In this Writ Petition challenging the Rehabilitation Council of India's guidelines excluding distance education degree holders from M.Phil in Clinical Psychology, the single-judge bench held that the Council's restriction based on practical knowledge requirements was neither arbitrary nor illegal, and the petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.24213 of 2007
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for the relief, which reads as under:
“For the reasons mentioned in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the Impugned Instruction on the ground that the candidates with M.A./M.Sc. Degree Course or by Correspondence Course, Part-Time Course or by Distance Education are not eligible for Clinical Psychology as null and void as it is against Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act as well.”
Rehabilitation Council of India is a body constituted under the provisions of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 (for short ‘the Act’). The said statutory body has issued guidelines with regard to the course in M.Phil in Clinical Psychology.
In the said guidelines, it is stated that mental health problems ranging from mild to severe are continuously on the rise, and to cater to the needs of the people suffering from a variety of psychological ailments, trained mental
health professionals are needed. It is further stated that Clinical Psychology, which was largely an academic discipline earlier, has become one of the major professions in the area of mental health care. While referring to the aims and objectives of the course in M.Phil in Clinical Psychology, it is stated that the aim of the course is to prepare the student to function as a qualified Clinical Psychologist in the area of Mental Health by offering diagnostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative services.
The Entry requirement under Clause 4.2 of the guidelines reads as under:
“Minimum educational requirement for admission to this course will be M.A./M.Sc. Degree in Psychology from a University recognised by the UGC with a minimum of 55% marks in aggregate, preferably with special paper in Clinical Psychology. For SC/ST/OBC category, minimum of 50% marks in aggregate is essential. Candidates with M.A./M.Sc. Degree by correspondence course, part-time course or by distance education are not eligible.”
Petitioner is a Lecturer, obtained her Post Graduate Science Degree in Psychology with second division from Madras University, Chennai, through Distance Education
mode. It is the case of the petitioner that syllabus of the courses offered under distance education mode and syllabus of regular courses are similar. In this view of the matter, there is no reason for not recognizing the Degree obtained by the petitioner by distance mode, for the purpose of entry into M.Phil in Clinical Psychology. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the Rehabilitation Council of India is empowered to fix the guidelines and syllabus for Rehabilitation Qualification to become Rehabilitation Professional but it is not empowered to deny admission to the candidates, who obtained Post Graduation Degree by distance mode.
Separate counter-affidavits are filed by the respondents.
In the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent -University Grants Commission, New Delhi, while referring to the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, it is stated that degree awarded by Madras University under conventional mode through classroom teaching and degree awarded by it through distance education mode have to be treated as equivalent.
In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent – Rehabilitation Council of India, New Delhi, it is stated that Rehabilitation Council of India is a body constituted under the Parliament’s enactment of RCI Act, 1992 and the preamble of the Act itself indicates the powers of the Council to regulate the training of rehabilitation professional and maintenance of Central Rehabilitation Register and the matters connected there with and incidental thereto. It is further stated that Section 2(n) of the Act defines ‘rehabilitation professionals’, for whom, the Council will develop and standardize the professional courses with the objective of minimum standard of education and to maintain the Central Rehabilitation Register of such professionals. It is further stated that as per the provisions of the Act, the Rehabilitation Council of India laid down policy parameters regarding various aspects of training and education in the field of rehabilitation and all institutions have to seek recognition from Rehabilitation Council of India as per Section 11 of the Act and no rehabilitation professional course can be started by any institute/university without prior approval of the Rehabilitation Council of India. It is further stated that for getting admission in M.Phil in Clinical Psychology, a
candidate should have M.A./M.Sc. degree in Psychology with a minimum of 55% marks in aggregate and the admission shall be on the basis of entrance examination. It is further stated that the expert committee of the Council has included only regular candidates having M.A./M.Sc. Degree in Psychology, for the purpose of M.Phil in Clinical Psychology course. It is further stated that the candidates seeking admission into such course should have attended regular classes and practical knowledge. It is further stated that the expert committee after considering all the aspects of the course concerned, has fixed the eligibility criteria, as such, it cannot be said that the action of the first respondent is illegal and arbitrary. It is also stated that practical knowledge is must to the candidates of M.Phil in Clinical Psychology because after such qualification, they have to handle mentally challenged persons, and it is the duty of the Council to provide qualified professionals in the field of disability.
