http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: VETERINARY COUNCIL OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       06/01/2000

BENCH: D.P.Wadhwal, S.Rajendra Babu

JUDGMENT:

     A.S.  ANAND, CJI :

     Which   out  of  the   two  organizations,  i.e.,  the Veterinary  Council  of  India  or  the  Indian  Council  of Agricultural  Research,  is empowered to hold an  All  India Common  Entrance  Examination  to  fill  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 hereunder :   The  Veterinary Council  of  India (hereinafter "VCI") has been  established 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.  It is empowered to specify, by regulation,  the  minimum standards of veterinary  education for  granting  recognised   degrees/diplomas  in  veterinary science  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 matter of the Act falls in the State List (Entry 15  of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the  Constitution) and the Concurrent List (Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule),  the  Parliament  was   authorised  to  pass  the requisite  legislation by the Legislatures of the States  of Haryana,  Bihar,  Orissa,  Himachal  Pradesh  and  Rajasthan through  resolutions  passed  by the Legislatures  of  these States.  The Parliament, therefore, enacted the V.C.  Act in 1984.    The  Indian  Council   of   Agricultural   Research (hereinafter  "ICAR")  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-III, Item 12 of the Government of India (Allocation of  Business Rules), 1961 framed 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 its application in practice   development  and  marketing  in  India  and   its protectorates and any other areas in or in relation to which the  Government of India has and exercises any  jurisdiction

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

by  treaty,  agreement,  grant, usage, sufferance  or  other lawful  means by all means calculated to increase secure its adoption in every day practice."

     In  exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22  of the  Act  and  with  the previous approval  of  the  Central Government,  the VCI framed certain regulations relating  to minimum standards of veterinary education, which had earlier been  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 was resolved in that  Workshop that  an  All  India Common Test be conducted  by  the  VCI. Regulations,  called the Indian Veterinary Council of  India (Minimum  Standards of Veterinary Education) Degree  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 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 reserved  to  be filled   on   All  India   basis  through  Common   Entrance Examination  to  be conducted by the Veterinary  Council  of India."

     Pursuant   to  the  aforesaid   regulation,  the   VCI conducted  an All India Common Entrance Examination for  the academic year 1995- 96 for allotments of students to various Veterinary  Colleges 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  fill  15% seats in exercise of  the  powers conferred  by sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act  read with  clause  (8) of regulation 5 of the  Regulations.   The examination  was  held  on  26th of May,  1996  and  results declared.   It  appears  that an advertisement  came  to  be issued,  on  behalf  of  the ICAR, in  the  Employment  News Bulletin  dated 28th March, 1996, stating 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   faculties  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 1996)  on the  original  side  of the High Court of Delhi,  seeking  a declaration  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  ICAR from conducting the All  India  Common Entrance  Examination for filling up of 15% of the seats  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  empowered  to hold the examination on all India basis in respect of 15% of the  total number of seats of each Veterinary College in the State  to which the Act applies.  Accordingly, till  further orders,  the  defendant  is restrained from  conducting  All India  Common  Entrance  Examination for filling up  15%  of total   number   of   seats  in   the   State   Agricultural Universities."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

     ICAR  filed  an appeal against the  aforesaid  interim injunction  [FAO(OS) 231 of 1996] on 6th of June, 1996.  The ICAR 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 the result of the All India Entrance Examination conducted by it for  filling  up  the 15% of the All India  seats.   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 leave.  Learned counsel for the parties conceded that  the  inspiration  to  hold   an  All  India   Entrance Examination for admission to the Veterinary Colleges against 15%  All  India  Quota was drawn from the judgment  of  this Court  in  Dr.  Dinesh Kumar and Ors.  Vs.  Moti  Lal  Nehru Medical  College, Allahabad & Ors., AIR 1985 SC 1059,  which had  laid down certain guidelines for filling up of the  15% of  the  All India seats in various Medical 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  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,  alone  can  regulate admission  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 made  on  behalf  of ICAR.  It noticed that in view  of  the conflicting  stands taken by the VCI and the ICAR  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 of India Vs. State  of  Karnataka,  ILR 1996 Kar 67, decided on  27th  of November,  1995  had also been considered by the  delegates, and  it  was  resolved that the ICAR 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 Examination much  to the serious inconvenience, expenses and uncertainty 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.  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  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  November, 1995  is  also held void and without any authority  of  law. FAO(OS)  231/96  is  allowed and the order  of  the  learned

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

Single  Judge  dated  5th  June, 1996  is  set  aside.   The injunction  restraining  the ICAR from conducting All  India Common  Entrance  Examination  for filling up 15%  of  total number  of  seats in the State Agricultural Universities  is hereby  vacated.   Costs  in both the proceedings  shall  be borne as incurred by both the parties."

