Non-Reportable  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No…8381 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.21772 of 2012)

MANIPAL UNIVERSITY & ANR. .... Appellant(s)

Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ….Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.

The instant Appeal arises from a Writ Petition No.12673 of

2005 filed by Manipal University (formerly known as Manipal

Academy of Higher Education and Others),  wherein the High

Court  disposed  off  the  Writ  Petition  giving  effect  to  the

directions  of  this  Court  in  PA  Inamdar  v.  State  of

  Maharastra  (2005)  6  SCC  537, until  suitable  law  or

regulation is made by the University Grants Commission (UGC)

or  Central  Government.   Aggrieved,  Manipal  University  has

1

preferred this Appeal.         

2. Two medical colleges were established by Manipal Academic

Higher  Education  in  1953  and  1955  at  Manipal  and

Mangalore. In the year 1978, the UGC recommended to the

first  Respondent  to  grant  status  of  Deemed  University  to

Manipal  Educational  Complex  consisting  of  medical  &

engineering colleges which was rejected on the ground of

paucity of funds.  The UGC enquired whether the Appellant

would  be  able  to  raise  the  resources  if  permission  was

granted for admission of foreign and Indian students in the

ratio of 60:40 and sought an undertaking to that effect.  The

Appellant informed the UGC that it would not seek any aid if

it was permitted to make admissions in the ratio of 60:40.

The first Respondent granted permission to the Appellant on

12.08.1991 to admit 350 foreign students out of total intake

of 550 students for that year.     

3. The first Respondent declared the Appellant as a Deemed

University on 01.06.1993.  Two medical colleges, two dental

colleges and one nursing college at Manipal and Mangalore

were part of the Appellant University. The General Body of

the  second  Respondent  considered  the  continuance  of

recognition  of  MBBS  degree  granted  by  the  Appellant  on

2

27.08.2002.  The Appellant was asked to show cause why

action should not be initiated for making admissions to the

NRI quota in excess of 15 per cent of the intake in violation

of the directions of this Court.   After consideration of the

explanation of the Appellant, the Second Respondent by its

letter  on  27.09.2002  requested  the  first  Respondent  to

withdraw the  recognition  of  MBBS degree  granted  by  the

second Respondent for  not  following the directions of  this

Court regarding the admission of NRI/foreign students.  The

first Respondent did not take any action as recommended by

the Second Respondent.   

4. Thereafter,  the  second  Respondent  by  its  letter  dated

08.02.2005 directed the Appellant not to make admissions in

the NRI quota for 37 seats in the year 2005-2006, 37 seats

for the year 2006-2007 and 29 seats for the year 2007-2008

in Kasturba Medical College, Manipal.  It was stated in the

said letter that the said direction was being issued to offset

the undue advantage gained by the Appellant by admitting

103 students in MBBS course in excess of the permissible 15

per cent NRI  quota.    A  reference was made to an order

passed by this Court on 09.08.2004 in Islamic Academy v.

3

State  of  Karnataka  (2003)  6  SCC  697,  wherein

permission was granted to private unaided colleges to admit

NRI students to the extent of 15 per cent of the available

seats.    The second Respondent also referred to an order

passed by this Court on 30.08.2004 in I.A. Nos.19-20 of in

SLP  No.11244  of  2004  (R.L.  Minority  Profession  Colleges

Association  v.  State  of  Karnataka  and  Ors.).   By  the  said

order  dated 30.08.2004 this  Court  permitted admission of

NRI/foreign students against 15 per cent of the management

quota seats in respect of medical,  engineering and dental

courses in minority unaided professional colleges.    

5. The Appellant challenged the directions issued by the second

Respondent by its letter dated 08.02.2005 in the High Court

of Karnataka by filing Writ Petition 12673 of 2005. The High

Court accepted the contention of the Appellant and held that

Section 10-A of the Medical Council Act confers power on the

second Respondent to determine the intake capacity only.  It

was further held that the second respondent did not have

the  power  to  regulate  admissions  to  sub  categories.

According to the High Court, the second Respondent lacked

jurisdiction to determine the quota for NRIs/foreign students.

4

The High Court was aware that the letter impugned in the

Writ  Petition  was  on  08.02.2005  which  was  prior  to  the

judgment of this Court in PA Inamdar’s case. However, the

High Court held that the directions issued by this Court bind

all  parties  concerned.   As  the  Appellant  admitted  NRI

students in excess of 15 per of the intake capacity, the High

Court held that the Appellant was not entitled to the relief

prayed for.  The said judgment of the High Court is assailed

by the Appellant in this Appeal.  

6. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

Appellant  submitted  that  the  second  Respondent  lacked

jurisdiction to direct reduction of the intake of NRI seats for

the  year  2005  to  2008.   Admittedly,  the  MCI  is  not

competent to determine and interfere with the admission to

sub categories and the internal quota for reserved categories

and NRIs.  The direction issued by the second Respondent

not to make admission to NRI seats amounts to interference

with  the  quota  which  is  liable  to  declared  as  illegal  as  it

suffers  from  the  vice  of  lack  of  jurisdiction.   He  further

submitted  that  the  High  Court  erred  in  holding  that  the

directions issued in  PA Inamdar’s case are applicable to

the  Appellant  retrospectively.   According  to  him,  the

5

directions  issued  in  PA Inamdar are  not  applicable  to  a

Deemed University.   He also urged that the said directions

cannot operate retrospectively.   

7. Mr.  Vikas Singh,  learned Senior  Counsel  appearing for  the

second  Respondent  conceded  that  the  Medical  Council  of

India  does not  have the power  to  fix quotas  for  reserved

categories  and  NRIs.    However,  Mr.  Singh  relied  upon

Regulation 5 of the Medical Council of India Regulations on

Graduate  Medical  Education,  1997  to  contend  that  the

selection  of  students  to  medical  colleges  shall  be  based

solely on the merit of the candidates.   He submitted that

interim orders were passed by this Court from the year 1994

permitting admissions to NRI/foreign students to the extent

of 15 per cent of the total intake.   He further submitted that

in case admissions are made to NRI seats in excess of the 15

per  cent  of  the  intake,  the  quota  reserved  for  other

categories  will  be  reduced  adversely  affecting  the  merit

based  selection.    He  also  submitted  that  the  1997

Regulations  empower  the  second  Respondent  to  issue

suitable  directions  to  ensure  merit  based  selections.

Therefore, the second Respondent was competent to issue

directions to restrict admissions to NRI seats for the years

6

2005 to 2008.  He relied upon a judgment of this Court in

Mridul  Dhar  v.  Union  of  India  (2008)  17  SCC  435,

wherein  it  was  held  that  excess  admission  made  by  an

institution  in  the  management  quota  can  be  offset  by

reduction  of  seats  in  the  succeeding  years.   He  further

submitted that there was no need for the second Respondent

to challenge the findings of the High Court that Section 10-A

of  the  Medical  Council  Act  does  not  confer  power  on  the

second Respondent to regulate or supervise the admissions

to sub categories.  

8. The issues before us are:-

I. Whether  the  MCI  is  the  competent authority/justified  to  issue  direction disallowing  the  Appellant  to  make admissions in the NRI quota for three years?

II. Whether the decision in PA Inamdar (supra) operates retrospectively with respect to the letter dated 08.02.2005?

III. Whether the decision in PA Inamdar applies to  Deemed  Universities  or  only  to  private colleges?  

9. There is no doubt that the Appellant was granted the status

of a Deemed University in the year 1993.  There is also no

controversy  about  the  directions  issued  by  this  Court

7

regarding pegging of the NRI quota in medical colleges at 15

per cent.  Admittedly, the Appellant has made admissions to

NRI quota beyond 15 per cent.  Both sides agree that the

Medical Council of India does not have the power to fix the

quotas  to  sub  categories  within  the  total  intake.   The

principal  question  that  arises  for  our  consideration  is

regarding  the  correctness  of  the  directions  issued  by  the

second Respondent to the Appellant not to fill up 103 seats

in  the  category  of  NRI/foreign  students  during  the  years

2005 to 2008.

10. Determination of a quota for NRI seats is beyond the domain

of  the  second  Respondent.   The  direction  given  by  the

second Respondent by its letter dated 08.02.2005 directing

the Appellant not to make admissions in the NRI quota to the

extent of 103 seats during the years 2005 to 2008 amounts

to interfering with the quota.    We do not agree with the

submission  made  by  Mr.  Vikas  Singh  that  the  second

Respondent  has  power  to  issue  such  directions  in  the

interest of merit based selection as provided by Regulation 5

of the 1997 Regulations.   It is no doubt true that the second

Respondent  has  a  duty  to  ensure  merit  based  selections.

