Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Dipak Misra, CJ and AM Khanwilkar and Dr. DY Chandrachud, JJ ordered the transfer of the matter pending before the Patna High Court, where the constitution of the Inspecting Team by the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) for inspection of the Teachers’ Educational Institutions was in question.

The Court ordered the transfer of the matter under Article 139A of the Constitution of India after Manish Kumar, appearing for the Bihar School Examination Board in a similar matter, brought to the Court’s notice that the question as to inspections of the Institutions in the State of Bihar was being heard by the Patna High Court and that it was suggesting removal of NCTE Chairman.

On 09.08.2017, Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J of Patna High Court had said that nominating Stenographer, Section Officer and Videographer, showed complete none application of mind, high handedness and arbitrariness on the part of the authorities of the NCTE and directed for inclusion of Union of India as party for deciding the question of the procedure for removal of the Chairman of the NCTE. It was said the persons, holding top position in the NCTE, were either completely insensitive towards the issues or were completely incompetent to hold the position, which they are holding. A. Santhosh Mathew is serving as the Chairman of NCTE.  While hearing the matter on 04.09.2017, the Court was informed by Shivam Singh, the counsel appearing for NCTE, that the Supreme Court has ordered for transfer of all the cases to the Supreme Court and hence, refrained from passing any order.

The Supreme Court will hear all the connected matters on 09.10.2017. [St. Paul Teacher Training College v. State of Bihar, Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 694/2017, order dated 01.09.2017]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the case where a Medical Institution was aggrieved the Government order dated 31.05.2017, which resulted into non-renewal of the permission to admit students for the academic year 2017-2018, the 3-judge bench of Dipak Misra, Amitava Roy and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ held that the order was non-reasoned and directed the Central Government to afford a further opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as per Section 10-A of the Medical Council Act, 1956 and also take the assistance of the Supreme Court mandated Oversight Committee. The matter will be taken up on 24.08.2017.

Stressing upon the need to have institutions which are worthy to impart medical education so that the society has not only qualified doctors but doctors with impeccable and sensitive qualities, the Court said that the objectivity of the Hearing Committee and the role of the Central Government assume great significance in this regard.  The real compliant institutions should not always be kept under the sword of Damocles. Stability can be brought by affirmative role played by the Central Government and the stability and objectivity would be perceptible if reasons are ascribed while expressing a view and absence of reasons makes the decision sensitively susceptible.

The Court said that the direction of the Central Government for compliance verification report should not be construed as a limited remand as is understood within the framework of Code of Civil Procedure or any other law. The distinction between the principles of open remand and limited remand is not attracted. It was clarified that it would be inapposite to restrict the power of the MCI by laying down as an absolute principle that once the Central Government sends back the matter to MCI for compliance verification and the Assessors visit the College they shall only verify the mentioned items and turn a blind eye even if they perceive certain other deficiencies. The Court said that the emphasis is on the compliant institutions that can really educate doctors by imparting quality education so that they will have the inherent as well as cultivated attributes of excellence. [IQ City Foundation v. UOI, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 842 decided on 01.08.2017]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the case where the Government of India order, by which the colleges/institutions have been directed not to admit students in the MBBS Course in the academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19, the 3-judge bench of Dipak Misra, Amitava Roy and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ said that a reasonable opportunity of hearing contained in the proviso to Section 10A(4) of Medical Council Act, 1956 is an indispensable pre-condition for disapproval by the Central Government of any scheme for establishment of a medical college and hence the Central Government should consider afresh the materials on record pertaining to the issue of confirmation or otherwise of the letter of permission granted to the petitioner colleges/institutions.

The Court further said that the Supreme Court Mandated Oversight Committee is empowered to oversee all statutory functions under the Act, and further all policy decisions of the MCI would require its approval and that its recommendations, to state the least, on the issue of establishment of a medical college, can by no means be disregarded or left out of consideration. The Court clarified that the Oversight Committee is also empowered the Oversight Committee to issue appropriate remedial directions.

The order that was challenged was the order dated 31.05.2017 of the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of Health and Family Welfare) whereby the conditional permission for the establishment of the medical colleges for the academic year 2016-17, granted on the basis of the approval of the Supreme Court Mandated Oversight Committee had been cancelled and the colleges have been debarred from admitting students in the next two academic years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19.

Asking the Central Government to re-evaluate the recommendations/views of the MCI, Hearing Committee, DGHS and the Oversight Committee, as available on records, the Court directed that the process of hearing and final reasoned decision should be completed within 10 days. The matter will next be taken up on 24.08.2017. [Glocal Medical College and Super Speciality Hospital & Research Centre v. UOI, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 846, order dated 01.08.2017]

 

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Upholding the Allahabad High Court decision quashing the Uttar Pradesh Government’s order regularizing the Shiksha Mitras, the bench of A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit, JJ said that the Shiksha Mitras cannot be regularized as teachers as the appointment of Shiksha Mitras was not only contractual, it was not as per qualification prescribed for a teacher nor on designation of teacher nor in pay scale of teachers.

