- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Veterinary Council Of India v. State Of Karnataka
Judgment Summary — Bharuka, J.
Factual and Procedural Background
The Writ Petitions were filed seeking (a) quashing of the respondent University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore's communication dated 21.9.1995 (Annexure‑P) which informed the first petitioner that nine candidates nominated by it could not be admitted, and (b) a writ of mandamus directing the second and third respondents to comply with the Indian Veterinary Council Act ("the Central Act") and its Regulations and to admit the nominees sent by the first petitioner.
The first petitioner is the Veterinary Council of India (established under Section 3 of the Central Act). The second petitioner is one of the candidates recommended by the Council for admission to the respondent University's veterinary course (as per Annexure‑K).
The petitioners' case: the Council claimed a statutory entitlement to regulate admissions to the extent of 15% of intake in the Veterinary College pursuant to the Central Act and the Regulations (notably Regulation 5(8)), conducted an All India Common Entrance Test, and nominated nine candidates for admission. The University, by its communication of 21.9.1995, declined to admit those nine candidates.
The petitioners further relied on the University having (through its Academic Council and Board of Regents) resolved to implement the Council's Regulations, and asserted that the University Act obliged the University to admit students according to that pattern.
The matter came before the Court to determine whether the Council had statutory authority to regulate admissions and whether a mandamus could be issued compelling admission of the nominated candidates. The Court dismissed the Writ Petitions (see Holding below).
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Veterinary Council of India, under the Indian Veterinary Council Act (particularly Sections 22 and 66), has statutory authority to regulate admissions to veterinary colleges (including reserving and filling 15% of seats via All India examination).
- Whether resolutions of the Academic Council and the Board of Regents of the respondent University, adopting the Council's admission pattern, have statutory force under the University of Agricultural Sciences Act, 1963 (notably Sections 39 and 40), binding the University to admit nominees recommended by the Council.
- Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to compel the University to admit the candidates nominated by the Council — i.e., whether the petitioners have shown a statutory duty on the respondents and a corresponding legal right enforceable by mandamus.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The Veterinary Council of India claimed a statutory right under the Central Act to regulate admissions to the extent of 15% of the intake of veterinary colleges and a corresponding duty on the University to admit Council‑nominated candidates.
- Reliance was placed on Section 22 (minimum standards of veterinary education) read with Section 66 (power to make regulations) of the Central Act, and on Regulation 5(8) which, according to the petitioners, reserves 15% of seats to be filled on an All India basis via an entrance examination conducted by the Council.
- The Council published advertisements and conducted the All India Common Entrance Test, communicated the results to the University, and nominated nine candidates for admission (Annexures G, H, K).
- The petitioners further relied on internal University decisions: the Academic Council and Board of Regents had resolved to implement the Council's Regulations (Annexures E and F), and therefore the University was bound to admit the nominated students (invoking the University Act as source of obligation).
Respondents' Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents' legal arguments beyond the material facts and the Statement of Objections indicating that the draft Statutes had been forwarded to the Chancellor who had not accorded his approval.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Lekhraj Satramdas Lavani v. Deputy Custodian‑Cum‑Managing Officer, AIR 1966 SC 334 | Illustration of the principle that a writ of mandamus lies to compel performance of statutory duties where a statute imposes a legal duty and a legal right exists to enforce it. | The Court invoked this line of authority to state the established requirement that mandamus can be issued only where a statutory duty and enforceable right are shown; it then applied that requirement and found petitioners had not established such a statutory duty. |
| Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College, AIR 1962 SC 1210 | Authority on the limits and availability of mandamus to compel performance of statutory duties by authorities. | Used to support the legal standard that mandamus requires proof of a statutory duty and corresponding right; applied to conclude mandamus was not available to the petitioners here. |
| Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar, 1973 1 SCC 485 | Further precedent on the circumstances in which mandamus may be issued (requirement of statutory duty/right). | Reiterated by the Court as part of the authorities establishing the criterion for issuance of mandamus and applied to deny the remedy absent a statutory duty to admit the nominated students. |
| The Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co‑operative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh, 1977 4 SCC 145 | Authority affirming that mandamus may be granted only where a statutory duty exists and an enforceable right is shown. | Relied upon by the Court in reaching the conclusion that, because petitioners failed to demonstrate a statutory duty on respondents, mandamus could not be granted. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court conducted a textual and structural analysis of the Central Act and the University Act to determine whether any statutory duty arose in favour of the petitioners that could support issuance of mandamus.