However,  no  direction  can  be  issued  by  the  second

8

Respondent interfering with the regulation or supervision of

sub  categories.    The  direction  issued  by  the  second

Respondent by its letter dated 08.02.2005 is ultra vires and

is  liable  to  be  declared  illegal.   Exercise  of  power  by  an

authority  has  to  be  within  the  contours  conferred  by  the

statute and for the purpose of promoting the objectives of

the statute.   There  is  no express  power  conferred on the

second Respondent  in  the  Medical  Council  of  India  Act  to

interfere in  allocation of  quotas for  sub categories.  In  the

facts and circumstances of this case it is not possible to hold

that the second Respondent has power to issue directions

pertaining to NRI quota even by reasonable implication.   It is

relevant to refer to a judgment of the  House of Lords in

Baroness Wenlock v. River Dee Co., (1885) 10 AC 354

at 362:

"But I cannot assent to the doctrine which was contended  for  by  Mr.  Rigby.  Whenever  a corporation is created by an Act of Parliament, with reference to the purposes of the Act,  and solely  with  a  view to  carry  on  these purposes into execution, I am of opinion, not only that the objects which the Corporation may legitimately pursue must be ascertained from the Act itself, but that the powers which the corporation may lawfully use in furtherance of these objects must either  be  expressly  conferred  or  derived  by reasonable implication from its provisions. That appears to me to be the principle recognised by this  House  in Ashbury  Company  v.  Riche (Law

9

Rep. 7 H.L. 653) and in Attorney-General v. Great Eastern Railway Company (5 App. Cas. 473)”.

11. There is  no dispute that  this  Court  permitted the  Medical

Colleges to admit NRI students to the extent of 15 per cent

of their quota.  There is also no dispute that the Appellant

made admissions beyond 15 per cent to the NRI quota of the

total  intake.    The  question  is  whether  the  second

Respondent has jurisdiction to restrict admissions to the NRI

quota on the ground that the Appellant acted in violation of

the  interim  orders  of  this  Court.   The  Appellant  being  a

Deemed University is governed by the provisions of the UGC

Act  and  the  competent  authority  to  take  any  action  for

violation of the provisions of the Act regarding maintenance

of standards is the Commission.

12. The  1997  Regulations  obligate  the  second  Respondent  to

ensure  merit  based  selection  to  admissions  in  medical

colleges.   However,  the  second  Respondent  cannot  issue

directions  interfering  with  the  quota  in  the  guise  of

exercising power under Regulation 5 of the said Regulations.

It is settled law that what cannot be done directly, cannot be

done indirectly. See State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.  v. K.

Shyam Sunder and Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 737  (Para 43).  

10

13. As we have held that that the direction issued by the second

Respondent in its letter 08.02.2005 is vitiated as it suffers

from the vice of lack of jurisdiction, it  is not necessary to

deal  with  the  other  submissions  made  on  behalf  of  the

Appellant.  We also take note of the fact that the direction

issued by the Medical Council of India was not implemented

either for the years 2005 to 2008 or thereafter.   

14. For the aforementioned reasons, the direction issued by the

second Respondent to the Appellant not to make admissions

to the extent of 103 NRI seats for the years 2005 to 2008 is

declared ultra vires and without jurisdiction.  The Appeal is

allowed.  No costs.          

              ........................................J                 [S. A. BOBDE]

                  ..……................................J                                                                [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

New Delhi, July 3, 2017

11

ITEM NO. 1501                COURT NO. 8           SECTION IV-A   (For judgment)                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal ©. No(s) 21772/2o12 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19.12.2011 in WP No. 12673/2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore)                                           MANIPAL UNIVERSITY AND ANR.                            Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS UNION OF IDNIA AND ANR.                          Respondent(s) Date : 03/07/2017   This matter was called on for  

   pronouncement of judgment today.

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Dhawal Mohan, Adv. Mr. Amandeep Kaur, Adv. Mr. Prateek Bhatia, Adv. Ms. Vara Gaur, Adv. Mr. G.S. Makker, Adv.

                                                          –--

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  L.  Nageswara  Rao pronounced  the  judgment  of  the  Bench  comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde and His Lordship. Leave granted. The appeal is allowed .  No costs.

[ Charanjeet Kaur ]      [ Indu Kumari Pokhriyal ]       A.R.-cum-P.S.              Branch Officer  [  Signed  non-reportable  judgment  is  placed

on the file ]

12