Noticing that the Shiksha Mitras were never appointed as teachers as per applicable qualifications and are not covered by relaxation order under Section 23(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, they could not be appointed as teachers in breach of Section 23(1) of the said Act, the Court said that regularisation can only be of a mere irregularity and that the State is not competent to relax the qualifications.

However, in order to strike a balance between the claims of 1.78 Lakhs persons to be regularized in violation of law and the duty to uphold the rule of law and also to have regard to the right of children in the age of 6 to 14 years to receive quality education from duly qualified teachers, the Court said that It may be permissible to give some weightage to the experience of Shiksha Mitras or some age relaxation may be possible, but mandatory qualifications cannot be dispensed with.

It was held that the Shiksha Mitras should be given opportunity to be considered for recruitment if they have acquired or they now acquire the requisite qualification in terms of advertisements for recruitment for next two consecutive recruitments. They may also be given suitable age relaxation and some weightage for their experience as may be decided by the concerned authority. Stating that consideration for career of 1.78 lac Shiksha Mitras, over and above their legal right, cannot be at the cost of fundamental right of children to free quality education by duly qualified teachers in terms of legislative mandate, the bench said that even if for a stop gap arrangement teaching may be by unqualified teachers, qualified teachers have to be ultimately appointed.

Untrained Shiksha Mitras were appointed in the State of Uttar Pradesh under the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service (Nineteenth Amendment) Rules 2014. Terms of appointment for these Shiksha Mitras were relaxed and they appointed for imparting primary education without appearing for Teachers Eligibility Test. [State of U.P. v. Anand Kumar Yadav, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 792, decided on 25.07.2017]

Hot Off The PressNews

Delhi High Court: Coming down heavily upon the current Education system, the Court that the Education system has become completely dehumanised and has become a machine that mass produces clones as individuality is frowned upon now.

The Court was hearing the matter of the suicide committed by an Amity University student, Sushant Rohilla, on 10.08.2016 due to allegedly being harassed for low attendance. The Supreme Court had taken suo motu cognizance of the matter on 05.09.2016 after the former CJI, Jutice T.S. Thakur received a letter from the deceased student’s friend and had transferred the case to Delhi High Court in March earlier this year.

Considering the fact that the student was barred from sitting in exams due to low attendance, the Court said that despite the fact that the student approached the University for help as he wasn’t able to attend the classes due to health issues, there was no response to his pleas and he was forced to take his life because system was not in place in his University. The Court said that there was perhaps an element of callousness in how the University handled the deceased student’s cry for help before he took the extreme step.

Source: PTI

 

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the case where recognition application of an institute for the year 2017-2018 was rejected by National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) on the ground that the faculty list did not contain signatures on each and every page and only last page was signed by the Registrar of the affiliating body, the bench of Dr. A.K. Sikri and Deepak Gupta, JJ that recognition cannot be rejected on mere technical defects.

Considering the fact that the petitioner approached the Registrar of the affiliating body and the Registrar thereafter gave fresh list which is signed and stamped on each page, the Court said that the defect was purely of technical nature and that too beyond the control of the petitioner inasmuch as earlier list was approved by the Registrar of the affiliating body and it is the Registrar who failed to get the signatures on each page and that defect having been revised. The Court, hence, directed, the NCTE to issue recognition certificate to the petitioner. [ D.L.S. SHIKSHA MAHAVIDHYALAY v. NCTE, WRIT PETITION (C) NO.377 OF 2017, decided on 29.05.2017]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Refusing to entertain the PIL seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus and appropriate directions commanding the Union of India and all the States and Union Territories to incorporate detailed life history and teachings of all the ten Sikh Gurus along with Guru Granth Saheb in syllabus of all the classes in history books for teaching, the Court said the broad canvass that is sought to be painted in this petition does not come within the domain and sphere of the public interest litigation.

The Bench of Dipak Misra and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ said that what shall be taught in the schools or what shall be included in the syllabus of all classes cannot be directed by this Court in exercise of power of judicial review and also in exercise of power relating to entertaining public interest litigation where rule of locus is not insisted upon and the scope and ambit have been exercised. It was said any litigant should not feel, when he files a public interest litigation that his hope and aspirations for anything and everything deserves to crystalise. He should not harbour the feelings that for any idea to be fructified, he can knock at the doors of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. [Subhash Chander Katyal v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 465, order dated 24.04.2017]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the case where the a Dental College, upon failing to receive permission to start post-graduate course of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics along with four other specialties, had knocked the door of the High Court of Bombay and the High Court had passed an interim order stating that the admission process undertaken by the Institution is at the risk of the Institution and that the Institution shall intimate the order passed by this Court to the students who are intending to take admission for the Post-Graduate course, the Court said that High Court should not pass such interim orders in the matters of admission, more so, when the institution had not been accorded approval, as it brings in anarchy and chaos in the process of admission.

