Disposed

Arawali Veterniary College v. Union of India and Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Jul 2013CW/8450/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses writ petitions challenging the Veterinary Council of India's (VCI) direction to halt student admissions in multiple veterinary colleges due to alleged non-compliance with infrastructure standards. The court examined the statutory powers under the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 regarding recognition and inspection, noting the Council failed to consider the University's

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were disposed of with directions to the Council to reconsider the approval for admissions and recognition of qualifications after affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing

Arawali Veterniary College Vs Union of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATAURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

JUDGMENT

¶5

B.S.COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

¶6

(S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 )

¶7

MAHATAMA GANDHI VETERNIARY COLLEGE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

¶8

(S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8385/12 )

¶9

SRI GANGANAGAR VETERNIARY COLLEGE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

¶10

(S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7676/11)

¶11

MAHATMA JYOTIBA FULE VIDHYAPEETH SAMITI VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

¶12

(S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7812/11)

¶13

M.B.VETERINARY COLLEGE, DUNGARPUR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

¶14

(S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7952/11)

¶15

ARAWALI VETERNIARY COLLEGE, SIKAR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

¶16

(S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7953/11)

¶17

1. APOLLO ANIMAL MEDICAL GROUP TRUST VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

¶18

(S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7963/11 )

¶19

1. SRIGANGANAGAR VETERNIARY COLLEGE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

¶20

(S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8237/12)

¶21

M.B. VETERINARY COLLEGE, DUNGARPUR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

¶22

(S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8323/12)

¶23

1. MAHATMA JYOTIBA FULE VIDHYAPEETH SAMITI VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

¶24

(S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8370/12 )

¶25

1. ARAWALI VETERINARY COLLEGE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

¶26

(S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8450/12 )

¶27

Dated: 3^rd July, 2013.

¶28

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA

¶29

Reportable

¶30

Mr. P.P.Choudhary, Senior Advocate ) assisted by Mr. Amit Dave ) Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore ), for the petitioners.

¶31

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶32

¶33

Mr. Ravi Bhansali , for the Union of India and the Veterinary Council of India.

¶34

Mr. D.S.Rajvi,for Rajasthan University of Veterinary & Animal Sciences.

¶35

By way of these writ petitions, the petitioners-unaided self financed veterinary colleges run by various charitable trusts or the societies registered under Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958( “Act of 1958”), have questioned the validity of the action of the Rajasthan University of Veterinary & Animal Sciences ( “the University”) in directing not to admit students in the First year B.V.Sc. & A.H. programme for the Academic Sessions 2011-12 and 2012-13 in the petitioners' colleges. The petitioners have also questioned the action of the respondentUniversity in not including the petitioners' colleges in the process of admission in B.V.Sc. & A.H. course for the Academic Session 2011-12 and 2012-13. That apart, the condition incorporated in the order dated 15.6.12 issued by the Rajasthan University of Veterinary & Animal Sciences,Bikaner, (for short “University” hereinafter) extending provisional affiliation to the various Veterinary Colleges for the Academic Session 2012-13, in terms that no students shall be admitted without prior permission of the Government of India/Veterinary Council of India(“the Council” hereinafter) and the University, is also assailed by the petitioners.

¶36

The facts set out in these writ petitions are at little

¶37

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶38

¶39

variance, however, the issues involved are identical and therefore, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶40

The writ petition preferred by the petitioner-Arawali Veterinary College, Sikar, being No.8450/12 is taken up for consideration as lead case.

¶41

The relevant facts in nutshell are that Astha Society, a society registered under the Act of 1958 made an application to the State Government for grant of 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) for establishing a Veterinary College in the name of Arawali Veterinary College at Sikar. The NOC was issued by the State Government on 3.9.07, which was subject to condition inter alia that the Society shall not open the Veterinary College and initiate the admission process without prior permission of the Council. On the application being submitted by the petitioner for opening the Veterinary College, the Council vide communication dated 3.4.08 advised that the proposal for opening a Veterinary College is required to be submitted to the Central Government (Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fishries, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India) through the concerned University as provided for by Section 15(2) of Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 (“the Act of 1984”). Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent-Council through Swami Keshvanand Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner.

¶42

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶43

¶44

On receipt of the proposal submitted through the University, the Council vide order dated 28.8.09, commissioned an Inspection Team to assess physical facilities available/created at the newly proposed Arawali Veterinary College at Sikar. After examining the Inspection Report submitted by the Inspecting Team, the Council found that the facilities created at the petitioner-College is adequate for imparting First Year B.V.Sc. & A.H. Degree Course and accordingly, allowed admission of the students at the College during the Academic Session 2009-10 vide order dated 22.9.09, in the following terms:-

¶45

“In view of above and in view of the fact that the independent inspections conducted by the affiliating University and the Council have found the facilities created as adequate for imparting first year B.V.Sc. & A.H. Degree course, admission of students may be allowed during the current academic session (2009-10) at the College. The University authorities have to take immediate appropriate actions to ensure that the facilities for the second year of studies are created in a time bound manner. The University authorities are required to submit progress report on fulfillment of the minimum requirements strictly as per Council Regulations annually to this Council. The Council shall periodically inspect the College to monitor/verify the progress towards fulfillment of the minimum requirements.”

