LexBHARATI VIDYAPEETH (DEEMED UNIVERSITY) AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-· 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 Education: Maharashtra State University Act: Section 65-Deemed university-Admission procedure-Powers of State 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- B c 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 necessar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.