BHARATI VIDYAPEETH (DEEMED UNIVERSITY) AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

      BHARA TI VIDY APEETH (DEEMED UNIVERSITY) AND ORS.                            A
                                          v.
                   ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

                              FEBRUARY 26, 2004

               (S. RAJENDRA BABU AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.J                             B

          Education:



-·
           Maharashtra State University Act:

           Section 65-Deemed university-Admission procedure-Powers of State
                                                                                   c
     in regard to--Society running various educational institutions was declared
     deemed university by UGC-Society allowed admissions to be made in its
     respective medical, engineering and dental colleges up to academic year 1995-
     96 under the stream of Common Entrance Test (CET) conducted by the State
     authority-Society filed a writ petition challenging the Admission Rules whereby D
     colleges run by the said society were included in the admission proposed to
     be controlled by the CET authority-High Court dismissed the writ petition-
     Correctness of-Held: State has no legislative competence to extend the
     provisions of the Act to a deemed university-Hence, the institutions of the
     Society cannot be brought within the stream of CET Examination-University E
     Grants Commission Act, 1956.

          Constitution of India, 1950: Entry 66 List I Seventh Schedule.

           "Coordination "-Scope and ambit of-Explained.

           Deemed university-Admission procedure-Held: Admission procedure          F
     to a deemed university is occupied by Entry 66 of List I and State cannot
     exercise any power over such admission procedure.

           Words & Phrases:

           "Coordination "-Meaning of-In the context of Entry 66 List I of the     G
     Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, 1950.      "

     C.A. No. 7660/2002

          The appellant, established as a society, was declared as a deemed
                                       775                                         H
    776                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2004] 2 S.C.R.

A university under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act,
    1956 on the strong recommendation of the State Government.

         The appellant, as a deemed university, allowed admissions to be
    made in their respective medical, engineering and dental colleges up to
    the academic year 1995-96 under the stream of the Common Entrance
B   Test (CET) conducted by the State authority. Thereafter, the appellant
    decided fo keep itself outside the scope of the State authority.

          The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging
    the Admission Rules whereby the colleges run by the appellant were
C   included in the admission proposed to be controlled by the CET authority.

        High Court dismissed the writ petition by holding that the Admission
  Rules framed under Section 65 of the Maharashtra State University Act
  could be treated as framed under Article 162 of the Constitution and,
  therefore, the said Rules were applicable to the institutions run by the
D appellant. Hence the appeal.,.
         On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the UGC Act was
    enacted under Entry 66 List I of the Seve~th Schedule to the Constitution
    and, therefore, the respondent-State was not competent to make any
    Rules under Entry 25 List III in relation to those aspects covered under
E   Entry 66 List I; and since the respondent-State lacked legislative
    competence it was not competent to exercise Executive power to frame
    any Rules under Article 162 of the Constitution.

    C.A. NOS. 5543-5544/1994
p         The appellant enacted the Karnataka Educational Institutions
    (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 and issued a notification by
    which the Rule for selection of candidates for admission to Engineering,
    Medical, Dental, Pharmacy and Nursing Courses were amended and
    thereby the institutions of the respondent No. 1 were specifically brought
    withlit-the scope of the said enactment.
G
          Respondent No. 1, which was a deemed university, filed a writ
    petition before the High Court challenging the said notification. The
    High Court allowed the writ petition on the ground that the said
    notification was not applicable to a deemed university. Hence the appeal.
H         Allowing C.A. No. 7660/2002 and dismissing C.A. Nos. 5543-5544/
              BHARAT! VIDYAPEETH(DEEMEDUNIVERSITY)I'. STATE             777

1994, the Court                                                                 A
     HELD:

C.A. NO. 7660 OF 2002

     1.1. The expression "coordination" used in Entry 66 of List I of the       B
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution does not merely mean evaluation. It
means harmonization with a view to forging uniform pattern for a
concerted action according to a certain design, scheme or plan of
development. It, therefore, includes action not only for removal of
disparities in standards but also for preventing the occurrence of such
disparities. It will include power to do all things, which are necessary to     C
prevent what would make 'coordination' either impossible or difficult.
This power is absolute and unconditional and in the absence of any valid
compelling reasons, it must be given its full effect according to its plain
and express intention. [783-D-Fl

     Gujarat University v. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar, (19631 Supp. 1          D
SCR 112 and State of TN. v. Adhiyaman Educations & Research lnstitllle,
(1995) 4 sec 104, relied on.

