Holding

The Veterinary Council of India is competent and empowered under the Veterinary Council Act, 1984 to conduct the All India Common Entrance Examination for 15% of seats; Regulation 5(8) is valid and not ultra vires.

Summary

The Veterinary Council of India (VCI) framed Regulation 5(8) under the Veterinary Council Act, 1984, authorising it to conduct an All India Common Entrance Examination to fill 15% of seats in veterinary colleges. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) also claimed the right to conduct the test and advertised its own examination, leading VCI to obtain an interim injunction. The Delhi High Court Division Bench set aside the injunction, held Regulation 5(8) ultra vires, and allowed ICAR to conduct the test. VCI appealed to the Supreme Court, which held that the power to prescribe minimum standards of veterinary education under Section 22 (read with Section 66) necessarily includes the power to regulate admissions, making Regulation 5(8) valid. Consequently, VCI is competent to conduct the entrance test, the High Court judgment was reversed, and the 34 students admitted through VCI’s test were allowed to continue their studies. The appeals were allowed.

Issues considered

The scope of Section 22 of the Veterinary Council Act, 1984 and Section 66 in empowering VCI to regulate admissions and conduct a common entrance test.
Whether Regulation 5(8) is ultra vires the Veterinary Council Act and the Constitution.
Whether ICAR has statutory authority to conduct the All India Common Entrance Examination for veterinary seats.
Whether the Delhi High Court's decision striking down Regulation 5(8) should be set aside.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 252, s. Article 77(3)
Societies Registration Act, 1860

Subjects

Veterinary educationMinimum standardsAdmission regulationCommon entrance testUltra viresStatutory interpretationSection 22Section 66Veterinary Council ActICAR

Judgment

,.. VETERINARY COUNCIL OF INDIA A
v.
INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICl:LTt:RAL RESEARCH

JANUARY 6, 2000

[DR. JUSTICE A.S. ANAl"ID, CJ, D.P. WADHWA A.."ID B
S. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.]

Education-Admission to Professional Course~-Veterinary Council of
India (Minimum Standards of Education) Degree Courses (B. V.Sc. and A.H.)
Regulations, 1993--Regulation 5(8j-Power to regulate mim:mum standards c
'y
of veterinary education and conduct Common Entrance Test for filling 15%
of total number of seats in Veterinary Colleges-ICAR claimed similar powers
and held Common Entrance Test-Single Judge injuncted ICAR-ln appea4
Divfaion Bench of High Court held Regulation 5(8) to be ultra vires of the
Act-On appeal Held, VCJ and not /CAR competent and empowered to hold
test-Regulation 5(8) not ultra vires of the Act or Invalid but framed to further D
the object of the Act.

Veterinary Council Act, 1984- -Section 22--Power to prescribe stand-
arm of veterinary education includes power to regulate admissions to col-
leges--Regulation of admission has a direct impact on maintenance ·of
E
"standards of education".

Veterinary Council of India (V.C.l.) has been established under the
Veterinary Council Act, 1984, for regulation of veterinary practices and for
matters connected or ancillary thereto under Section 22 of the Act. lt is
empowered to regulate and specify minimum standards of veterinary F
education in various institutions affiliated to or as a part of State Agricul-
tural Universities. Indian Council of Agricultural Research (I.C.A.R) is a
society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is controlled
by the Central Government. Its main object is to undertake, aid, promote
and co-ordinate agriculture and animal husbandry, education and re-
G
search.

VCI in exercise of powers under Section 22 of the Act, framed the
Veterinary C.:ouncil of India (Minimum Standards of Veterinary Educa- ·.
tion) Degree Courses (B.V.Sc. and A.H.) Regulations, 1993 relating to
minimum standards of veterinary education and to conduct an All India H
43
•
-;;

44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000} 1 S.C.R.
A Common F.ntrance Test. Regulation 5(8) gave VCI power to hold the All
India Common Entrance Test and that 15% of the total number of seats
of each veterinary college shall be reserved for the test, which was held for
the academic years 1995·96 and 1996-97. ICAR advertised that it shall also
conduct an All India Common Entrance Test for filling up 15% seats in
B the State Agricultural Universities including Faculty of Veterinary Science.