Considering it necessary to interfere with the order of the High Court, the bench of Dipak Misra and M.M. Shantanagoudar, JJ said that the High Court may feel that while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution, it can pass such orders with certain qualifiers as has been done by the impugned order, but it really does not save the situation. The institution might be directed to inform the students that the matter is sub judice, but the career oriented students get into the college with the hope and aspiration that in the ultimate eventuate everything shall be correct for them and they will be saved. It is a situation where the order has the potentiality to play with the career and life of young.

Taking note of the fact that by virtue of the said interim order, 3 students had been admitted and they are prosecuting their studies, the Court directed that those students shall be allowed to continue their courses, but their seats shall be adjusted from the academic session 2017-2018. Stating that the respondent-college cannot be allowed to get a premium, the Court, apart from the adjustment of seats for the next academic session, directed the respondent-college to deposit a sum of Rs. 30 Lakhs before the Registry of this Court within 8 weeks. The Court clarified that the said cost shall in no manner be recovered from the students who had been admitted nor shall it be collected from the students who will be admitted to the course in the next year.

The Court will take up the matter in the third week of July to ensure the compliance of the directions of the Court and to determine how to deal with the sum deposited by the respondent-college. [Dental Council of India v. Dr. Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal, Hingoli, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 376, decided on 11.04.2017]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the petition seeking quashing of admission notice issued by CBSE dated 31.1.2017 that stipulates the maximum age of 25 years as eligible candidates to undergo the NEET examination, the bench of Dipak Misra and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ said that, prima facie, such an age limit could not have been determined by way of a notice on the basis of the instructions issued by the Medical Council of India and that it is appropriate to direct that all the desirous candidates will be allowed to fill up the forms on the online portal of the CBSE on or before 5.4.2017.

It was contended by the petitioners that in the absence of Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India with regard to the age limit, by issuance of a notice, the age limit could not have been determined and that there are students who, after graduation, are also desirous of taking NEET examination to become doctors.

Directing that the online portal shall be opened from today evening, the Court said that if the competent authority of the CBSE seeks any logistic support from the agencies for having additional centres in the District, the Collector of the concerned District or the Commissioner of the City whoever is the authority will extend all the support so that the forms are accepted and the examinations are held on the date fixed by making different centres available.

The Court further clarified that if any High Court has passed any order contrary to the present order, the CBSE shall be bound by the order passed by this Court as far as the cut-off date is concerned. However, no High Court in the country shall interfere with regard to any litigation pertaining to choosing/allocation of centres.

The matter will be taken up in the second week of July, 2017 for final hearing. [Rai Sabyasachi v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 303, order dated 31.03.2017]

 

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the matter where the appellants had challenged the order cancelling the admissions to Medical Institutes in the wake of the VYAPAM Scam and had sought for direction allowing them to complete their education to satisfy the demands of justice as the future of 634 students was at stakes, the 3-judge bench of J.S. Khehar, CJ and Kurian Joseph and Arun Mishra, JJ said that the actions of the appellants, are founded on unacceptable behaviour, and in complete breach of the rule of law and hence, refused to invoke Article 142 of the Constitution.

The present controversy arose after the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board cancelled the results of the appellants admitted to the MBBS course during the years 2008 to 2012, on the ground that the appellants had gained admission to the course, by resorting to unfair means, during the Pre-Medical Test. The manipulation by which the appellants obtained admission involved, not only a breach in the computer system, whereby roll numbers were allotted to the appellants, to effectuate their plans. It also involved the procurement of meritorious candidates/persons, who would assist them, in answering the questions in the Pre-Medical Test. The appellants’ position, next to the concerned helper, at the examination, was also based on further computer interpolations. Not only were the seating plans distorted for achieving the purpose, even the institutions where the appellants were to take the Pre-Medical Test, were arranged in a manner, as would suit the appellants, again by a similar process of computer falsification.

On 12.05.2016, the bench of J. Chelameswar and A.M. Sapre, JJ had given a split decision and had placed the matter before the Chief Justice of India. Chelameswar, J was of the view that the knowledge of the appellants would be simply rendered useless for the society in the sense their knowledge cannot be utilized for the welfare of the society, said that the appellants be allowed to complete their education. Sapre, J, on the other hand, said that grant of any equitable relief may be construed as awarding premium to the appellants of what they did.