      1.2. The concept of prescribing standards would include the process
of admission. Hence, selection and admission cannot be compartmentalized        E
but it is one single process. 1784-DI

      Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P., (19991 7 SCC 120; State of M.P.
v. Kumari Nivedita Jain, [19821 I SCR 759 and Ajay Kumar Singh v. State
of Bihar, (1994] 4 SCC 401, relied on.
                                                                                F
     Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research v. KL.
Narasimhan, (1997) 6 SCC 282, cited.

     2. It is now settled position in law that within the concepts of
coordination and .determination of standards in institutions for higher
education or research and scientific and technical institutions, the entire     G
gamut of admission will fall. (784-G)

       3. Once an institution comes within the scope of Entry 66 of List I,
it falls outside the control of the provisions of Entry 25 of List III.
                                                                    [785-D)
                                                                                H
    778                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2004J 2 s:c.R.

A         4.1. Under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act,
    1956 deemed university status will be given to those institutions that for
    historical reasons or for any other circumstances are not universities and
    yet are doing work of a high standard in specialized academic field
    compared to a university and that granting of a university status would
B   enable them to further contribute to the cause of higher education which
    would mutually enrich the institution and the university system. Guidelines
    for considering proposals for declaring an institution as deemed to be
    university were al~o issued by the UGC. Under the said guidelines aspects
    relating to admission was specifically entrusted with the UGC and
    admission could be made only through a common entrance test on All-
C   India basis. ·such an exercise was intended to maintain a uniform standard
    and level of excellence. Admission plays a crucial role in maintaining the
    high quality of education. And for the proper maintenance of academic
    excellence, as intended by the UGC Act, admissions to a deemed university
    has to be made under the control of the UGC. This further goes to show
    that admission procedure to a deemed university is fully occupied by
D   Entry 66 of List I and the State cannot exercise any powers over admission
    procedure. [785-D-G]

          4.2. The State could not have enacted any legislation in that regard.
    If that is so, neither in exercise of executive power under Article 162 of
E   the Constitution which extends only to the extent of legislative power nor
    in respect of power arising under the Maharashtra State Universities
    Act, such rules could have been prescribed. To the extent the High Court
    holds to the contrary the order of the High Court is set aside.
                                                               [785-H; 786-A]

p         5. A note of caution is struck in regard to the institutions, which are
    exclusively owned by the Government and in respect of the institutions,
    which stand affiliated to the university or in respect of the institutions to
    which either affiliation or grant is made. Such institutions may be
    controlled to an extent by the State in regard to admission as a condit_ion
    of affiliation or grant or owner of the institutions. But those conditions,
G   again if they are in respect of the institutions of higher education must
    apply the standard prescribed by tlie statutory authorities such as UGC,
    Medical Council, Dental Council, AICTE, governed by Entry 66 of List I
    of the Constitution. (786-B, CJ

          7. The institution in question entirely falls within the scope of the
H
           BHARA Tl VIDY APEETH (DEEMED UNIVERSITY) r. STATE [S. RAJENDRA BABU. J.] 779

      UGC Act. UGC has prescribed the norms of admission also which include               A
      fees that can be collected from students and specifically debar collection
      of capitation fee. The university or the State Government has no role to
      play either in the matter of recognition, affiliation or making any financial
      grants to exercise powers either as a condition thereto or in exercise of
      the powers under Entry 25 of List II. [786-D-E)
                                                                                          B
            8. It would not be appropriate for the .;;tate to contend that even
      though the institution has now attained the deemed university status it is
      not beyond the clutches of the State in the matter of admissions of the
      students to such colleges as before granting of the deemed university
      status, the State was indeed consulted and the State conveyed its strong            C
      recommendation for grant of such status. Particularly when such status
      has been granted after consulting the Government concerned, argument
      on the basis of local needs should not be accepted. [788-B)

            TMA. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, [2002] 8 SCC 481 and
      Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, [2003) 6 SCC 697,               D
      held inapplicable.