VCI filed a suit in the High Court seeking a declaration and per·
manent preventive injunction against ICAR in this regard, which was
granted by the Single Judge. ICAR appealed against that order and also
filed a writ petition for quashing of Regulation 5(8) as being ultra vires the
C Constitution and for restraining VCI from declaring the result of the
Entrance Test held by it. The Appeal and the writ petition were heard and
disposed of together, by the High Court, against which VCI filed these
appeals.

The appellant contended before this Court that it alone was com·
D petent to hold such an Entrance Test being concerned with the main·
tenance of "standards of education".

The respondent contended that the judgment of the Division Bench
of the High Court did not merit any interference as ICAR regulates
E Agricultural Universities, therefore, only it can regulate admission of
students through an All India Entrance Test.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. The view, that the power to prescribe Minimum Stand·
F ards of education does not take within its ambit, the power to conduct
entrance examination for regulating admission to the colleges, cannot he
subscribed to. [51-H]

1.2. V.C.I. is authorised to frame regulations relating to prescribing
standards of veterinary education for granting veterinary qualifications
G and such an authority must include the power to regulate admissions to the
course so as to maintain the "standards of education". Section 22 of the
Veterinary Council Act is a valid piece of legislation enacted by the parlia·
ment and Regulation 5(8) has been framed by virtue of the powers vested in
VCI under Section 66 of the Act read with Section 22 of the Act. Regulation
H 5(8) essentially prescribes the manner and method of determining com·
VEThRINARYCOLNCILOFINDlAv. l.C.ARESEARCH 45

parative merit of the candidates so that admissions are granted to students A
·who qualify at the AJI India Entrance Examination, on merits. Rq,'lllation
5(11) did not suffer from any vice whatsoever and it has been framed to
further the object of the Act. It could not have been declared ultra vires the
Act or otherwise invalid on any other ground. [52-G-H; 53-A-B]

Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Ors. v. lvfoti Lal Nehrn Medical College, AIR B
(1985) SC 1095, cited.
-~,

State of M.P. and Anr. v. Nivedita Jain & Ors., (1981) 4 SCC 296; Ajay
/ Kumar Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar, (1994] 4 SCC 401, relied on.

Munish Kumar Pane v. State of Bihar C.WJ.C. No. 9643 of 1995 c
decided on 18.12.1995 (Patna); Jyothi Sha'i B v. Administrator, Union
Territory of Lakshwadeep, W.A. No. 129 of 1996, decided on 19.3.1996
(Ker.tla), approved.

Veterinary Council of India v. State of Kamataka, ILR (1996) Kar. 67, D
overruled.

2.1. It is no longer possible that norms of admission come into
picture only after a,dmissions are made and have no connection with
"standards of education·•. Regulation of admissions has a direct impact on
the maintenance of standards of education and in exercise of its power to E
prescribe and maintain standards of education, V.C.I. has the right as well
as an obligation to regulate admissions to the veterinary institutions
against 15% All India quota by framing appropriate regulations. (53-C)

2.2. Since the power to regulate the standards of education in veteri-
nary science prescribed by the council is vested in VCI under the Act, the F
corresponding duty to conduct an All India Entrance Examination for
filling up of 15% of seats, 011 merits, of All India Quota, must also vest in
it. (55-A]

Dr. Preeti Srivastava & Anr. v. State of M.P. and Ors., [1999) 7 SCC G
120, followed.

4. The impugned judgment cannot be sustained. VCI is competent
and has the requisite powers, with a view to maintain the standards of
education, to hold All India Entrance Examinl!tion for filling up of 15% of
total number of seats under Regulation 5(8). 34 students who had passed H
46 SUPREME COURT RF.PORTS [200011 S.C.R.
A the entrance examination conducted by VCI and had been duly admitted to
the courses are not to be disturbed, and now there should be no impediment
in the way to those candidates to continue and complete their studies.
(55-C-E]
Munish Kumar Pane v. State of Bihar, C.WJ.C. No. 9643 of 1995
B decided on 18.12.1995 (Patna); Jyothi Shah B v. Administrator, Union
Tenitory of Lakshwadeep, W.A. No. 129 of 1996, decided on 19.3.1996
(Kerala), approved.

