BHARTIYA HOMOEPATHY COLLEGE, BHARATPUR ETC versus STUDENTS COUNCIL OF HOMOEPATHY MEDICAL COLLEGE, JAIPUR AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 531 · Decided: 03-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

. BHAR TIY A HOMOEPATHY COLLEGE, BHARA TPUR ETC. 
A 
v. 
.,.. 
I 
STUDENTS COUNCIL OF HOMOEPATHY MEDICAL 
COLLEGE, JAIPUR AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 3, 1998 
B 
~ 
[MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
University of Rajasthan Act, 1946 : Sections 4(2)(15), 13(4), 22-
Homoepathic Colleges conducting B.HMS. course-Affiliated to Rajasthan 
Board of Homoepathic Medicine-Not affiliated to University-State c 
Governments proposal that all the colleges conducting the Course to be 
affiliated to the University-Applications for affiliation from 1987-88 session-
Grant of provisional affiliation from 1993-94 onwards-State Government 
withholding the Board from conducting examination-Vice-Chancellor's order 
directing the University to conduct examinations for students admitted prior D 
to 1993-94-0rder ratified by Syndicate-On challenge Single Judge of the 
High Court holding that the Students Council has no locus standi to file 
petition-However, Division Bench upholding the locus standi and setting 
aside the order of Vice-Chancellor-On appeal, held, Vice-Chancellor has 
• 
exercised the emergency power conferred upon him under the Act-University 
has power to hold examination and award degrees not only to persons who E 
have passed a course of study in the University or affiliated colleges but also 
to persons not belonging to affiliated colleges but who passed the 
examination-Thus no illegality in the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor-
Directions issued for allowing the students to complete their course and 
degrees be awarded to students qualified in the B.H.MS examination-
F 
Rajasthan Homoepathic Medicine Act, 1969-Homoepathy Central Council 
"l' 
Act, 1973-University Grants Commission Act, 1956. 
Constitution of India, I 950 : Articles 32 and 226-PIL-Maintainability 
of 
The appellants were Homoepathic Colleges affiliated to the Rajasthan G 
Board of Homoepathic medicine. The said Board was recognised under the 
... r 
Homoepathy Central Council Act, 1973 for a Diploma in Homoepathic 
Medicine & Surgery (D.H.M.S.) but not for a degree in B.H.M.S. The Board 
however continued to hold examination for the degree in B.H.M.S. The State 
Government wrote to the Registrar of University ofRajasthan stating that H 
531 
532 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] l S.C.R. 
A it would be desirable if all the classes of B.H.M.S. are conducted through the 
University and all the Colleges conducting the said course get themselves 
f 
affiliated to the University. Pursuant to the said proposal, the appellant-
Colleges applied for affiliation from 1987-1988 session. The State 
Government advised that till a final decision on the application was taken, 
B status quo may be maintained. In the meantime, for the purpose of affiliation, 
inspections were carried out by the University and the inspection reports 
were satisfactory. This Court in Unni Krishnan case* had held that by virtue 
of the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, no educational 
institution except a University was entitled to award degrees. The Central 
Council, therefore, requested the State to ask the Board not to award a 
C degree in B.H.M.S. henceforth. 
D 
In the meantime, pursuant to the application for affiliation made by the 
appellant-Colleges, the University granted provisional affiliation for the year 
1993-94 which was extended subsequently for the years 1994-95, 1995-96 
and 1996-97. The affiliation, however, did not cover the students who had 
taken admission prior to 1993-94 and were in the II, III and final year of the 
degree courses. ln view of the provisional affiliation, the State Government 
issued order directing the Board not to conduct B.H.M.S. examination. In 
order to protect the interest of the students who had taken admission prior 
to 1993-94, the Vice-Chancellor on the recommendation of Board oflnspection 
E allowed the University to conduct examinations of these students as per the 
existing syllabus. The said recommendations and order were ratified by the 
Syndicate at its meeting. 
F 
The respondent-Students Council filed a PIL challenging the order of 
the Vice-Chancellor, which was dismissed by Single Judge of the High Court 
holding that the respondent had no locus standi to file the petition. However, 
on appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court while holding that the 
respondent had locus sta11(/i to file such a petition, set aside the order of the 
Vice-Chancellor. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, this

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.