           9. The High Court's order is set aside and the writ petition filed by
      the appellants is allowed to the extent of restraining the respondents
      from enforcing their instructions for bringing the institutions of the
      appellants within the stream of the Common Entrance Test Examination.               E
                                                                        [788-D)

      C.A. NOS. 5543-5544/1994

            10. The view taken by the High Court that the Karnataka
      Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 and              F
      the Rules framed thereunder cannot be made applicable to respondent
      No. 1, which is a deemed university, is consistent with the view taken by
      this Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava 's case and in C.A. No. 7660/2002 -
      Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed University) and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
      and Anr. [789-E]
                                                                                          G
              Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of MP., [1999) 7 SCC 120 and Bharati
    ..._
         Vidyapeeth (Deemed University) and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.,

-        AIR (2004) SC 1943, relied on.

            State of MP. v. Kumari Nivedita Jain, [1982] 1 SCR 759 and Ajay H
    780                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2004] 2 S.C.R.

A Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (1994) 4 SCC 401, held inapplicable.
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7660 of
    2002.

            From the Judgment and Order dated 25, 28, 29, 30.4.97 and 2.5.97 of
B the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 3238 of 1996.
                                         WITH

            C.A. Nos: 5543-44 of 1994.

C         Harish N. Salve, Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, P.P. Rao, Bhimrao N. Naik, Kailash
    Vasdev, Sanjay R. Hegde, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Vivek Singh, Ravi Prakash,
    Chander Prakash, S. P. Sharma, Ashwani Bhardwaj, Abhishek Atery, Shishir
    Singh, Vikash Singh, Yunus Malik, Ms.Amrita Narayan, Ms. Mahalakshmi
    Pavani, G. Balaji, Sumanth Sharma, Prashant Chaudhary, Satyajit Saha, Ms.
    Meenakshi Grover, Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Uday Umesh Lalit, Ravindra K. Adsure,
D   Mukesh K. Giri, B.Y. Kulkarni, Bhupender Yadav, D. Bharat Kumar, S.S.
    Shamshery, R.C. Kohli, Amitesh K:.imar, Navin Prakash, Maninder Singh,
    Mrs. Pratibha M. Singh, Angad Mirdha, Kirti Man Singh, S.V. Deshpande,
    Ms. Anuradha Rustagi, Chinmoy Khaladkilr, S.K. Nandy, Prashant Kumar
    and Goodwill Indeevar for the appearing parties.
E           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    S. RAJENDRA BABU, J. C.A. No. 7660/2002

          Bharati Vidyapeeth, located in Pune, was established as a society. Several
F   Colleges affiliated to Pune University were run by the said Society. It applied
    to the U.G.C. for treating the society as a deeme.d university and the State
    Government strongly recommended the case of appellants to the U.0.1. for
    grant of the status of Deemed University. The Central Government on advice
    of U.G.C. declared various institutions of Bharati Vidyapeeth at Pune as
    "Deemed to be University" for the purpose of the U.G.C. Act vide Notification
G   dated 26.4.1996. On 13.6.1996 U.G.C. issued office memorandum declaring
    Bharati Vidyapeeth. as a Deemed University in terms of Section 3 of the
    U.G.C. Act.