¶46

Pursuant to the permission granted by the Council as aforesaid, then Swami Keshvanand Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner vide notification dated 24.9.09 allowed admissions in First Year B.V.Sc. & A.H. Degree course in the Academic Session 2009-10 at the petitioner's College with the

¶47

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶48

¶49

directions to ensure the fulfillment of requirement as per Council norms before starting Second Year B.V.Sc. & A.H. Course. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has been granted provisional affiliation by the University, the period of NOC issued was extended by the State Government upto 2.9.2010.

¶50

In the meantime, Rajasthan University of Veterinary & Animal Sciences Act, 2010 (“the Act of 2010”) came into force whereunder Rajasthan University of Veterinary & Animal Sciences was created and the petitioner's College came to be affiliated with the said University.

¶51

The periodical inspection of the various Veterinary Colleges was made by the Inspection Team appointed by the Council during the month of July-August,2010. While the Inspection Reports were being examined by the Council at the appropriate levels, the University was advised not to proceed with any admission during the current Academic Year i.e. 2010-11 in the said College till the appropriate decision on the matter is taken by the Council and communicated. However, the respondentUniversity extended the period of affiliation granted to the petitioner's College and its likes for the Academic Session 201011, subject to condition that the College shall ensure fulfillment of requirements as per Council's norms. A specific condition was incorporated in the order extending period of affiliation, in terms that no student shall be admitted without permission of the

¶52

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶53

¶54

Government of India/Council and the University. After consideration of the Inspection Report, vide order dated 22.9.2010, the petitioner was permitted to admit the students at College during the Academic Session 2010-11 subject to the condition that the College shall fulfill the minimum requirements particularly, in terms of academic calendar, Instructional Livestock Farm Complex (ILFC), Teaching Veterinary Clinical Complex( TVCC), as per Council Regulations within a period of six months and the University shall submit its compliance report to the Council for further necessary action.

¶55

The petitioner's College was again inspected by the Inspection Team of Council on 01-03.6.2011 and the Inspection Report was submitted to the Council, which in its turn vide communication dated 1.7.2011 directed the petitioner to provide the authenticated/photo stat copies of certain documents and at the same time advised the petitioner not to proceed with the admission for Academic Session 2011-12 till a decision on the matter is taken by the Council and intimated. A similar communication was sent by the Council to the University as well directing not to initiate process of admission/admit students to inter alia the petitioner's College for the Academic Session 201112.

¶56

The petitioner submitted certain documents vide communication dated 8.7.2011. Thereafter, vide communication

¶57

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶58

¶59

dated 12.7.11, the respondent-University informed the petitioner not to admit students during the Academic Session 2011-12, however, vide communication dated 15.7.2011, the annual affiliation of the petitioner-College was extended by the University for the year 2011-12 with the condition to ensure fulfillment of the requirement as per Council's norms.

¶60

The Executive Committee of Council in its meeting held on 11.7.2011, after due consideration decided to stop admission to the petitioner's College for the Academic Session 2011-12. The decision was communicated by the Council to the respondentUniversity vide communication dated 22.7.2011/2.8.2011. The petitioner made a representation to the University for recommending its case to the Secretary of the Council, for reconsideration and to allow the College for counselling and admission. The University in its turn vide communication dated 16.7.2011 requested the Council to review the decision observing that the prohibition on admission in the First year does not seem to fulfill the purpose except putting the College to financial loss as the First Year facilities were found adequate by the Council and admissions were allowed in the said College since last two years.

¶61

At this stage, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being No.7953/12 before this court, wherein while issuing the notices to the respondents, an interim order was passed in favour of the

¶62

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶63

¶64

petitioner in the following terms:

¶65

“In the meantime, the order dated 12.7.2011 (Annex.14) shall remain stayed upto 10.10.2011. The respondent university shall, while carrying out counseling may include the petitioner college for the purpose of allotment of the candidates.”

¶66

The affiliation granted to the petitioner by the University was further extended for the Academic Session 2012-13 vide order dated 15.6.12 subject to the condition that the Institute shall fulfill Council's norms within the stipulated time and no students shall be admitted without prior permission of the Government of India/Council and the University.

¶67

During the pendency of the petition, preferred as aforesaid, the petitioner submitted a demand draft of Rs.1.5 lacs as Annual Inspection Fees to the Council for the Academic Session 2012-13, which was returned by Council vide communication dated 17.7.12 observing that Council has neither decided to inspect the College nor requested the petitioner to send the demand draft for the inspection as proposed.

