier order dated 20th July, 2011. The modifying order would in our opinion relate back and be effective from 20th July, 2011 when the recognition was first withdrawn. Such being the position admissions made for the academic session 2011-2012 were not protected under the statute.
17. Secondly, because this Court has in a long line of decisions rendered from time to time has disapproved of students being allowed to continue in unrecognised institutions only on sympathetic considerations. In N.M. Nageshwaramma (supra) this Court while dealing with the prayer for grant of permission to the students admitted to unrecognised institution observed:(SCC pp.170-71, para 3) "3. ...We are unable to accede to these requests. These institutions were established and the students were admitted into these institutes despite a series of press notes issued by the Government. If by a fiat of the court we direct the Government to permit [28] them to appear at the examination we will practically be encouraging and condoning the establishment of unauthorised institutions. It is not appropriate that the jurisdiction of the court either under Article 32 of the Constitution or Article 226 should be frittered away for such a purpose. The Teachers Training Institutes are meant to teach children of impressionable age and we cannot let loose on the innocent and unwary children, teachers who have not received proper and adequate training. True they will be required to pass the examination but that may not be enough. Training for a certain minimum period in a properly organised and equipped Training Institute is probably essential before a teacher may be duly launched. We have no hesitation in dismissing the writ petitions with costs."
(emphasis supplied) Finally, the Court recorded its serious concern for the institutions lagging infrastructure and not properly equipped as per requirements of NCTE Act and the regulations. The Court made following observations in Para 21 of the verdict:
21. There is no distinguishing feature between the cases mentioned above and the case at hand for us to strike a discordant note. The institution established by the appellant is not equipped with the infrastructure required under the NCTE Act and the Regulations. It is not in a position to impart quality education, no matter admissions for the session 2011-2012 were made pursuant to the interim directions issued by the High Court. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the prayer for permitting the students to continue in the unrecognised institution of the appellant or directing that they may be permitted to appear in the examination.[29]
28. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, scanned the materials on record and perused the impugned order passed by the learned writ Court.
29. The first and foremost issue, which requires adjudication in this appeal, and on which the learned Single Judge has not addressed, is the deemed recognition of Arawali Veterinary College, Sikar. Precisely, for this proposition, the appellant has laid emphasis on a vital fact that the institution was permitted to admit students at the threshold for the academic session 2009-10 by the VCI subject to fulfilling certain infrastructural requirements and the said conditional permission was further extended for the next academic year. On a close scrutiny of the Act of 1984, we have not been able to lay our hand on any of the provision contemplating deemed recognition. Under Section 15 of the Act of 1984, veterinary qualifications granted by any veterinary institution in India are included in the first schedule, which reads as under:
15. (1). The veterinary qualifications granted by any veterinary institution in India which are included in the First Schedule shall be recognised veterinary qualifications for the purposes of this Act.
(2). Any veterinary institution in India which grants a veterinary qualification not included in the First Schedule may apply to the Central Government [30] to have such qualification recognised and the Central Government, after consulting the Council, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the First Schedule so as to include such qualification therein and any such notification may also direct that an entry shall be made in the last column of the First Schedule against such veterinary qualification declaring that it shall be a recognised veterinary qualification only when granted after a specified date.
30. On perusal of the first schedule, as amended vide Gazette Notification dated 15th March 2011, at Item No.75, the qualifications of B.V.Sc.&A.H. imparted by the Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bikaner is recognized in respect of college of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, Bikaner and no other college or institution is mentioned. Thus, from the said notification, it can very well be inferred that for imparting veterinary qualifications as per VCI, only college of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bikaner in the State of Rajasthan is recognized.