         When the matter stood thus, it appears that the Bharati Vidyapeeth as
    deemed University allowed admissions to be made in their respective medical,
H   engineering and dental colleges up to the academic year 1995-1996 under the
          BHARAT! VIDY APEETH(DEEMED UNIVERSITY) 1·. STATE [S RA.IENDRA BABU, .I] 781

---   stream of the Common Entrance Test conducted by the State authority.
      Thereafter, they decided to keep themselves outside the scope of the State
                                                                                           A

      authority. At that stage, appellants herein filed a writ petition before the High
      Court challenging the Admission Rules to Medical, Engineering and Dental
      colleges for the year 1996-97 whereby the colleges run by Bharati Vidyapeeth
      were included in the admission proposed to be controlled by the CET authority.       B
      The High Court after considering various arguments of the learned counsel
      appearing on either side dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal by
      special leave.

            This Court granted an interim order on 19.5.1997 to the following
      effect which is continuing till today:                                               C
              " ..... We are informed that the examination process has already began
              as early as Febrnary, 1997. In the larger public interest, we are of the
              view that the petitioner will conduct an All India Entrance Test and
              will grant admission strictly on the basis of the merit of the candidates.
              Admission so granted will be subject to the final orders, that will be       D
              passed by this Court."

             The High Court in reaching the conclusion that the petitioner (appellant
      herein) had not made out any case, mainly adverted to Section 65 of the
      Maharasthra State University Act and held that the State can frame rules in
      respect of admission of students and the manner in which the admissions are          E
      to be made under those rules has also been spelt out. Inasmuch as the institution
      with which we are concerned did not fall under the Schedule to the Maharashtra
      Act, the High Court took the view that the Rules framed under Section 65 of
      the Maharasthra Act would not be attracted. However, the High Court placed
      reliance upon Article 162 of the Constitution and held that the rules, though        F
      framed under Section 65 of the Maharashtra Act could as well be treated as
      framed in exercise of powers under Article 162 of the Constitution arid,
      therefore, stated that such power was available and hence these Rules could
      be made applicable to the appellants' institutions. The argument addressed on
      behalf of the petitioner before the High Court is that once the appellant
      institution comes under the umbrella of deemed university, it is no longer           G
      open to the State to exercise any of its powers under Entry 25 of List III
       inasmuch as the same are the powers exercised by the University Grants
      Commission under the U.G.C. Act which has been enacted in terms of Entry
-     66 of List I of the Constitution. It is in this background that the matter falls
      for our consideration.
                                                                                           H
    782                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2004) 2 S.C.R.

A          Shri Harish N. Salve, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant
    after developing history of the law in relation to the Entries in the Constitution
    and how they have been understood, specifically submitted that the institutions
    in question are governed by the University Grants Commission Act and the
    terms under which it had been granted the status of deemed University as
B   well as the regulations framed and therefore, it is no longer open to the State
    or University to impos~ Rules upon the manner in which the admission could
    be made in the appellant institution.

           It is submitted that once it is held that the power is available under
    Entry 66 of List I of the Constitution, the power stood carved out under Entry
C   25 of List III of the Constitution. Thus a State would not have competence
    at all to make such an enactment or exercise any power in relation to those
    aspects covered under Entry 66 of List I. He further submitted that the view
    of the High Court that the State action fell under Article 162 of the Constitution
    in framing the relevant Rules, is plainly impermissible for the reason that the
    State lacks legislative competence over those aspects carved out by Entry 66
D   of List I. If the State is not competent to make any legislation in that regard,
    it will not have any Executive power to frame any instruction or exercise any
    power to frame Rules.

          He further drew our attention to various decisions of this Court as to
E the scope of Entry 25 of List III and Entry 66 of List I. He submitted that
    the concept of coordination and determination of standards of admission in
    institutions will cover a situation in which the admissit:m is to be made in the
    institutions governed by the UGC Act as well.