Agreeing with the view taken by Sapre, J, the Court said that the actions of the appellants constitute acts of deceit, invading into a righteous social order. Rejecting the argument that individual benefits, that may be drawn by the appellants, may be drastically curtailed, and their academic pursuit be regularised, for societal benefit, the Court said that national character cannot be sacrificed for benefits – individual or societal. It was held that even the trivialist act of wrong doing, based on a singular act of fraud, cannot be countenanced, in the name of justice. The present case, unfolds a mass fraud. The course suggested, if accepted, would not only be imprudent, but would also be irresponsible. It would encourage others, to follow the same course. The bench said that “If we desire to build a nation on the touchstone of ethics and character, and if our determined goal is to build a nation where only the rule of law prevails, then we cannot accept the claim of the appellants, for the suggested societal gains.” [Nidhi Kaim v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 123, decided on 13.02.17]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Dealing with an important question as to whether the process of appointment of a principal in minority institution is open to judicial review, the bench of A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit, JJ, held that while under the constitutional scheme, a “minority institution” is free to select and appoint a principal, without being bound by the principle of seniority alone, whether the appointment has been made fairly and reasonably and whether there is violation of right of an individual eligible candidate by the minority institution by not adopting fair procedure, is liable to be tested in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.

In the present case, where a person junior to the appellant, who was appointed as Incharge-Principal, in the absence of regular principal, was appointed to the post of principal of a minority institution, the Court said that the minority institution may not be compelled to go by seniority alone but it must follow a criterion which is rational.

Stating that the grievance of a citizen that he was treated unfairly cannot be ignored on the ground that a minority institution has autonomy or right of choice, the Court said that the exercise of right of choice has to be fair, non-discriminatory and rational. The Autonomy of a minority institution does not dispense with the requirement to act fairly and in a transparent manner and the High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review is entitled to examine fairness of selection process. [Ivy C. da. Conceicao v. State of Goa, 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 1040 , decided on 31.01.2017]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Showing concern over the fate of the student who has been deprived of admission to the MBBS course, despite he or she being meritorious, vigilant and diligent and thereby abandoning the path of recalcitrance and eventually being found flawless, is forced to suffer non-admission to the course for which he had aspired for and found suitable because of lapses committed either by the counselling authority or the administrating authority intrinsically connected with the process of admission; the bench of Dipak Misra and R.F. Nariman, JJ said that when the courts have gone to the extent of saying that for the fault of the court, the litigant should not suffer, it is unimaginable that for the fault of the administrators or the counselling body or for some kind of evil designer, grant of compensation should be regarded as the lone remedy.

Relying upon the 2-judge bench decision in Chandigarh Administration v. Jasmine Kaur, (2014) 10 SCC 521, the Medical Council of India contended that grant of compensation is the only possible remedy. The Court hence said that the aforementioned decision requires re-consideration by a larger bench as the redressal of a fundamental right, if one deserves to have, cannot be weighed in terms of grant of compensation only. Grant of compensation may be an additional relief. Confining it to grant of compensation as the only measure would defeat the basic purpose of the fundamental rights which the Constitution has conferred so that the said rights are sustained. It would be inapposite to recognize the right, record a finding that there is a violation of the right and deny the requisite relief. A young student should not feel that his entire industry to get himself qualified in the examination becomes meaningless because of some fault or dramatic design of certain authorities and they can get away by giving some amount as compensation. It may not only be agonizing but may amount to grant of premium either to laxity or evil design or incurable greed of the authorities. [S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 66, decided on 19.01.2017]

 

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Setting aside the admission of the petitioner to the Christian Medical College in the State of Chhattisgarh, the bench of Madan B. Lokur and P.C. Pant, JJ said that the Court cannot go against the orders passed by this Court from time to time only for the benefit of the students.

The petitioner and some other students had obtained admission to the medical college after clearing the CGMAT-2016. However, on 21.12.2010 a gazette notification was issued by the Medical Council of India amending the “Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997” to the effect, inter alia, that admissions to the MBBS course shall be based solely on marks obtained in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test.

The petitioner had contended that he had already been granted admission by the College after the examination CGMAT-2016 was conducted by the College and supervised and monitored by the State of Chhattisgarh and in which there were no allegations of impropriety, his admission should not be disturbed. Rejecting the said contention, the Court said that the question is not of any impropriety in the conduct of the examination but the question is really one of adhering to a particular discipline laid down by the Medical Council of India and approved by this Court. The Court said the plight of the petitioner is unfortunate but it cannot be helped.

Considering the fact that some similarly placed students participated in NEET and qualified in the examination, the Court said that those students who did not participate in NEET and placed their trust only in the College and the State of Chhattisgarh took a gamble and that gamble have unfortunately not succeeded. [Rishabh Choudhary v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 53, decided on 23.01.2017]