Central Act analysis:
- The Court noted Section 22 authorises the Council to make regulations specifying minimum standards of veterinary education required for granting recognised veterinary qualifications. On a plain reading, Section 22 concerns minimum standards of education and recognition of qualifications, not regulation of admissions.
- Section 66 empowers the Council, with prior approval of the Central Government, to make regulations to carry out purposes of Chapters II–V and lists various matters; Section 66(1) and 66(2)(n) were considered. The Court observed that Chapters II–V deal with Council constitution, recognition of qualifications and minimum education standards, registration and privileges of practitioners, and professional discipline. There is no express provision empowering the Council to regulate admissions.
- Consequently, the Court concluded that the Regulations framed by the Council purporting to regulate admissions (including Regulation 5(8) reserving 15% seats) are advisory in nature and do not bind universities or veterinary institutions as a statutory command.
University Act analysis:
- The petitioners relied on internal University resolutions (Academic Council and Board of Regents) adopting the Council's admission pattern. The Court examined Sections 39 and 40 of the University of Agricultural Sciences Act concerning the making of Statutes (including statutes dealing with admission of students) and the prescribed procedure for making Statutes.
- The statutory process requires the Academic Council to propose draft Statutes to the Board, the Board to consider and approve, and the previous approval of the Chancellor is required before publication in the Official Gazette. The Court observed that, according to the Statement of Objections, the draft Statutes had been forwarded to the Chancellor but his approval had not yet been given.
- Because the Chancellor had not given previous approval and the Statutes had not been published in the Official Gazette, the Board's resolution lacked statutory force and did not bind the University to the admission pattern urged by the petitioners.
Mandamus analysis:
- The Court reiterated established law (citing authorities) that a writ of mandamus can be issued only to compel performance of a legal duty arising from statute, and only where the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce performance.
- Applying that principle, the Court found that petitioners failed to demonstrate any statutory duty on the part of respondents — neither the Central Act nor the University Act imposed a duty to admit the Council's nominees. Consequently, mandamus could not be granted.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Writ Petitions are dismissed. The Court held that the Veterinary Council of India did not have statutory authority under the Central Act to regulate admissions in the manner contended; the Regulations in question are advisory only, and the University was not statutorily bound to admit the nine candidates nominated by the Council. The Board's resolution lacked statutory force because the Chancellor's prior approval (and consequent gazette publication) had not been obtained. Because no statutory duty was shown, a writ of mandamus could not be issued. The petitions were dismissed without costs.
Implications:
- Direct effect: The Court refused the relief sought by the petitioners — the nominated nine candidates were not entitled to mandatory admission by way of writ of mandamus based on the materials before the Court.
- Legal consequence: The decision treats the Council's Regulations regarding admissions as advisory when there is no express statutory power to regulate admissions; internal University resolutions adopting those Regulations do not attain statutory force unless the statutory procedure for making Statutes (including Chancellor's approval and gazette publication) is complied with.
- Broader precedent: The opinion does not purport to lay down a novel principle beyond applying established requirements for mandamus and statutory interpretation; no new statutory power for the Council to regulate admissions was recognised.
Bharuka, J.:—
These Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the communication dated 21.9.1995 (Annexure-P) of the respondent - University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore under which it has been communicated to the First petitioner that the nine candidates nominated by it for admission to B.V Sc. and A.H Degrees cannot be admitted; as also for a Writ of Mandamus directing the second and third respondents to comply with the provisions of the Indian Veterinary Council Act (in short, ‘the Central Act’) and the Regulations made thereunder with special reference to take on rolls the nominees sent by the first petitioner.