31. Section 19 of the Act of 1984 postulates the provision for inspection of veterinary institutions and examinations, authorizing the VCI to appoint such number of Veterinary Inspectors as it may deem necessary to inspect any veterinary institutions or any college or any other institution where veterinary education is given or to attend any [31] examination held by any veterinary institution for the purpose of recommending to the Central Government recognition of veterinary qualification granted by that veterinary institution. If the status of the Arawali Veterinary College, Sikar is examined in that background, then it will ipso facto reveal that after inspection, no recommendation was made by the VCI to the Central Government for recognition of the veterinary qualification imparted by the said institution. Moreover, there is no material placed on record by the appellant to show that the Central Government has recognized the veterinary qualification imparted by the institution. Considering the stand of the respondents, there is no room of doubt that the Central Government has not recognized veterinary qualification imparted by the institution. Therefore, the theory propounded by the appellant for presuming deemed recognition in the backdrop of the facts of the instant case obviously falls flat, and we are afraid this contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. That apart, on examining the entire Scheme of the Act of 1984, in want of any deeming provision, it is not possible for this Court to infer deemed recognition. Thus, we are not persuaded to accept this contention of the appellant and consequently this ambitious contention of the appellant merits outright rejection. [32]
32. The other issue, which was very vociferously canvassed on behalf of the appellant, hovers around doctrine of legitimate expectation. Harping on the fact that at the time of his admission in the institution it was recognized, the appellant has asserted that its subsequent derecognition cannot foreclose his right to seek migration/transfer to other college on the principles of legitimate expectation. On the face of it, the issue appears to be of a great significance in the factual background of the case, but then for tracing its foundation, it has become imperative for this Court to first find out whether recognition was accorded to the institution or not. There is absolutely nothing on record to indicate that recognition to the institution for imparting veterinary education was accorded by the VCI and the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1984. Thus, the very legal foothold for invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation is conspicuously missing. Legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred only if it is founded on the sanction of law or custom or an established procedure followed in regular and natural sequence. Such expectation should be justifiably legitimate and protective. One cannot dispute the legal position that legitimate expectation need not be fulfilled if public interest [33] requires otherwise. The doctrine cannot come in the way of public interest. Public interest always prevails over private interest. True it is that at times the doctrine has been based in India on Article 14 of the Constitution of India but the Courts in India have yet not recognized it as an enforceable right to provide an independent ground of challenge. The very purpose of the doctrine is regarded as merely a part of the rule of non-arbitrariness to ensure procedural and substantive fairness of the decision.
33. On meaningful interpretation of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we cannot abstain from concluding that private right of the appellant for his migration/transfer from one institution to another institution cannot be given precedence over the public interest of maintaining requisite standards of veterinary education in the country. By acknowledging private interest paramount vis-a-vis public interest, the statutory provisions of the Act of 1984 cannot be given go- by. Therefore, public interest of maintaining requisite standards in an institution imparting veterinary education is sufficient to outweigh the legitimate expectation of private person like the appellant. The decision of the Apex Court on which the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance i.e. Suresh Pal's case (supra) is clearly [34] distinguishable because it was a case wherein the institution was earlier recognized by the Government and when the students were prosecuting their studies, the same was derecognized. This fact situation is not available in the present case and therefore the ratio decidendi of the said verdict is of no assistance to the appellant. In these circumstances, the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot come to the rescue of the appellant for seeking relief in this matter. Thus, viewed from any angle, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned writ Court, may be for different reasons.
34. Before closing, we cannot desist from observing that the approach of VCI in this matter was absolutely tentative and lackadaisical. The apex body, namely, VCI, which is responsible for regulating veterinary education in the country, has not acted with due care and caution in permitting the institution to admit the students for the academic session 2009-10. We are, therefore, constrained to observe that this sort of casual approach of VCI is, in fact, genesis of this litigation. The role of VCI in that context cannot be appreciated considering the factual backdrop of this case. The factum of subsistence of vital infrastructural deficiencies in the latest inspection report of VCI inspectors is sufficient to conclude that at the threshold [35] when the inspection was carried out by the inspecting team of VCI, the institution had umpteen deficiencies; infrastructural or otherwise, and was not fit to impart veterinary education. Despite availability of all these materials, why the institution was permitted to admit the students is a cause of grave and serious concern. This sort of action of the VCI clearly and unambiguously demonstrates its callous attitude paving way for commercialization and profiteering in the field of education. On the touchstone of the Act of 1984 also, the permission so granted by VCI beyond its powers and jurisdiction, prima facie, indicates failure of the apex body to regulate qualitative veterinary education in the country, or in alternative its total apathy to adhere to the prescribed procedure for recognition by abdicating its powers.
35. The upshot of the above discussion is that we find no merit in this intra-Court appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
The costs are made easy.
(P.K. LOHRA), J. (AMITAVA ROY), CJ. arora/