Veterinary Council of India v. State of Kamataka, ILR (1996) Kar. 67,
overruled. \
c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 13245-
13246 of 1996 Etc. <

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.8.96 of the Delhi High Court
in F.A.0. No. 231196 and C.W. No. 2334 of 1996.
D
Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General, (Pramod Swarup,
i
i
Lukose Joseph Vadakara, Ms. Rani Chhabra) (NP), H.K. Puri, Y.K. Rao
and Ms. Madhu Sikri for the appearing parties.

B.B. Sinha and S.C. Patel, (NP) for the lnkrvenor/lmpleading Party.
E
The following Judgment/Order of the Court was deliwred :
j
A.S. ANAND, CJ. Which out of the two organizations i.e., the Veteri- I..
nary Council of India or the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, is
empowered to hold an All India Common Entrance Examination to fill
F 15% seats in the Veterinary Colleges/faculties, is the only meaningful
question which we are called upon to decide in these appeals by special
leave?

Undisputed facts for answering the above question are briefly set out
<
G hereunder :

The Veterinary Council of India (hereinafter "VCI') has been estab-
lished under Section 3 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984
(hereinafter ''VC Act") for regulation of veterinary practice and for matters
connected therewith or ancillary thereto under Section 22 of the Act. lt is
H empowered to specify, by regulation, the minimum standards of veterinary
VEIERINARY COt:NC!L 01' !NOIA v. I.CA. RESEARCH [A.S. ANAND, O.J 47

education for granting recognised degn:es/diplomas in veterinary science A
by various institutions affiliated to or as a part of the State Agricultural
Universities. The Act has been enacted by invoking Article 252 of the
Constitution since the subject matkr of the Act falls in the State List (Entry
15 of List II of the Seventh Scheduled of the Constitution) and the
Concurrent List (Entry 25 of List III of the Sev.enth Schedule), the Parlia-
ment was authorised to pass the requisite legislation by the Legislatures of
B
the States of Haryana, Bihar, Oris~a, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan
through resolutions passed by the Legislatures of these States. The Parlia-
ment, therefore, enackd the V.C. Act in 1984.

The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (her.:inafter "!CAR') C
is a Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act. 1860, whose
affairs are controlled by the Central Government in the Ministry of
Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Research and Education
(hereinafter 'DARE'') in view of Schedule-II, Entry B, Part-lll, Item 12
of the Government of lndia (Allocation of Business Rules), 1961 framed D
under Article 77(3) of the Constitution of India. The main object of
ICAR is:

"(a) To undertake, aid, promote and co-ordinate agricultural and
animal husbandry education, research and it~ application in prac-
tice development and marketing in India and its protectorates and E
any other areas in or in relation to which the Government of India
has and exercises any jurisdiction by treaty, agreement, grant,
usage, sufferance or other lawful, means by all means calculated
to increase secure its adoption in every day practice."
F
In exercise of the powers confem:d by Section 22 of the Act and with
the previous approval of the Central Governmrnt, the VCI framed certain
regulations relating to minimum standards of veterinary education, which
had earlier bet:n discussed in a National Workshop jointly sponsored by
the ICAR and the Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University
on 6th and 7th of February,1993 at Madras on 'Veterinary Education'. It G
was resolved in that Workshop that an All India Common Test be con-
ducted by the VCI. Regulations, called the indian Veterinary Council of
India (Minimum Standards of Veterinary EducatioL Courses (B.V.Sc and
AH) Regulations, 1993 (hereinafter '"the Regulations") were thereafter
framed under Section 22 of the Act and published in the Government H
48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 1 S.C.R.

