| Headnote |
Constitution of India, 1950:Article 12 - 'State' - Army Welfare Education Society (AWES) and Army College of Medical Sciences (ACMS) - HELD: High Court has held that AWES and ACMS were neither instrumentalities of State nor could ACMS be held to be an aided educational institution - Such determinations always present issues of fact and of law - The Court is disinclined to over-rule the findings of the High Court in this regard. Article 15(5) read with Article 162 - Admission to MBBS course - Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and socially and educationally backward classes of citizens - Exemption granted to ACMS by Delhi Government - HELD: The Notification dated 14-08-2008 issued by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi permitting the ACMS to allocate hundred percent seats in the said college for admission to the wards of Army personnel is ultra vires the provisions of Delhi Act 80 of 2007 and also unconstitutional and, as such, is set aside - The power under Article 162 can not be claimed to set at nought a declared, specified and mandated policy enacted by the legislature - Delhi Act 80 of 2007, and s.12, including both sub-s. (1) and (2) are clearly applicable, with respect to admission of students to ACMS - The admission procedures devised by Army College of Medical Sciences for admitting the students in the first year MBBS course from a pre-defined source, carved out by itself and its parent society, are illegal and ultra vires the provisions of the Delhi Act 80 of 2007 - Respondents directed to admit the writ petitioners into the First Year of MBBS Course in ACMS, in the ensuing academic year notwithstanding the rank secured by them in the GET, by creating supernumerary seats if the writ petitioners still so desire, for they have been deprived of their legitimate right of admission to the course, for no fault of theirs - Delhi Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee and Other Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence) Act, 2007 - s. 12 - Doctrine of occupied field.Article 15(5) and 19(6) - Unaided non-minority educational institution - HELD: In view of Clause (5) of Article 15 of the Constitution, the unaided non-minority educational institutions would have to comply with the State mandated reservations, selecting students within the specified reservation categories on the basis of inter-se merit - With respect to the remaining seats, the state insist that non- minority private unaided institutions select the most meritorious students, as determined by the marks secured in the qualifying test - Both minority and non-minority unaided institutions have the right to admit students who have secured higher marks in the entrance test, and not an equivalence between minority and non-minority institutions to engraft their own "sources" or "classes" of students from within the general pool - Non-minority private unaided professional colleges do not have the right to choose their own "source" from within the general pool - All of the permissible restrictions and regulations under Clause (6) of Article 19 that non-minority institutions would be subject to, would also be applicable with respect to ACMS - It may indeed be the case that army personnel, particularly, those at the lower end of the hierarchy in the army, and their families, may be suffering from great hardships - It would indeed be, and ought to be a matter of considerable national distress if persons who have agreed to lay down their lilies, for the sake of national security, are not extended an empathetic understanding of their needs and aspirations - If any special provisions need to be made to protect the wards of Army personnel, this may possibly be done by the State, by laws protected by Clause (5) of Article 15 - The private society, of former and current army personnel by themselves cannot unilaterally choose to do the same.Article 15(5), 14 and 38 read with Articles 32 and 226 - Reservation policy of State - Judicial review of - HELD: provisions of new clause (5) of Article 15 do not purport to take away the power of judicial review, or even access to courts through Articles 32 or 226.Article 15(5) - HELD: Clause (5) of Article 15 does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution - Given the absolute necessity of achieving the egalitarian and social justice goals that are implied by provisions of clause (5) of Article 15, and the urgency of such a requirement, Article 15(5) is not a violation of the basic structure, but in fact strengthen the basic structure of our constitution - Constitutional law - Theory of basic structure.Education/Educational Institutions:Higher education - Participation of private sector - HELD: Participation of the private sector to function in the field of higher education, to supplement the role of the State in the field which has been recognized even in TMA Pai could only have existed if the State had the power to devise policies based on circumstances to promote general welfare of the country, and the larger public interest - The same cannot be taken to mean that a constitutional amendment has occurred, in a manner that fundamental alteration has occurred in the basic structure itself, whereby the State is now denuded of its obligations to pursue social justice and egalitarian ideals, inscribed as an essential part of our constitutional identity, in those areas which the State feels that even resources in the private sector would need to be used to achieve those goals - Clause (5) of Article 15 strengthens the social fabric in which the Constitutional vision, goals and values could be better achieved and served.DELHI PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES OR INSTITUTIONS (PROHIBITION OF CAPITATION FEE, REGULATION OF ADMISSION, FIXATION OF NON- EXPLOITATIVE FEE AND OTHER MEASURES TO ENSURE EQUITY AND EXCELLENCE) ACT, 2007:s. 12 - Interpretation of - HELD: The provisions of the Act do not suffer from any constitutional infirmities and constitutional validity of the same is upheld.Interpretation of Statutes:Unrepealed sections of a previous, statute - If in conflict with the provisions of the later statute - Relevance and interpretation of - HELD: In the instant case, the High Court was right in holding that Ordinance 30 of GGSIU would be inapplicable in the case on account of enactment of Delhi Act 80 of 2007 - However, the expression used by the High Court that Ordinance 30 has "lost its relevance" to the extent that it may suggest a loss of general relevance, is not correct - Reservation Policy for Self-Financing Private Institutions Affiliated with the Guru Govind Singh lndraprastha University, 2006 (Ordinance 30) - Delhi Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee and Other Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence) Act, 2007- s.12. |