          While summing up, he stated that the State's competence in regard to
F   a deemed university with -respect to higher education, such as medical,
    engineering and dental is completely excluded and a university established
    under the Central enactment falls outside the scope of Entry 25 of List III.
    He also submitted that the Union law prevails over the State law to the extent
                                                                                           -
    of overlapping. Therefore, it is contended that the action of the State in this
    regard is totally ultra vires the Constitution.
G
           In answer, the learned counsel for the State submitted that the institutions
    in the present case prior to 1996 had been part of the Common Entrance Test
    conducted by the State authority and admissions were made on that basis and
    it will not be correct to state that the entire process of admission is relatable ·'
    to and governed by Entry 66 of List I and that there are still certain facets
H
         BHARAT! VIDYAPtETH (DEEMED UNIVERSITY), v. STATE [S RAJENDRA BABU. J] 783

     even in cases of institutions governed by Entry 66 List I to which appropriate        A
     legislation can be made within the scope of Entry 25 of List III. He also
     pointed out that the grant of status of deemed university on the institutions
     in question is only for purposes of the UGC Act. Therefore, he argued that
     the deemed universities cannot be given any higher status than what has been
     considered under the Act. It is only for certain purposes status has been             B
     given. He, therefore, submitted that though he does not subscribe to the
     reasoning of the High Court, he will maintain that the State Government had
     sufficient powers to impose necessary rules upon a deemed University.

          In order to appreciate the various contentions put forth, we have to first
     examine the scope of Entry 66 of List I. which reads:-                                C
              "Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for
             higher education -ei:-r-esearch and scientific and technical institutions".

           The expression 'coordination' has been explained by this Court in more
     than one decision. Firstly in the Gujarat University, Ahmedabad v. Krishna            D
     Ranganath Mudholkar and Ors., [ 1963] Supp. 1 SCR 112 and recently in the
     State of TN. and Anr. v. Adhiyaman Educations & Research Institute and
     Ors., [1995] 4 SCC 104. In these two decisions it is stated that the expression
     'coordination' used in Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the
     Constitution does not merely mean evaluation. It means harmonisation with
     a view to forge a uniform pattern for a concerted action according to a certain       E
     design, scheme or plan of development. It, therefore, includes action not only
     for removal of disparities in standards but also for preventing the occurrence
     of such disparities. It will include power to do all things, which are necessary
     to prevent what would make 'coordination' either impossible or difficult.
     This power is absolute and unconditional and in the absence of any valid

--   compelling reasons, it must be given its full effect according to its plain and
     express intention.
                                                                                           F

           So far as standard of education is concerned, this Court in Dr. Preeti
     Srivastava v. State of MP. and Ors., [1999] 7 SCC 120, has explained that
     the process of admission falls within the scope of determining standards and          G
     held as follows :-

             "It would not be correct to say that the norms for admission have no

-            connection with the standard of education, or that the rules for
             admission are covered only by Entry 25 of List III. Norms of admission
             can have a direct impact on the standards of education. Of course,            H
    784                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2004] 2 S.C.R.

A           there can be rules for admission which are consistent with or do not
            affect adversely the standards of education prescribed by the Union
            in exercise of powers under Entry 66 of List I. For example, a State
            may, for admission to the postgraduate medical courses, lay down
            qualifications in addition to those prescribed under Entry 66 of List
            I. This would be consistent with promoting higher standards for
B
            admission to the higher educational courses. But any lowering of the
            norms laid down can and does have an adverse effect on the standards
            of education in the institutes of higher education.".

           After specifically adverting to the decisions ~n State of MP. and Anr.
C   v. Kumari Nivedita Jain and Ors., [1982] I SCR 759 and Ajay Kumar Singh
    and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., JI 994] 4 SCC 40 I, this Court disagreed
    with the proposition that standards come into picture after admissions are
    made and held as follows:- " .... .It is the result of a sum total of all the inputs
    - calibre of students, calibre of teachers, teaching facilities, hospital facilities,
    standard of examinations etc. that will guarantee proper standards at the stage
D   of exit. We, therefore, disagree with the reasoning and conclusion in Ajay
    Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, [1994] 4 SCC 40, and Post Graduate Institute
    of Medical Education & Research v. K.L. Narasimhan, [1997] 6 SCC 282."