¶68

The respondent-University issued a notification dated 11.5.12 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appearing in Rajasthan Pre Veterinary Test, 2012 (RPVT-2012) for admission to the College of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, Bikaner. It was mentioned therein that if any other constituent or affiliated College of the University is permitted by Council or Government of India or any Court, admission shall be provided

¶69

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶70

¶71

in such College through RPVT-2012.

¶72

The petitioner's College was obviously not included in the process of admission for want of permission of Council. The petitioner made a representation to the University and the Council, but to no avail. The other Colleges, which are petitioners herein have also been denied permission to admit the students by the Council and consequently, by the respondent-University, in the like manner. Hence, these petitions.

¶73

A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of Council taking the stand that the Council, a statutory body has been constituted by the Government of India under the Act of 1984, for the purpose of regulation of veterinary practice, education and maintenance of register of veterinary practitioners possessing recognized veterinary qualification. It is submitted that the Act of 1984 also extends to the State of Rajasthan and therefore, no State Act/Rules/Regulations concerning veterinary education or practice shall prevail over the provisions of the Act of 1984. It is submitted that even the affiliation granted by the University to the petitioners' Colleges was subject to the condition that the Colleges shall ensure fulfillment of requirement as per Council norms and that no admission shall be made without permission of the Government of India/Council and the respondent-University. It is submitted that the

¶74

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶75

¶76

petitioners' Colleges were accorded permission to admit the students subject to the condition that the Colleges shall fulfill minimum requirements particularly, in terms of academic calendar, ILFC and TVCC as per the Council Regulations within a period of six months and the University shall submits its compliance report to the Council for further necessary action. It is further submitted that none of the petitioners' Colleges have adhered to the condition of the provisional permission accorded inasmuch as, the infrastructure facilities as per the Regulations have not been created till this date. Relying upon the various provisions of the Act of 1984, the Regulations framed thereunder and the Standards laid down by the Council for the veterinary education, it is submitted that the decision taken by the Council after due consideration of the Inspection Reports, to stop admission in the petitioners' Colleges, cannot be faulted with. It is submitted that the Colleges, which are not fulfilling minimum standard of veterinary education as laid down under the Regulations, 2008 and have not been duly recognized by the Council, cannot be granted any indulgence by this court so as to permit them to admit the students and impart veterinary education.

¶77

Mr. P.P.Choudhary, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners contended that it is only the University, which is competent and empowered under the Act of 2009 to grant

¶78

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶79

¶80

affiliation or withdraw it. It is submitted that the Council is not empowered under the Act of 1984 or the Regulations framed thereunder to stop admission to any College affiliated with an University constituted under a State Act. Accordingly, it is submitted that the action of the respondent-University in not permitting the petitioners' Colleges to admit the students for the academic years in question pursuant to the directions issued by Council is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law. Learned counsel submitted that once the recognition is granted by the Council and the petitioners' Colleges have been permitted to admit the students, the question of the recognition of the Colleges every year does not arise. Drawing the attention of this court to the provisions of Section 19 of the Act, learned counsel submitted that even the inspection of the Veterinary Institution or any College or other Institution where veterinary education is given, is permitted for the purpose of recommending to the Central Government recognition of the veterinary qualification granted by the veterinary institution and for no other purpose and therefore, on the basis of such inspection being made, the Council has no jurisdiction to issue directions for stopping admissions to the veterinary institution on the basis of alleged deficiencies. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the authority of Council under the Act of 1984 is with regard to the recognition of the veterinary qualification of the Veterinary

¶81

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶82

¶83

Institution, which grants degrees, diplomas or licenses in Veterinary Science & Animal Husbandry. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners' Colleges are affiliated to the University, a recognized Veterinary Institution and therefore, independent recognition of an individual College affiliated with recognized Veterinary Institution, is not contemplated under the provisions of the Act of 1984. Learned counsel submitted that the question with regard to the recognition of the degree to be granted to the students studying in the petitioners' Colleges will arise only when the first batch of the Colleges completes the course and therefore, at this stage, the Council has no authority to inter meddle in the matter with regard to admission of the students to the petitioners Colleges. Learned counsel submitted that the entry made in the First Schedule attached to the Act of 1984 restricting the recognition of veterinary qualification awarded by the respondent-University only in respect of Veterinary & Animal Sciences College, Bikaner, is absolutely erroneous and without authority of law inasmuch as, under the Act, the entry of the Institution granting the recognized veterinary qualification, is required to be made in the Schedule and the recognition cannot be restricted in respect of a particular affiliated College of the recognized veterinary institution. Learned counsel submitted that the question with regard to the recognition being restricted arises only when the matter with