A Gazette on 7th of February, 1994. Clause (8) of regulation 5 of the
Regulation (which is the bone of contention between the VCI and ICAR)
reads thus :

"(8)-15% of the total number of seats of each Veterinary College
shall be n:served to be filled on All India basis through Common
B Entrance Examination to be conducted by the Veterinary Council
of India."

Pursuant to tht: aforesaid regulation, the VCI conducted an All India
Common Entrance Examination for the academic year 1995-96 for allot-
C ments of student to various Veterinary Collt:ges and faculties of the State
Agricultural Universities on 28th May, 1995 against the 15% quota. For the
academic year 1996-97, the VCI also published an admission notice on 25th
November, 1995 inviting applications for appearing at the All India
Entrance Examination to fill15% seats in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act read with clause (8) of regula-
D tion 5 of the Regulations. The examination was held on 26th of May, 1996
and results declared.

It appears that an advertisement can;.c to be issued, on behalf of the
ICAR, in the Employment News Bulletin dated 28th March, 1996, stating
E that the ICAR will conduct an All India Common Entrance Examination
for filling up 15% of the seats in the State Agricultural Universities in each
one of the facultit:s listed in the said advertisement on 8th of June, 1996.
Faculty of Veterinary Science was included in the said list.

On 22nd of April, 1996, the VCI filed a Suit (Civil Suit No. 1047 of
F 1996) on the original side of the High Court of Delhi, seeking a dt:claration
and permanent preventive injunction against ICAR. A prayer for ad interim
injunction war also made. By an order dated 5.6.1996, a learned Single
Judge of the High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of VCI
and restrained the !CAR from conducting the All Common Entrance
G Examination for filling up of 15% of the st:ats in the Veterinary Colleges
in the States to which, the VC Act applies. According to the learned Single
Judge:

''I am of the opinion that it is the plaintiff who is empowt:r~d to
hold the examination on all India basis in respect of 15% of !ht:
H total number of seats of each Veterinary College in the State to
VETERINARY COUNCIL OF INDIA v. LC.A. RESEARCH [AS. ANAND, CJ. j 49

which the Act applies. Accordingly, till further orders the defen- A
dant is restrained from conducting All India Common Entrance
Examination for filling up 15% of total number of seats in the State
Agricultural Universities."

ICAR filed an appeal against the aforesaid interim injunction
(FAO(OS)231 of 1996) on 6th of June, 1996. B
The !CAR also filed a Writ Petition (CW No. 2334 of 1996) on 6th
,'
of June, 1996 seeking the relief of "declaring-'quashing Regulation 5(8) of
the Regulations" as illegal/invalid/ab-initio-void and as such ultra vires of
the Constitution. The VCI was also sought to be restrained from declaring C
the result of the All India Entrance Examination conducted by it for filling
up 15% of the All India Scats. By the impugned order, the appeal against
the interim injunction as well as the writ petition filed by the ICAR, have
been heard and disposed of together. The VCI has filed these appeals by
special kave.
D
Learned counsel for the parties conceded that the inspiration to hold
an All India Entrance Examination for admission to the Veterinary Col-
leges against 15% All India Quota was drawn from the judgment of this
Court in Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru Medical College,
Allahabad & Ors., AIR (1985) SC 1059, which had laid down certain
guiddines for filling up of the 15% of the All India seats in various Medical
E
Colleges in the country, on merits, to be determined through an All India
Entrance Examination but differed on the question as to who is to conduct
that examination.

Whereas the learned Additional Solicitor General, Shri Altaf Ahmad F
submitted that the VCI alone is competent to hold such an All India
Entrance Examination being concerned with the maintenance of "standards
of education", learned counsel for the ICAR submitted that the judgment
of the Division Bench of the High Court did not merit any interference and
ICAR, which regulates Agricultural Universities, alom: can regulate admis- G
sion of students through the All India Entrance Examination to fill the 15%
of the All India seats. Similar arguments had been advanced in the High
Court also.