         It was also held that the concept of prescribing standards would· include
    the process of admission. Hence, selection ·and admission cannot be
E   compartmentalized but it is one single process.

           The High Court has also adverted to the decisions in Kumari .Nivedita
    Jain's case (Supra) and Ajay Kurnar Singh 's case (Supra) which stood
    overruled in Preeti Srivastava 's case (Supra) to state that admission is one of
F   the areas which will come after selections are made and, therefore, in that
    area the Government can play certain role and in this context in the absence
    of appropriate rules, rules will have to be framed and such rules have been
    framed by the Government, such rules have been framed though purporting
    to be under Section 65 of the Mahrasthra Act, would be applicable to
    institutions of the appellant.
G
         It is now settled position in law that within the concepts of coordination
  and det.ermination of standards in institutions for higher education or research
  and scientific and techniC1'll institutions, the entire gamut of admission will
  fall. Therefore· .if any aspect of admission of students in colleges would fall
  within Entry 66 and it necessarily stands excluded as has been held in the
H Gujarat University's case (Supra). After examining the power of the State to
                                                                                I
~
                  BHARAT! VIDYAPEETH (DEEMED UNIVERSITY)v. STATE [S. RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 785
..,.......
             prescribe medium of instruction in institutions for higher education it is stated   A
             in that decision as follows:
  ...
                     "Item 25 of the Concurrent List confers power upon the Union
                     Parliament and the State Legislatures to enact legislation with respect
                     to "vocational and technical training of labour". It is manifest that the
                     extensive power vested in the Provincial Legislature to legislate with      B
                     respect to higher, scientific and technical education and vocational
                     and technical training of labour, under the Government of India Act
                     is under the Constitution controlled by the five items in List I and
                     List III mentioned in item 11 of List IL Item 63 to 66 of List I are
                     carved out of the subject of education and in respect of these items
                     the power to legislate is vested exclusively in the Parliament".
                                                                                                 c
                   If the power to legislate in regard to those aspects are entirely carved
             out of the subject of education and vested in Parliament even at a time when
             'Education' fell under List II, we find no reason now not to accept the
             arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant that once an institution comes        D
             within the scope of Entry 66 of List I, it falls outside the control of the
             provisions of Entry 25 of List III.

                    Under Section 3 of the Act, deemed University status will be given to
             those institutions that for historical reasons or for any other circumstances are
             not Universities and yet are doing work of a high standard in specialised           E
             academic field compared to a University and that granting of a University
             status would enable them to further contribute to the course of higher education
             which would mutually enrich the institution and the University system.
             Guidelines for considering proposals for declaring an institution as deemed
             to be University were also issued by the UGC. Under the said guidelines

---          aspects relating to admission was specifically entrusted with the UGC and
             admission could be made only through a common entrance test on All-India
             basis. Such an exercise was intended to maintain a uniform standard and
                                                                                                 F


             level of excellence. As we have pointed out, admisSion plays a crucial role
             in maintaining of the high quality of education. And for the proper maintenance
             of academic excellence, as intended by the UGC Act, admissions to deemed            G
             University has to be made under the control of UGC. This further goes to
             show that admission procedure to a deemed to be University is fully occupied

 --          by Entry 66 of List I and the State cannot exercise any powers over admission
             procedure.

                   Therefore, the State could not have enacted any legislation in that regard.   H
    786                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (2004] 2 S.C.R.

.A If that is so, neither in exercise of executive power under Article. 162 of the
    Constitution which extends only to the extent of legislative power nor in
    respect of power arising under the Maharashtra State Universities Act, such
    rules could have been prescdbed. To the extent the High Court holds to the
    contrary, we set aside the order of the High Court.