¶84

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶85

¶86

regard to withdrawal of the recognition is dealt with under the provisions of Section 21 of the Act of 1984. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, the directions not to admit the students have been issued by the Council by the order impugned followed by the communication from the respondent-University, solely for the reason that the petitioners failed to fulfill the minimum required facilities as per Council Regulations. Learned counsel submitted that the deficiencies in general facilities available at the Colleges as pointed out by the Council on the basis of the inspection report, are absolutely baseless. Referring to the comments offered by the University on the inspection reports submitted by the Inspection Team, which are placed on record as Annexure P/22 in Writ Petition No.8370/12, learned counsel submitted that inspite of satisfactory report being submitted by the Inspection Team regarding infrastructure/ manpower/ILFC/TVCC and equipments, the decision taken by the Council without there being any other material on record, is unjustified. Learned counsel submitted that before taking a decision directing the petitioners not to admit the students, no opportunity was afforded to remove the deficiencies, if any. It is submitted that before taking such a drastic decision of not permitting the students' admission to the Colleges, which may ultimately result in closure of the Colleges, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners and thus, the impugned

¶87

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶88

¶89

action taken by the respondent-Council is not sustainable in the

¶90

eyes of law, being violative of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel submitted that the whimsical and arbitrary mindset of the members of the Council is also reflected from the fact that even the request made by the petitioners for fresh inspection for the next academic session by depositing the requisite fee, has not been accepted saying that the Council has not taken any decision for fresh inspection as yet. Learned counsel submitted that the students were admitted in the petitioners' Colleges pursuant to the permission granted by the Council at the first instance and those students admitted are obviously pursuing their studies of the course and therefore, the question of denying them the degree of the qualification to be acquired by them, does not arise and therefore, the Council has to take a decision recognizing the veterinary qualification to be granted by the respondent University, a recognized veterinary institution to the students pursuing their studies in the petitioners' Colleges, which are affiliated to the University. Learned counsel submitted that the admissions to the higher classes of B.V.Sc. & A.H. in the petitioners' Colleges have not been stopped and infrastructure facilities for imparting education for first year B.V.Sc. & A.H. was found to be adequate by the Council earlier and therefore, the action of the respondentCouncil in stopping admission to First year B.V.Sc. & A.H. at this

¶91

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶92

¶93

stage, is ex facie arbitrary, illegal and falls foul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶94

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents while reiterating the stand taken in the reply to the writ petition, submitted that the veterinary education and practice inter alia in the State of Rajasthan are regulated by the provisions of the Act of 1984. Learned counsel submitted that as per provisions of Section 15, the veterinary qualifications granted by the recognized veterinary institutions which are included in the First Schedule are only recognized qualifications for the purpose of the Act of 1984 and therefore, all the veterinary institutions granting any veterinary qualification are under an obligation to seek recognition of veterinary qualification awarded by them by making appropriate application to the Central Government. It is submitted that as per provisions of Section 18, every veterinary institution, which grants recognized veterinary qualification is bound to furnish such information as the Council may from time to time require as to the courses of study and examination to be undergone in order to obtain such qualification. Drawing the attention of this court to Section 19 of the Act, learned counsel submitted that the committee constituted by the Council under Section 12 of the Act of 1984 is empowered to appoint the number of veterinary inspectors as may deem requisite to inspect any veterinary institution or

¶95

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶96

¶97

college or 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. That apart, it is submitted that the Council may even appoint number of visitors as may deem requisite to inspect the veterinary institution or any college or other institution, in conformity with the provisions of Section 20 of the Act of 1984. Learned counsel submitted that upon the report of the committee or the visitors, after due consideration, the Council is empowered to take a decision regarding the recognition of the veterinary qualification to be awarded by a recognized veterinary institution or the withdrawal thereof. Learned counsel submitted that as per Section 20 of the Act, the Council may by regulation specify the minimum standards of the veterinary education required for granting recognized veterinary qualification by veterinary institution in those States to which the Act extends and therefore, if any recognized veterinary institution or the college affiliated thereto does not fulfill the minimum standards of veterinary education then it cannot be permitted to run the courses of veterinary studies and therefore, the decision of Council in stopping the admission of the students in the petitioners' Colleges for lacking in infrastructure facilities required as per the norms laid down, cannot be faulted with.

¶98

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶99

¶100

Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, in absence of the recognition of the degrees to be awarded to the students pursuing their studies in the petitioners' Colleges affiliated to the respondent University will be of no use inasmuch as, the degrees awarded shall not be valid to practice as veterinary practitioner in any State and therefore, if the students are permitted to be admitted in the petitioners' Colleges, which do not possess the recognition by the Council, the future of such students will be in total dark, which is bound to create a chaotic situation. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the controversy involved in the present writ petitions, stands covered by a Bench decision of this court in the matter of 'Alok Kumar Meena vs. State & Ors.' (D.B.C.Writ Petition No. 2635/11 and other connected petitions), decided by Jaipur Bench of this court vide judgment dated 17.11.2011, wherein it has been categorically held that the colleges which have not been recognized by the Government of India on the recommendations made by the Council cannot impart education for the purpose of veterinary practice, which is governed by the Act of 1984. Learned counsel submitted that even if a college is affiliated with the University, it is absolutely necessary to obtain the requisite recognition by the Council in conformity with the provisions of the Act of 1984 and Regulations framed thereunder. Relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of “Dental Council of

¶101

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶102

¶103

India v. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust & Anr.”, (2001) 1 SCC, 486 “Basavaiah (Dr.) vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors.”, (2010) 8 SCC, 372, “National Council for Teacher Education & Anr. v. Venus Public Education Society & Ors.”, (2013) 1 SCC, 223, “Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31982/12) decided on 6.3.2013, learned counsel submitted that the present case does not suggest any special feature so as to warrant interference by this court with the discretion exercised by the Council, an expert statutory body constituted with the sole object to regulate the veterinary education and practice. Accordingly, it is submitted that the writ petitions are devoid of any merit and deserve to be dismissed.