The Division Bench of the High Court agreed with the submissions
madt: on behalf of ICAR. It noticed that in view of the conflicting stands H
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 1 S.C.R.
A taken by the VCI and the !CAR regarding the conduct of The All India
Common Entrance Examination the matter had been taken up at a high
level meeting convened by the Agricultural Minister, where a judgment of
the Karnataka High Court in Veterinary Council "f India v. State of Knr-
nataka, !LR (1996) Kar 67, decided on 27th of November, 1995 had also
B been considered by the delegates, and it was resolved that the !CAR and
not the VCI would conduct the All India Entrance Examination for the·
year 1996. The Division Bench, therefore, opined that the VCI, after the
passing of that resolution, should have stayed its hands and should not have ,
"indulged into ill advised adventurism of conducting the All India Entrance \
Exal!lination much to the serious inconvenience, expenses and uncertainty
C of events to thousands of aspirants for admission to State Agricultural
Universities against all India quota of 15% seats." According to the
Division Bench, since the VC Act did not contemplate any examination
being conducted by VCI for regulating admissions to veterinary institution,
it was not open to the VCI to conduct the All India Entrance Examination
D It was held :
"For the foregoing reasons, CWP 2334/96 is allowed. Sub-para
(8) of para 5 of the Veterinary Council of India (Minimum
Standards of Veterinary Education) Degree Course (B.V.Sc and
A.H.) Regulations, 1993 is struck down as ultra vires the Veterinary
E Council of India and ultra vires the Veterinary Council Act, 1984.
The entrance examination held by the Veterinary Council of India
on 26.5.1996, pursuant to its notice that 25th Novtmber, 1995 is
also hdd void and without any authority of law.

FAO(OS) 231/96 is allowed and the order of the learned Single
F Judge dated 5th June, 1996 is set aside. The injunction restraining
the ICAR from conducting All India Common Entrance Examina-
tion fur filling up 15% of total number of scats in the State
Agricultural t:nivcrsities is ht:rcby vacated. Costs in both the
proceedings shall be borne as incurred by both the parties."
G
The Division Bench of the High Court was of the opinion that
Section 22(1) of the VC Act did not authorise any examination being
conducted by the VCI much less for the purpose of appropriating alloca-
tion of 15% seats to the State Agricultural lJ niversities for. All India
students, through framing of any regulations. That the VCl was only
H concerned with maintenance of "standards of education" for granting
VETERINARY COUNCIL OF INDIA v. l.C.A. RESEARCH [A.S. ANAND, CJ.) 51

recognised Veterinary Qualifications by institutions imparting veterinary A ·
education in the Sate and there is a 'world of difference' between specifying
the minimum standards of veterinary education and holding an entrance
examination for appropriating quota of certain percentage of scats for
admission to 'veterinary institutions'. The Division Bench, consequently,
held that Regulation 5(8) could not have been framed by exercising
delegated powers to legislate under Section 22(1) of the VC Act and that B
such a Regulation was ultra-vires the Act and invalid. It was also opined
that the grant of approval to the Regulations or consultation with the ICAR
on the issue of framing of such Regulations at the National Workshop at
Madras was 'irrelevant and immaterial'. The Division Bench heavily relied
upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Veterinary Council of C
India v. State of Kamataka (supra). ln that case, the University of Agricul-
tural Sciences Bangalore had refused to admit the candidates nominated
for admission to BVSc - AH Degrees pursuant to an entrance examination
conducted by the VCI. On a Writ Petition filed by the VCI, the Karnataka
High Court had opined :
D
"On a plain reading of Section 22, it is quite clear that under
this provision the Council can make Regulations only for specifying
minimum standards of Veterinary education required for granting
recognised Veterinary qualifications by Veterinary Institutions in
state/s to which the provisions of the Act has been extended. This
Sections does not confer upon the Council any authority to regulate E
the admissions to Veterinary Institutions. Similarly Section 66( I)
read with Section 66(2)(n) also cannot be constrned as confening
any authority on the Council for the said purpose ...... There is no
provision under the Central Act which empowers the Council to
make Regulations for regulating the admissions of students to F
Vett:rinary Institutions. The Regulations framed by the Council for
regulating admissions laying down the pattern of admission to
Veterinary Colleges are merely advisory in nature and does not
necessarily bind any UDiversity or the Veterinary Institutions."