B         At this stage we must strike a note of caution in regard to institutions
    which are exclusively owned by the Government and in respect of institutions
    which stand affiliated to the University or in respect of institutions to which
    either affiliation or grant is made. Such institutions may be controlled to an
    extent by the State in regard to admission as a condition of affiliation or grant
C   or owner of the institutions. But those conditions, again if they are in respect
    of the institutions of higher education must apply the standard prescribed by
    the statutory authorities such as U.G.C., Medical Council, Dental Council,
    AICTE, governed by Entry 66 of List I oCthe Constitution.

            Though arguments have been advanced before us that even if some
D    area is covered under Entry 25 in relation to admission, inasmuch as the
     power has been exercised under Entry 66 which in pith and substance falls




                                                                                         -
     within that scope·the State legislation to that extent has to yield to Central
     legislation. In this case .it is unnecessary to examine this aspect of the matter
     as the institution in question entirely falls within the scope of the U.G.C. Act.
     UGC has prescribed the norms of admission also which include Fees that can
E    be collected from students and specifically debar collection of Capitation fee.
     The university or the State Government has no role to play either in the
     matter of recognition, affiliation or making any financial grants to exercise
    .powers either as condition thereto or in exercise of Entry 25 of List II.

F          However, we may advert to the various provisions of the U.G.C. Act.
    The Act provides for various aspects which would be .looked after. Section
    12 relates· to Powers and Functions of the University Grants Commission
    under which it shall be the general duty of the Commission to take, in
    consultation with the Universities or other bodies concerned, all such steps
    as it may think fit for the promotion and co-ordination of university education
G   and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching,
    examination· and research in universities and for the purpose of performing
    its functions under the Act. ·It may have other powers, including power to



H
    establish, in accordance with the regulations made under the Act, institutions
    for providing common facilities, services and programmes for a group of
    universities or for the universities in general and maintain such institutions
                                                                                         -
              BHARATl VlDYAPEETH (DEEMED UNIVERSITY) v. ST ATE [S. RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 787
IP"t--
         or provide for their maintenance by allocating and disbursing out of the Fund           A
         of the Commission such grants as the Commission. may deem necessary.

                 The Commission is also authorised to frame regulations under Section
         26 of the UGC Act. Section 26(l)(f) in particular defines the minimum
         standards of instruction for the grant of any degree by any university and
         regulating the maintenance of standards and the co-ordination of work or                B
         facilities in universities and to regulate the establishment of institutions referred
         to in clause ( ccc) of Section I 2 and other matters relating to such institutions.
         It also provides for fees to be charged and scales of fees in accordance with
         which fees may be charged. It is also empowered under Section 25 to frame
...._    rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act in general and in particular any
         function that may be performed under Section 12 and additional functions
                                                                                                 c
         which may be performed by the Commission under clause U) of the Act.

               Learned counsel appearing for the State very strenuously urged that the
         U.G.C. Act is only for the purpose of making grants to various institutions
         governed by and it was not an authority which would create a university and             D
         give a special status to it so as to keep it out of the control of the University
         or the State where it is located. This argument ignores the provisions of the
         enactment and particularly those to which we have adverted to just now, for
         such institutions are recognised or granted deemed status for the maintenance
         of the standards in the institutions and for coordinating the teaching in
         universities which is a higher purpose than merely giving grants and with               E
         that object, the enactment is made. We do not think it could be confined only

.        to making of grants as has been contended by the respondents. This argument,
         therefore, needs to be rejected.

               Shri Lalit learned counsel for the State drew our attention to the two
                                                                                        F
....-    decisions of this Court in TMA. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of
         Karnataka and Ors., [2002] 8 SCC 481 and Islamic Academy of Education
         and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., (2003] 6 SCC 697 to contend that
         in these two decisions certain norms have been laid down in regard to
         admissions and those norms are applicable even in respect of deemed
         universities. The observations made in those decisions are only in the context G
         in which the decisions were rendered. There was no argument or consideration
         of the competing enactments whether as to which authority is empowered to
         make admissions or in what manner. All that was stated was the nature of
 -~
         control that a State can exercise in respect to educational institutions which
         impart different kind of education and no more. Therefore, the observations
                                                                                                 H
    788·                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2004] 2 S.C.R.