¶104

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University submitted that in view of the directions issued by the Council, the action of the respondent-University in not permitting the petitioners to admit the students in First Year B.V.Sc. & A.H. Course during the academic years in question cannot be faulted with. Learned counsel submitted that by virtue of the provisions of the Act of 1984, the minimum standards of veterinary education laid down by Council has to be fulfilled and therefore, the University was justified in extending the period of affiliation subject to the fulfillment of the requirement of Council.

¶105

I have considered the rival submissions, perused the

¶106

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶107

¶108

material on record and the decisions cited at the bar.

¶109

Indisputably, 'veterinary training and practice' is a State subject (Entry No.15 of the List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution) and therefore, Parliament has no power to make laws for the States in respect thereof. However, invoking clause (1) of Article 252 of the Constitution of India, the legislatures of the States of Haryana, Bihar, Orissa, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan adopted resolutions authorizing the Parliament to pass the requisite legislation to regulate veterinary practice and to provide for that purpose, for the establishment of Council and State Veterinary Councils and the maintenance of register of veterinary practitioners and for matters connected therewith and accordingly, the Act of 1984 was enacted by the Parliament. Obviously, any of the matters covered by the Act of 1984 in the aforesaid States and the States which have adopted the said Act by resolution passed in that behalf in pursuance of clause (1) of Article 252 of the Constitution shall be regulated by the provisions contained therein and further, in case of conflict between the law made by the Parliament as aforesaid under Article 252 and the law made by the legislature of the State to which the said Act applies, the former shall prevail.

¶110

It is to be noticed that the Council has been established under Section 3 of the Act of 1984 for regulation of veterinary practice and for the matters connected therewith. As per the

¶111

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶112

¶113

provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1984, the veterinary qualifications which are included in the First Schedule shall be the recognized qualification for the purpose of the said Act. Section 15(2) of the Act of 1984 provides that any veterinary institution in India which grants a veterinary qualification not included in the First Schedule may apply to the Central Government to have such qualification recognized and the Central Government after consulting 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 recognized veterinary qualification only when granted after specified date.

¶114

Section 18 of the Act of 1984 mandates that every veterinary institution in a State which grants a recognized veterinary qualification shall furnish such information as Council may require from time to time as to courses of study and examination to be undergone in order to obtain such qualification as to the ages at which such course of study and examinations are required to be undergone and such qualification is conferred and generally as to requisites for obtaining such qualification.

¶115

Section 12 empowers the Council to appoint an Executive committee from amongst its members and other Committees for

¶116

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶117

¶118

general or specific purposes as the Council may consider necessary from amongst its members and also by co-opting any person or persons specially qualified to advise on any matters to any Committee other than Executive Committee.

¶119

As per the provisions of Section 19, a Committee constituted under Section 12 subject to the regulations, if any made by the Council, is empowered to appoint such number of veterinary inspectors as it may deem requisite to inspect any veterinary institution or any college or 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. That apart, Section 20 of the Act of 1984 empowers the Council to appoint such number of visitors as it may deem requisite to inspect any veterinary institution or any college or other institution where veterinary education is given or to attend any examination held by any veterinary institution for the purpose of granting recognized veterinary qualification.

¶120

Section 22 of the Act of 1984, makes the provision authorizing Council by regulation to specify the minimum standards of veterinary education required for granting recognized veterinary qualification by veterinary institution in those States to which the Act of 1984 extends. Accordingly, vide

¶121

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶122

¶123

notification dated 6^th August,2008, the Council with the previous approval of the Central Government has framed the Regulations known as 'The Veterinary Council of India-Minimum Standards of Veterinary Educations-Degree Course (B.V.Sc. & A.H.) Regulations, 2008' ( for short “the Regulations” hereinafter).

¶124

Section 21 deals with withdrawal of the recognition granted which mandates that upon report by the Committee or the visitors, if it appears to the Council that the courses of the study an examination is to be undergone in, or the proficiency required from candidates at any examination held by any veterinary institution are not in conformity with the regulation made under the Act or falls short of the standard required by or that the staff equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities for instructions and training provided in any such veterinary institution or in any college or other institution affiliated to it, do not conform to the standards prescribed by the Council, the Council shall make a representation to that effect to the Central Government. On such representation being received, the Central Government is empowered to withdraw the recognition of veterinary qualification in respect of any veterinary institution or specified college or institution affiliated to any veterinary institution after following the procedure laid down under sub-section (2) to Section 4 of the Act of 1984 in the manner specified.