     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  allocation of 15% seats  to  the State  Agricultural  Universities  for All  India  students, through  framing of any regulations.  That the VCI was  only concerned  with maintenance of "standards of education"  for granting    recognised    Veterinary    Qualifications    by institutions imparting veterinary education in the State 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   seats  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 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 India Vs.   State  of  Karnataka (supra).   In  that  case, the  University  of  Agricultural 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 :

     "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 Section  does  not confer upon the Council any authority  to regulate   the   admissions  to   Veterinary   Institutions. Similarly  Section  66(1) read with Section 66(2)  (n)  also cannot  be  construed  as conferring 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 Veterinary  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 University or  the Veterinary  Institutions.   (emphasis  supplied)"  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-Judge Bench of this  Court in State of M.P.  and another Vs.  Nivedita Jain and  others,  (1981) 4 SCC 296 and in Ajay Kumar  Singh  and others  Vs.   State of Bihar, (1994) 4 SCC 401, (though  not referred  to  in the impugned judgment) wherein it was  held that the process of selection of candidates for admission to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

a  medical college has no impact on the standard of  medical education  and that the standard of medical education really comes  into the picture only in the course of studies in the medical  colleges or institutions ’after’ the selection  and admission   of   candidates.   The   Division   Bench   also distinguished  the judgments of the Patna High Court and the Kerala  High Court in Munish Kumar Pane & others Vs.   State of   Bihar   and  others   (CWJC  No.9643/1995  decided   on 18-12-1995)  and Jothi Shah B.  & others Vs.   Administrator Union Territory of Lakshadweep and others (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 Bench.  There is force in  the  submission  of  Mr.    Altaf  Ahmad,  the   learned Additional  Solicitor  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.    (1)(b)   that  the  staff, equipment,  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.

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

     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  (supra) is a valid piece  of  legislation enacted  by   the  P???????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????  ??????

     etermining 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 impugned regulation,  therefore, did not suffer from any vice whatsoever.  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.  In view of the judgment of the  Constitution Bench  in  Dr.  Preeti Srivastava and another Vs.  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  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.    In  Dr.    Preeti Srivastava’s  case (supra) to which one of us (namely,  CJI) was  a party, the Constitution Bench opined :  "It would not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

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, 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, law down  qualifications  in addition to those prescribed  under Entry 66 of List I.  This would be consistent with promoting higher  standards  for 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.  Standards of education in  an  institution  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  in the given span of time;  (3) the student-teacher ratio;  (4) the  ratio  between  the  students  and  the  hospital  beds available  to each student;  (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;  (7) adequate accommodation  for  the college  and the attached hospital;  and (8) the standard of examinations  held including the manner in which the  papers are set and examined and the clinical 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 suitably moulded so that they can receive the maximum benefit  out of a high level of teaching.  If the calibre of the  students  is  poor  or they are unable  to  follow  the instructions  being  imparted,  the   standard  of  teaching necessarily  has  to be lowered to make them understand  the course  which  they  have  undertaken;  and it  may  not  be possible  to  reach the levels of educational  and  training which  can  be  attained  with a  bright  group.   Education involves  a continuous interaction between the 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."

     (Emphasis ours)

     The  Constitution  Bench in Dr.   Preeti  Srivastava’s case  (supra),  expressly disagreed with the  views  earlier expressed  in  Nivedita Jains and Ajay Kumar  Singhs  case (supra)  in this regard.  Thus, in view of the law laid down by  the Constitution Bench in Dr.  Preeti Srivastavas  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  filling up of 15% of seats, on merits,  of All  India  Quota,  must  also vest  in  it.   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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

Munish Kumar Pane & Ors.  Vs.  State of Bihar & Ors.  and by the  Kerala  High  Court  in  Jothi Shah  B.   &  Ors.   Vs. Administrator  Union  Territory of Lakshadweep and Ors.,  to the  effect that the VCI was competent to hold the All India Entrance 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 Vs.   State  of Karnataka  (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 India Entrance Examination for filling  up of 15% of total number of seats under Clause (8) of  Regulation 5 (supra).  The question posed in the earlier part  of this order is answered 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  that  34 students who had passed  the  entrance examination  conducted by the VCI and had been duly admitted to  the courses, would not be disturbed, 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.  Appeals are  allowed. No costs.