A made therein can have no relevance or application.
           He further highlighted that these institutions originally started in the
    State of Maharashtra to cater to the local needs atld therefore now if it is
    beirig· given deemed status it will no longer serve the local needs, such need
    having been recognized by the Government by granting essentiality certificate.
B   It would not be appropriate for the State to contend that even though the
    institution has now attained the deemed university status it is not beyond the
    clutches of the State in the matter of admissions of the students to such
    colleges as before granting of the deemed university status, the State was
    indeed consulted and the State conveyed its strong recommendation for grant
C   of such status. Particularly when such status has been granted after consulting
    the Government concerned, we do not think that such argument on the basis
    of local needs should be accepted. Faced with this position, Learned counsel, ·
    of cours~, stated that the problem posed by him may have to be attended to
    by the concerned authority.

D          We, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the order made by the
    High Court and allow the writ petition filed by the appellants to the extent
    of restraining the respondents to enforce their instructions for bringing the
    institutions of the appellants within the stream of the Common Entrance Test
    Examination.

E C.A.Nos. 5543-5544/1994
           These appeals arise out of an order made by the High Court in two writ
    petitions filed before it by respondent No. I. The appellant enacted the
    Karnataka Educational institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984
    and issued a notification on 16.9.1993 by which the Rule for selection of
F   candidates for admission to Engineering, Medical, Dental, Pharmacy and
    Nursing Courses were amended and thereby the institutions of respondent
    No . I were specifically brought within scope of the said enactment. That
    action of.State was challenged in the aforesaid writ petitions. On the arguments
    raised before the Court, the High Court formulated two questions as follows:
G        . (1) Whether the State has legislative competence to extend the provisions
    of the act to the petitioner Institution (which is deemed to be an University
    for the purposes of the "University Grants Commission Act, 1956) by the
    impugned notification issued under Section 2(c) of the Act? And

           (ii) Whether the said notification is ultravires of Section 2(c) of the Act
H
           BHARATI VIDYAPEETH(DEEMEDUNIVERSITY)v STATE [S. RAJENDRA BABU,.1.] 789
                                                                       0

      itself?                                                                           A
             On the first question, the High Court examined various provisions of
      the enactment such as the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (referred
      to as the "U.G.C. Act") and the State Act which was under challenge before
      it bearing in mind the scope of Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III of
      the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Thereafter, adverting to various        B
      decisions of this Court, it concluded that since specified guidelines and
      provisions pertaining to all relevant aspects for the purpose of performing
      different functions, including fixation of the scale of fee, and other matters
      are provided under the UGC Act, it is difficult to hold that the Act under

---   challenge and the Rules framed thereunder can be made applicable to the
      petitioner (respondent No. I herein).
                                                                                        C

            Thereafter, the High Court adverted to the decisions of this Court in
      Kumari Nivedita Jain's case and Ajay Kumar Singh 's case. The High Court
      held that the said decisions were not attracted to the instant case wherein the
      question for consideration is concerning a Deemed University declared as          D
      such by the Central Government to be regulated under the provisions of the
      UGC Act; that the Regulations and guidelines subject to which the Deemed
      University status is granted to the petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) would,
      therefore, cover all the relevant functions to be performed by the Deemed
      University, including the matters which are now sought to be regulated by
      the State under the Act and the Rules by including the Deemed University          E
      within the definition of the term "Educational Institutions".

            The view taken by the High Court is also consistent with the view
      expressed by this Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava's case (supra) and by us in
      C.A.No. 7660/2002 - Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed University) and Ors. v.            F
      State of Mahrashtra and Anr. and, therefore, all the arguments addressed by
      Shri Sanjay R. Hegde to the contrary stand rejected.

            Therefore, we find no merit in these appeals and are dismissed.

      v.s.s.                                     Appeals No. 7660/02 allowed.           G
                                     and Appeal Nos. 5543-5544/1994 dismissed.




-