2. The Veterinary Council of India (in short, ‘the Council’) which has been established under Section 3 of the Central Act is the first petitioner herein. The second petitioner is one of the candidates who has been recommended for admission to the course in the College of the respondent University as per the letter of the Council at Annexure-K.
3. Since in the present case the petitioner Council is claiming a statutory right of regulating admissions to the extent of 15% of the intake capacity of the Veterinary College of the respondent - University pursuant to the provisions of the Central Act and a corresponding duty on the part of the said University to abide by the said directions, it is necessary to examine the relevant statutory provisions in this regard. As is evident from the Preamble of the Central Act it has been enacted by the Parliament to regulate the Veterinary practice and to provide for the establishment of Veterinary Council of India and State Veterinary Councils and maintaining all registers of the Veterinary practitioners and for the matters connected therewith. The provisions of the Central Act covers two legislative fields as enumerated under Entry 15 of List II and Entry 25 of List III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The said legislative entries are to the following effect:
“List II (15) Preservation, Protection and improvement of stock and prevention of animal diseases; veterinary training and practice.
‘Preservation… improvement of stock’. This power enables the State Legislature to make a law to implement the directive contained in Article 48 to prohibit the slaughter of cows, calves and other milch and draught cattle.”
List III (25) Education, including technical education and universities, subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65, and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training of labour.”
4. Since the subject matter of the Central Act partly related to the State List, compliance to Article 252 of the Constitution was found to be necessary. Accordingly, the Legislative Assembly passed a Resolution or 16.1.1993 (Annexure-A) resolving to adopt the Central Act for the State of Karnataka. Consequently, as required under Section 1(3) of the said Act, the Central Government issued a Notification dated 17.12.1993 (Annexure-B) making the provisions of the Act applicable to the State of Karnataka.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the provisions contained under Section 22 read with Section 66 of the Central Act, the Council had framed Regulations, and the Regulation 5(8) thereof provides that 15% of total number of seats in every Veterinary College shall be reserved and filled on All India Basis through Common Entrance Examination to be conducted by the first petitioner. Their further case is that keeping in view the said Regulation, Petitioner-Council caused paper publication calling for applications to fill up the seats upto 15% thereof. A copy of one of such advertisement has been placed herein at Annexure-G. It is also said that the fact of holding of All India Common Entrance Test/Examination was brought to the notice of the Registrar of Agricultural University by a communication dated 5.6.1995 (Annexure-H). Pursuant to the said test and keeping in view the intake of the College of the second respondent, nine students were nominated for their admission therein. List of candidates have been placed at Annexure-K.
6. The grievance of the petitioners is that by their impugned communication dated 21.9.1995 (Annexure-P) the second respondent has illegally and arbitrarily refused to admit nine candidates recommended by the petitioner-Council.
7. The first question to be answered is as to whether the Council has any statutory authority to regulate the process of admission of students in the Veterinary Colleges. The relevant provisions of the Central Act through which it seeks to derive such an authority are Sections 22 and 66 of the Central Act. Section 22 relates to providing of a minimum standard of Veterinary Education and sub-section (1) thereof which is relevant for the present purpose reads as under:
“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.”
8. Similarly the relevant provision of Section 66 which confers power on the Council to make regulations reads as under:
“66(1) The Council may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, make regulations, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the rules made under Section 64, to carry out the purposes of Chapter II, III, IV and V.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:—
(a) to (m) xxxxxx
(n) any other matter for which under this Act provision may be made by regulations.”
9. 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 the 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. It is so because under Section 66(1) the Council can make Regulations to carry out the purpose of Chapters II, III, IV and V. Chapter II provides for establishment and constitution of Council as this Chapter also provides for power of Council regarding recognition of veterinary qualifications and laying down of minimum standards of veterinary education. Chapter III deals with the registration of Indian Veterinary Practitioners. Chapter IV provides for privileges of registered Veterinary Practitioners. And Chapter V deals with their professional discipline. Thus, there is no provision under the Central Act which empowers the Council to make Regulations for regulating the admissions of students to Veterinary Institutions. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that 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.