(emphasis supplied) G

The view taken by the Division Bench to the effect that the power to
prescribe minimum standards of education does not take within its ambit,
the power to conduct entrance examination for regulating admission to the
colleges, also appears to have been influenced by the view of the three- H
52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS !2C,COJ 1 S.C.R.
A Judge Bench of this Court in State of M.P. and Another v. Nivedita Jain and
Others, [1981 I 1 sec 296 and in Ajay Kumar Singh and Others v. State of
Bihar, !19941 4 SCC 401, (though not referred to in the impugned judg-
ment) wherein it was held that the procesi; of selection of candidates for
admission to a mt:dical college has no impact on the standard of medical
education and that the standard of medical education really comes into the
B picture only in the course of studies in the medical colleges or institutions
'after' the selection and admission of candidate~. The Division Bench also
distinguished the judgments of the Patna High Court and the Kerala High
Court in Munish Kumar Pane & Others v. State of Bihar and Others, (CWJC
No. 9643/1995 decided on 18.12.1995) and Jyothi Shah B. & Others v.
C Administrator Union Tenitory of Lakshadweep and Other~; (W.A. No.
129/1996 decided on 19.3.1996), holding that by virtue of the Regulations
framed by the VCI in 1993, it had the authority to conduct the All India
Entrance Examination for allocation of 15% of seats on merits.

We find ourselves unable to subscribe to the view of the Division
D Bench. There is force in the submission of Mr. Altaf Ahmad, the learned
Additional Solic~tor General, that sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the VC
Act confers powers to frame regulations to carry out the purposes of the
Act and read with. Section 21(1)(b) and 22 of the VC Act which provide :

"21. Withdrawal of recognition. - (l)(b) - that the staff, equipment,
E accommodation, training and other facilities for instruction and
training provided in such veterinary institution or in any college or
other institution affiliated to it do not conform to the standards
prescribed by the Council.

F 22. Minimum standards of veterinary education. - (1) The Council
may, by regulations, specify the minimum standards of veterinary
education required for granting recognised veterinary qualification
by veterinary institutions in those States to which this Act extends."

G the VCI is authorised to frame regulations relating to prescribing standards
of veterinary education for granting veterinary qualifications and such an
authority must include the power to regulate admissions to the course so
as to maintain the 'standards of education'. It is not disputed that Section
22 (~upra) is a valid piece of legislation enacted by the Parliament. Clause
(8) of Regulation 5 (supra) has been framed by virtue of the powers vested
H in the VCJ undc:r Section 66 of the VC Act read with Section 22 of the VC
VETERINARY COUNCIL OF INDIA v. l.C.A. RESEARCH [AS. A.'IAND, CJ.) 53

Act. Clause (8) of Regulation 5 (supra) esst:ntially prescribes the mannei A
and method of determining comparative merit of the candidates so that
admissions are granted to students who qualify at the All India Entrance
Examination to the various institutions and faculties, on merits. The im-
pugned rt:gulation, therefore, did not sufft:r from any vice whatsot:ver. It
has been framed to further the object of the Act. It could not have been
declared ultra vires the Act or otherwise invalid on any other ground.
B

In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Dr. Preeti
Srivastava and Another v. State of M.P. and Others, [1999) 7 SCC 120, it is
no longer possible to argue that norms for admission come into picture
only after admissions are made and have no connection with 'standards of c
education'. On the contrary, regulation of admissions has a direct impact
on the maintenance of standards of education and in exercise of its power
to prescribe and maintain standards of education, the VCI has the right as
well as an obligation to regulate admissions to the veterinary institutions
against the 15% All India quota by framing appropriate regulations.
D
In Dr. Preeti Srivastava's case (supra) to which one of us (namely,
CJI) Wlli a party, the Constitution Bench opined :

"It would not be co"ect to say that the norms for admission have
to connection with the standard of education, or that the rules for E
admission are covered only by Entry 25 of List lll. Norms of
admission can have a direct impact on the standards of education.
Of course, 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 F
medical courses, lay down qualifications in addition to those
prescribed under. Entry 66 of List 1. This would be consistent with
promoting higher standards for admission to the higher education-
al courses. But any lowering of the norms laid down can and does
have an adverse effect on the standards of education in the in- G
stitutes of higher education. Standards of education in an institu-
tion or college depend on various factors. Some of these are:

(1) the calibre of the teaching staff;

(2) a proper syllabus designed to achieve a high level of education H
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) 1 S.C.R.