¶125

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶126

¶127

A conjoint reading of various provisions incorporated in the Act of 1984 as aforesaid, it is abundantly clear that a veterinary institution or any college or other institution affiliated to it are under an obligation to maintain the minimum standards of veterinary education as provided under the Regulations framed by the Council and if any of the recognized veterinary institution or the colleges affiliated thereto do not conform to the standards prescribed by the Council, the veterinary qualification to be awarded by such recognized veterinary institution in general or in respect of specified college or institution affiliated thereto. Needless to say that any veterinary institution seeking recognition of the veterinary qualification granted by it must fulfill the minimum standards of veterinary education prescribed by the Council by Regulations and if any veterinary institution or any specified college or institution affiliated thereto do not fulfill the standards of the courses of the study and examination to be undergone or the lacks in infrastructure facilities as specified under the Regulations, the recognition of the veterinary qualification to be granted by the veterinary institution may be refused or its recognition may be restricted only in respect of the institutions or colleges affiliated thereto fulfilling the minimum standards prescribed, while incorporating an entry in the First Schedule regarding the recognized veterinary qualification to be granted by the said recognized veterinary institution.

¶128

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶129

¶130

Indubitably, unless veterinary qualification to be granted by any veterinary institution is recognized under the provisions of Act of 1984, by virtue of provisions of Section 23, the persons holding such veterinary qualification shall not be entitled for inclusion of their name in the register of veterinary practitioners known as the Indian Veterinary Practitioners Register and consequently, they shall not be entitled to practise veterinary medicine in any State as mandated by Section 30 of the Act of 1984. Suffice it to say that the veterinary qualification to be awarded to the students of a veterinary institution or the colleges affiliated thereto, shall be recognized only when the veterinary institution or the colleges affiliated thereto fulfills the minimum standards of veterinary education required for granting recognized veterinary qualification and therefore, the action of the respondent-Council in insisting for the fulfillment of the minimum standards of veterinary education under the Regulations framed by the petitioners' Colleges, cannot be faulted with and such action of the respondent-Council in no manner, could be said to be beyond the powers conferred upon it by the Act of 1984.

¶131

It is to be noticed that the NOCs were issued by the State Government in favour of the petitioners for opening the veterinary college subject to the condition inter alia that the prior permission of the Council shall be obtained before opening

¶132

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶133

¶134

the veterinary college and initiating the process of admission. The affiliation granted by the University was also subject to the condition that the colleges shall ensure the fulfillment of the requirement as per the norms laid down by the Council. Indisputably, considering the prior permission of the Central Government as condition precedent for opening the veterinary college, the petitioners applied for approval to the Central Government through the University. The application made by the petitioners as aforesaid was forwarded by the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Government of India to the Council, which in its turn constituted an Inspecting Team to inspect the facilities available at the proposed Veterinary Colleges. On examining the Inspection Report submitted by the Inspecting Team, the facilities created having been found adequate for imparting First year B.V.Sc. & A.H. Degree course, the approval was granted by the Council in favour of the petitioners' colleges for admission of the students for a particular academic session with the clear stipulation that the university authorities shall have to take immediate appropriate action to ensure that facilities for second year of studies are created in a time bound manner. Further, the university authorities were required to submit progress report on fulfillment of minimum requirements strictly as per Council Regulation annually. Thus, the approval granted by the Council to the

¶135

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶136

¶137

petitioners' colleges for admitting students was for imparting first year of B.V.Sc. & A.H. Degree course only for a particular academic session, obviously for the reason that in the meantime, the colleges were required to create the facilities for Second year of B.V.Sc. & A.H. Course. As noticed above, the petitionerArawali Veterinary College was allowed to admit the students at the college during the Academic Session 2010-11 as well subject to the condition that the college shall fulfill the minimum requirements particularly, in terms of academic calendar, ILFC and TVCC as per VCI Regulation within a period of six months. The approval granted by the Council to the petitioners' colleges permitting admission of the students during particular academic session was subject to their fulfilling the minimum standards of veterinary education laid down by the Council by Regulations. Similarly, the affiliation granted by the University in favour of the petitioners' colleges on year to year basis was also circumscribed by the condition that they shall ensure fulfillment of requirement as per Council's norms. In this view of the matter, the action of the respondent-University in directing the petitioners' colleges not to admit the students for the academic years in question pursuant to the directions issued by the Council, also cannot be faulted with. It is pertinent to note that the University has framed the Rules for affiliation of private veterinary colleges, wherein, it has been specifically provided that the said Rules are

¶138

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶139

¶140

complementary to the provisions in Vogue or made in future by the Regulatory bodies like UGC, VCI etc. and by no means, the said Rules shall be overriding the provisions laid down by such bodies. It has been further specifically provided under Rule 39 of the said Rules that the affiliated colleges having provisional affiliation shall not be able to admit the students for the academic session without clear cut permission from Government of India(Department of Animal & Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries/Veterinary Council of India, New Delhi) and subsequent grant of permission by the University. Thus, viewed from any angle, the directions issued by the University to the petitioners' Colleges not to admit the students without prior approval of the Council, cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary.