In this Writ Petition, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner obtained P.G. Science Degree in Psychology from Madras University, which is a recognised one, there is no reason for not allowing her to enter into M.Phil in Clinical Psychology. It is submitted that the first respondent is not
empowered to fix any entry criteria denying admission to the candidates, who obtained P.G. Science Degree in Psychology by distance mode.
On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent that the first respondent has constituted several committees for the purpose of making recommendations to fulfill the aims and objectives of the Act. It is further submitted that the professionals after completing M.Phil in Clinical Psychology have to handle mentally challenged persons. In this view of the matter and in view of the recommendations made by the expert committee, such criteria is notified in the interests of the persons, who are suffering from mental health problems. It is further submitted that in view of the provisions of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 and the Regulations made there under, when the power of regulatory mechanism is conferred on the Council, it is always open to the Council to notify the criteria. It is also submitted that the candidates, who obtained P.G. Science Degrees by distance mode cannot have any practical knowledge. In this view of the matter, such candidates are not made eligible for entry into the course in M.Phil in Clinical Psychology.
It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent that as per the provisions under the University Grants Commission Act, there is no difference between the Degrees obtained by regular mode and the Degrees obtained by distance mode.
I have perused the provisions of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 and the Regulations made there under. As per Section 7 of the Act, the Council shall constitute from amongst its members an Executive Committee and such other committees for general or special purposes, as the Council deems necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act. As per Section 11 of the Act, the qualifications granted by any University or other institutions in India, which are included in the Schedule shall be recognised qualifications for rehabilitation professionals. A perusal of the preamble of the Act and the Regulations made there under makes it clear that the Rehabilitation Council of India is constituted under the provisions of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992, to regulate the training of rehabilitation professionals and maintenance of Central Rehabilitation Registers and the matters connected there with or incidental thereto.
It is well settled that the statutory body is empowered to regulate the training of rehabilitation professionals and it is always open to such body to frame guidelines for the institutions/universities, which are running M.Phil in Clinical Psychology course with regard to requirements to start such course, entry requirement, admission procedure, duration etc. It is stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent that when the expert committee having specialized knowledge, has recommended to restrict the entry requirement only for regular courses, it cannot be said that the same is either illegal or arbitrary. From the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is clear that the candidates are trained to handle mentally challenged persons. But the candidates, who completed the P.G. Course in distance mode, cannot acquire any practical knowledge as such it is open for the respondents not to allow the candidates who obtained degree by part-time course or distance mode for the purpose of entry into M.Phil in Clinical Psychology. Having regard to the objectives of the enactment of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 and in view of regulatory mechanism conferred on the Council, this Court is of the view that such a restriction contained in the guidelines issued by the Council is
neither arbitrary nor illegal, for grant of relief as prayed, to the petitioner. It is well settled that when there is an opinion by experts in the academic body, unless such decision is
ex facie illegal or arbitrary, it is not open for this Court to interfere with the same, which is made in the interests of the persons to enter into the course in M.Phil in Clinical Psychology. Though it is stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent that the degrees obtained by regular mode as well as the distance mode stand on the same footing, when the admission procedure is notified for the specific area of Clinical Psychology, it is for the regulatory body to prescribe its own standards by notifying the qualifications for entry into M.Phil in Clinical Psychology.
For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the guidelines issued by the first respondent, for grant of relief to the petitioner as prayed for.
The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J
6th JANUARY, 2012. kvni
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Writ Court can interfere with the guidelines issued by the Rehabilitation Council of India denying admission to candidates with distance education degrees for M.Phil in Clinical Psychology
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Patron/State of India (implied)
Rehabilitation Council of India
University Grants Commission
R Subhash Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