A in the given span to time;

(3) the student-teacher ratio;

(4) the ratio between the students and the hospital b..:ds available
to each student;
B
(5) the calibre of the students admitted to the institution;

(6) equipment and laboratory facilities, or hospital facilities for
training in the case of medical colleges;
c (7) adequate accommodation for the college and the attached
hospital; and

(8) the standard of examinations hdd including the manner in
which the papers are set and examined and the clinical
D performance is judged.

While considering the standards of education in any college or
institution, the calibre of students who are admitted to that institution
or college cannot be ignored. If the students are of a high calibre,
training programmes can be smtably moulded so that they can
E receive the maximum benefit out uf a high level of teaching. lf the
calibre of the students is pour or they are unable to follow the
instructions bdng imparted, the standard of teaching necessarily
has to be lowered to make them understand the course which they
have undt:rtakcn; and it may not be possible to reach the levels of
F educational and training which can be attained with a bright group.
Education involves a continuous interaction between thi; teachers
and the students. The pace of teaching, the level to which teaching
can rise and the benefit which the students ultimately receive,
depend as much on the calibre of the students as on the calibre
of the teachers."
G
(Emphasis ours)

The Constitution Bench in Dr. Preeti Srivastava's case (supra), ex-
pressly disagreed with the views earlier expressed in Nivedita Jain's and
H Ajay Kumar Singh's case (supra) in this rt:gard.
VEIERINARY COUNCIL OF INDIA v. I.CA. RESEARCH [AS. ANAND, 0.) 55

Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Dr. A
Preeti Srivastava's case (supra), it must be held that since the power to
regulate the standards of education in veterinary science prescribed by the
Council is vested in VCI under the VC Act, the corresponding duty to
conduct an All India Entrance Examination for filing up of 15% of seats,
on merits, of All India Quota, must also vest in it.
B
The impugned judgment, in view of what has been noticed above,
cannot be sustained. Both the appeals consequently succeed and are
allowed. The view expressed by the Patna High Court in Munish Kumar
Pane & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. and by the Kerala High Court infyothi
Shah B. & Ors. v. Administrator Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Ors.,
to the effect that the VCI was competent to hold the All India Entrance c
Examination for filling up of 15% of the seats thus lays down the correct
law while the view of the Karnataka High Court in Veterinary Council of
India v. State of Kamataka (supra) can no longer be considered to be good
law. It is accordingly held that VCI is competent and has the requisite
powers, with a view to maintain the standards of education, to hold the All D
India Entrance Examination for filling up of 15% of total number of scats
under Clause (8) of Regulation 5 (supra). The question posed in the earlier
part of this ordi::r is answi::rcd accordingly.

On 11.10.1996, when leave was granted in the special leave petitions,
on the statement of learned counsel representing the ICAR, to the effect. E
that 34 students who had passed the entrance examination conducted by
the VCI and had been duly admitted to the courses, would not be dis-
turbed, no further interim order was made. As a consequence of our
judgment there is, therefore, now no impediment in the way of those
candidates selected by the VCI at the Common Entrance Examination to
continue and complete their studies. F
Appeals are allowed. No costs.

IA. Nos. 3-12 & 15-18 (Applications for intervention)

No one present. G
Ri::ji::ctcd.

I.A. Nos. 23-24

In view of the orders made in the main Civil Appeals no orders are H
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] 1 S.C.R.
A required to be made in these applications.
Contempt Petition Nos. 267-268/97

In view of the orders made in the main Civil Appeals we do not
propose to entertain these Contempt Petitions.
B
AO. Appeals allowed.