¶141

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that once the recognition is granted by the Council and the petitioners' colleges have been permitted to admit the students, the question of recognition of the colleges every year does not arise, is also devoid of any merit. It is pertinent to note that it is not the case of the petitioners that in the first instance, when the permission was granted to the petitioners' colleges to admit the students in first year of B.V.Sc. & A.H. Course, they were fulfilling the minimum standards of veterinary education as prescribed by the Regulations for the degree course. To the contrary, while granting the approval, it was specifically

¶142

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶143

¶144

observed that the Council has found the facilities created as adequate for imparting First year B.V.Sc. & A.H. Degree course with the condition that the university authorities have to take appropriate action to ensure that the facilities for the second year of studies are created in time bound manner. That apart, the permission granted to the petitioner-Arawali Veterinary College, Sikar, to admit the students during the Academic Session 2010-11 was also subject to the condition that the college shall fulfill the minimum requirement particularly, in terms of academic calendar, ILFSC, TVCC as per the Regulations. In this view of the matter, in considered opinion of this court, the approval granted to the petitioners' colleges was subject to review and the approval for subsequent years was to be granted only on their fulfilling the minimum requirement of veterinary education as provided for by the Regulations.

¶145

It is true that the inspection of any veterinary institution or a college affiliated thereto in terms of the provisions of Section 19 & 21 of the Act relates to recognition of the veterinary qualification but then, the fact remains that the veterinary education being imparted to the students by any veterinary institution or the college affiliated to a recognized veterinary institution has no meaning unless the veterinary qualification to be granted to the students admitted in the veterinary institutions or the affiliated colleges is recognized by the Central

¶146

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶147

¶148

Government in accordance with the procedure laid down. The contention of the learned counsel that the petitioners are entitled to admit the students for imparting veterinary education and the question of recognition of the qualification shall arise only when the course completes, to say the least, is devoid of any substance. If the colleges affiliated to a recognized veterinary institution not fulfilling the minimum standards of educations as prescribed, are permitted to admit the students and ultimately, the recognition is not granted by the Central Government, the future of such students shall be in lurch inasmuch as, even if a degree is awarded by the University concerned to which the veterinary institutions or the colleges are affiliated, such students holding the degree shall not be entitled to practise in veterinary medicine, which cannot be countenanced by this court. As noticed above, the Act of 1984 has been enacted to regulate the veterinary practice and for the matters connected therewith. Obviously, the imparting of the veterinary education is directly connected with the veterinary practice to be undertaken by the students acquiring the veterinary qualification. Moreover, Section 22 of the Act of 1984 specifically empowers the Council to specify the minimum standards of veterinary education required for granting recognized veterinary qualification by veterinary institutions and therefore, the directions issued by the Council to the University

¶149

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶150

¶151

empowered to grant recognized veterinary qualification in the State of Rajasthan not to permit the admission of the students in the colleges, which do not fulfill the minimum standards of veterinary education as laid down by the Regulations, cannot be said to be without authority of law.

¶152

Coming to the decision making process and correctness of the decision taken by the Council in directing the respondentUniversity not to permit the admission of the students in the petitioners' colleges on account of their lacking in minimum required facilities as provided for by the Regulations, it is to be noticed that after submission of the inspection report by the Inspection Team and consideration thereof by the Executive Committee of the Council, no opportunity was extended to the petitioners to cover the deficiencies pointed out and the decision was taken by the Executive Committee to stop the admission in the petitioners' colleges which was approved by the Council and further decision was taken to forward the inspection report to the Central Government with the request to issue a public notice in the public interest, notifying that the Council has decided to stop the admission at the specified colleges. Admittedly, the respondent-University after thorough examination of the inspection reports of the petitioners' colleges offered its comments thereon for perusal and necessary action to the Council, however, it appears that the Council has not cared to

¶153

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶154

¶155

look into the same and take appropriate decision in the matter. Undoubtedly, the matter with regard to the minimum standard of veterinary education and the recognition of the veterinary qualification to be awarded by the veterinary institutions in the State of Rajasthan is required to be dealt with by the respondent-Council in conformity with the provisions of the Act of 1984 and the Regulations framed thereunder but then, the respondent-University has been established and incorporated by the State Legislature under the provisions of Rajasthan University of Veterinary & Animal Sciences Act, 2010 for the purposes of development of veterinary and animal sciences in the State of Rajasthan by ensuring proper and systematic instruction training, research and extension in modern system of veterinary and animal sciences and therefore, it is equally concern to see that the minimum standards of veterinary educations prescribed by the Council are strictly adhered to by the veterinary institutions run by it and the affiliated colleges. In this view of the matter, in considered opinion of this court, the comments offered by the respondent-University, a statutory body, could not have been brushed aside/rejected by the Council without consideration. Moreover, some of the petitioners had applied for the fresh inspection of their colleges but strangely enough, the request made was rejected by the Council saying that the Council has not taken any decision for fresh inspection.