10. It has next been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that keeping in view the admission pattern formulated by the Council, the Academic Council as well as the Board of Regents for the respondent University had respectively resolved on 1.10.1994 (Annexure-E) and on 21.10.1994 (Annexure-F) to implement the Regulations formulated by the Council in respect of admission pattern for the students of the College/s. Accordingly, as submitted on behalf of the petitioners, the respondent-University is bound to admit the students as per the pattern set out by it, even under the provisions of the University of Agricultural Sciences Act, 1963 (in short, ‘the University Act’) to which it owes its existence.
11. For appreciation of this part of the submission it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of Sections 39 and 40 of the University Act. Section 39 sets out matters in respect of which Statutes can be framed; clause (n) thereof empowers making Statutes for admission of students to the University and their enrolment and continuance as such. Section 40 of this Act lays down the manner of making Statutes and it reads as under:
“40. Statutes how made:— (1) The first Statutes with regard to matters set out in Section 39 shall be made by the Vice-Chancellor with the approval of the Chancellor.
(2) The Board may from time to time make new or additional Statutes and may amend or repeal the Statutes in the manner hereinafter in this Section provided.
(3) The Academic Council may propose to the Board the draft of any Statute to be passed by the Board and such draft shall be considered by the Board at its next meeting:
Provided that the Academic Council shall not propose the draft of any Statute or of any amendment of Statute affecting the status, powers or constitution of any authority of the University, until such authority has been given an opportunity to express its opinion upon the proposal, and any opinion so expressed shall be considered by the Board.
(4) The Board may approve any such draft as is referred to in sub-section (3) and pass the Statute or reject it or return it to the Academic Council for reconsideration, either in whole or in part, together with any amendments which it may suggest.
(5) Any member of the Board may propose to the Board the draft of any Statute and the Board may either accept or reject the proposal if it relates to a matter not falling within the purview of the Academic Council. In case such a draft relates to a matter within the purview of the Academic Council, the Board shall refer it for consideration to the Academic Council, which may either report to the Board that it does not approve the proposal, which shall then be deemed to have been rejected by the Board, or submit the draft to the Board in such form as the Academic Council may approve, and the provisions of this Section shall apply in the case of a draft so submitted as they apply in the case of a draft proposed to the Board by the Academic Council.
(6) A new Statute or addition to the Statutes or any amendment or repeal of a Statute shall require the previous approval of the Chancellor who may sanction disallow or remit it for further consideration.
(7) Ever Statute made under this Act shall be published in the official gazette.”
12. The Board as defined under Clause (3) of Section 2 means the Board of Regents of the University. On going through the statutory procedures laid down for framing of Statutes under Section 40, it is clear that for the said purpose it is the Academic Council which has to propose to the Board a draft of any Statute to be passed by the Board, and, thereafter the said draft has to be considered by the Board in its second/subsequent meeting. Subject to the other provisions contained under Section 40, if the draft is approved by the Board, then, after obtaining previous approval of the Chancellor the same is required to be published in the Official Gazette. In the present case it has been stated in the Statement of Objections that subsequent to Resolution of the Board the draft Statutes have been forwarded to the Chancellor but he has not accorded his approval so far. In this view of the matter the Resolution of the Board cannot be said to have any statutory force and bind the University to abide by the pattern of admissions suggested by the Council.
13. It is well established that Writ of Mandamus can be issued for compelling performance of certain acts by the authorities provided it is shown that there is a statute which imposed a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance (see: Lekhraj Satramdas Lavani v. Deputy Custodian-Cum-Managing Officer . AIR 1966 SC 334., Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College . AIR 1962 SC 1210.; Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar . 1973 1 SCC 485; and The Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh . 1977 4 SCC 145).
14. In the present Case as discussed above, the petitioners have failed to show that either under the Central Act or the University Act the respondents have a statutory duty to admit the students nominated by the Council. As such no Writ of Mandamus, as prayed, can be issued. Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed but without any costs.
Alert