Case: Manipal University  Vs. Union Of India

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 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 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 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 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 an21772d Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 737 ( Para 43).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.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]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 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 totaldirection 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 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.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 an21772d Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 737 (  Para 43).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.