¶156

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶157

¶158

In considered opinion of this court, if according to the petitioners, the comments offered by the Inspection Team are not correct then they are not precluded from making a request for fresh inspection and if any such request is made after depositing the requisite fee, the Council was not justified in rejecting the same on the ground that no process for fresh inspection is initiated by the Council. Moreso, when in the instant case, the stand of the petitioners as also the respondentUniversity in the comments offered was that inspite of satisfactory report of the Inspection Team regarding infrastructure, manpower, ILFC, TVCC and equipments, the decision taken by the Council for stopping of admission is harsh and unjustified then at least, the Council should have considered the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the respondent-University.

¶159

There is yet another aspect of the matter. The Council has taken the decision not to grant approval to the petitioners' colleges for admitting the students during the Academic Session 2011-12 and 2012-13, but the fact remains that the students already admitted during the previous academic session are pursuing their studies further for second, third and fourth year of the course in the petitioners' colleges. It cannot be disputed that those students had taken the admission in the first instance pursuant to the approval granted by the Council and they

¶160

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶161

¶162

pursued their studies pursuant thereto. It is not the case of the respondents that on approval being refused during the subsequent academic session, the students pursuing the studies during the previous academic sessions have been shifted to any other veterinary institution or the college duly recognized. In this view of the matter, the matter with regard to the recognition of the veterinary qualification to be granted to such students, who are pursuing their studies after taking admission pursuant to the approval granted by the Council, has to be considered by the respondents objectively keeping in view that such students pursuing their studies as aforesaid, cannot be made to suffer for no fault on their part.

¶163

Learned counsel for the respondent is justified in contending that the matters with regard to the Minimum Standards of Veterinary Education, governed by the Regulations framed, the grant of approval to admit the students in the recognized veterinary institutions or the colleges affiliated thereto and the recognition of the veterinary qualification are required to be dealt with by the Council established under the Act of 1984 and this court cannot sit in appeal over the discretion exercised by the Council in refusing to grant the approval and permit the admission of the students in the petitioners' colleges. But then,the Council is required to exercise the discretion vested in it in objective manner in furtherance of

¶164

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶165

¶166

the objects sought to be achieved by the Act of 1984 and cannot deal with the matters relating to the grant of approval to run the veterinary college and recognition of veterinary qualification, in perfunctory manner, without taking into consideration the stand of the parties affected. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, at this stage, this court is not inclined to permit the petitioners' colleges to admit the students straight away without approval of the Council, but the fact remains that the matter with regard to the approval being granted as also regarding the recognition of the veterinary qualification to be awarded by the respondent-University to the students studying in its affiliated colleges, the petitioners herein, needs to be reconsidered by the Council objectively, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

¶167

Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of with the directions to the Council to reconsider the matter with regard to grant of approval for admission of the students to the veterinary colleges run by the petitioners and recognition of the veterinary qualification to be awarded by the respondent-University to the students pursuing their B.V.Sc. & A.H. degree course in the said colleges objectively, after due consideration of the submissions to be made by the petitioners and the comments on inspection report already submitted by the respondent-University, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of

¶168

B.S. COLLEGE OF VETERNIARY MEDICINE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690/12 & ten other connected matters)

¶169

¶170

this order. The Council shall be at liberty to direct inspection of the petitioners' colleges afresh so as to ascertain whether the said colleges fulfill the minimum standards of veterinary education prescribed by the Regulations. Needless to say that if the colleges run by the petitioners are found to be fulfilling the requirement, the admission already made in any of the petitioners' colleges during the Academic Session 2011-12 and 2012-13 shall be regularized and they shall be permitted to admit the students in the next Academic Session 2013-14. Further, the matter with regard to the recognition of the veterinary qualification to be awarded by the respondentUniversity to the students already admitted in the colleges run by the petitioners pursuant to the approval granted by the Council, shall be considered by the Council/Central Government objectively, keeping in view the future of the students pursuing the course and shall ensure that they are not made to suffer for no fault on their part.

¶171

No order as to costs.

¶172

(SANGEET LODHA),J.

¶173

Aditya/-

Arawali Veterniary College v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arawali Veterniary College v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailash Narayan Sharma and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Sarawgi Charitable Trust, Sgnr., Vs Union of India and Anr.

Satya Narain Ajmera Vs Jaswant Singh Bohra and Anr.

B.S. College of Veterinary Medicine Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sri Ganganagar Veterniary College, Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mahatma Jyotiba Fule Vidhyapeeth Samiti, Vs Union of India and Ors.