1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE3D DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.7482 OF2020(EDN-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.9236 OF2020(EDN-RES) IN W.P.NO.7482/2020: BETWEEN:
1. MOOGAMBIGAI CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST ®, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DR S VIJAYANAND, S/O G SHANMUGAM, AGED ABOUT36YEARS, NO.202, KAMBIPURA, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU-560074.
2. RAJA RAJESHWARI MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEAN DR B SATHYAMURTHY, S/O SRI K V BURLY, AGED ABOUT65YEARS, NO.202, KAMBIPURA, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU-560074.
3. DR MGR EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR DR C B PALANIVELU, S/O LATE SRI C K BALAKRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT52YEARS, DR MGR EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, PERIYAR EVR HIGHWAY, MADURAVOYAL, CHENNAI-600095. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. A S PONNANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. LEELA P DEVADIGA, ADVOCATE) 2 AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA, BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, ICR DIVISION, SHASHTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.
2. THE JOINT SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, ICR DIVISION, NEW DELHI.
3. MEMBER SECRETARY, ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, NELSON MANDELA MARG, VASANTKUNJ, NEW DELHI-110070.
4. THE SECRETARY, MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, POCKET14 SECTOR-8, DWARAKA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110075.
5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.
6. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE, MEDICAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, 6TH FLOOR, GATE NO.4, M S BUIDLING, BENGALURU-560001.
7. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU. 3
8. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES KARNATAKA, BY ITS REGISTRAR, 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU.
9. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC) BY ITS SECRETARY, BAHADHUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.MADHAVI.R, CGC FOR R1 TO R2; SRI.H.R.SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI.N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. N SUBRAMANYA, AAG A/W SMT. PRAMODINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R5 TO R7; SRI.N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R8; SRI. RAKSHITH JOIS, ADVOCATE FOR R9) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DTD1605.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-6 VIDE ANNX-T, AS BEING ILLEGAL AND VOIDAB INITIO AND ETC. IN W.P.NO.9236/2020: BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, 6TH FLOOR, GATE NO.4, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R SUBRAMANYA, AAG A/W SMT. PRAMODINI KISHAN, AGA) 4 AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA, BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, ICR DIVISION, SHANSHTRI BHAVAN NEW DELHI – 110001.
2. THE JOINT SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOUCE DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, ICR DIVISION, NEW DELHI – 110001.
3. THE MEMBER SECRETARY, ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, NELSON MANDELA LMARG, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110070.
4. THE SECRETARY, MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, POCKET14 SECTOR-8, DWARAKA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110075.
5. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC), BY ITS SECRETARY, BAHADHUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110002.
6. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, KARNATAKA, BY ITS REGISTRAR, 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 074.
7. MOOGAMBIGAI CHARITABLA AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR , DR.S. VIJAYANAND, AGED ABOUT36YEARS, NO.202, KAMBIPURA, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU-560074. 5
8. RAJA RAJESHWARI MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS DEAN DR.B SATHYAMURTHY S/O SRI K.V BURLY AGED ABOUT65YEARS NO.202, KAMBIPURA MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU-560074.
9. DR MGR EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, DR.CB. PALNIVELU, S/O LATE SRI C.K BALAKRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT52YEARS, DR.MGR EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE, (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY), UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, PERIYAR EVR HIGHWAY, MADURAVOYAL, CHINNAI-600095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.MADHAVI.R, CGC FOR R1 TO R2; SRI. H.R.SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. RAKSHITH JOIS, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. N K RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R6; SRI. A S PONNANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. LEELA P DEVADIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R9) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DTD1402.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNX-Q. THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER, THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
6.
ORDERIn W.P.No.7482/2020, Moogambigai Charitable & Educational Trust, Bangalore (hereafter 'Moogambigai Trust') is the 1st Petitioner; the said Trust having established the 2nd Petitioner-College at Bangalore, has been administering the same; the 3rd Petitioner happens to be a 'Deemed to be University' (hereafter '3rd Petitioner-University') established & administered by another like Trust namely, 'M/s Dr.MGR Educational & Research Institute Trust', Chennai, (hereafter 'MGR Trust'); the essential grievance in this Writ Petition is that, because of the impugned orders/decisions, the 2nd Petitioner-College would not be able to function as a full- fledged constituent institution of the 3rd Petitioner- University, despite Central Government's Notification dated 14.02.2019 at Annexure-P1 (hereafter 'Inclusion Notification’), issued in terms of the extant UGC Regulations.
2. The Petitioners in the above Writ Petition thus seek to lay a challenge to the 'communication' dated 16.05.2019 at Annexure-T issued by the 6th Respondent-State Government, whereby, 8th Respondent (hereafter 'State Health University') has been directed not to accord disaffiliation to the 2nd Petitioner-College; they also call in question the 'decision' 7 dated 29.06.2019 at Annexure-Q of the State Health University declining disaffiliation; this apart, the constitutional validity of section 5 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 which allegedly comes in the way of inclusion of 2nd Petitioner-College as a constituent institution of the 3rd Petitioner-University, and of securing disaffiliation from the Health University is also questioned.
3. In W.P.No.9236/2020, the State of Karnataka and it's Director of Medical Education being the Petitioners, are calling in question the aforesaid Inclusion Notification, issued by the Central Government whereby the aforesaid 2nd Petitioner-College has been included ‘under the ambit of the 3rd Petitioner- University’ as already mentioned above; it is issued in terms of Regulation 13 of UGC [Institutions Deemed to be Universities]. Regulations, 2016 (hereafter “UGC Regulations”); the State contends that its objection to the proposal for inclusion has not been adverted to and that even otherwise, Inclusion Notification could not have been issued, the conditions precedent for its issuance, apparently lacking. 8
4. After service of notice, the opposing parties have entered appearance through their respective counsel; the State Govt. has filed its objections to the Writ Petition of Moogambigai Trust; similarly, this Trust has registered its objections to the Writ Petition of the State Govt.; the MCI has filed its pleadings/addl. pleadings substantially supporting the case of State Govt.; however, the Central Govt. & the UGC being the answering-official respondents, have chosen not to file the Statement of Objections although the CGC appearing for the Central Govt. and the Panel Counsel representing the UGC have made their submissions in justification of the Inclusion Notification.
5. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: (a) Moogambigai Trust and MGR Trust are alleged to have the same person as the Managing Trustee, and same individuals as their Trustees, barring a frugal few; the former having established the 2nd Petitioner-College, has been administering the same; the latter having founded the 3rd Petitioner-University, has been managing its administration; the said University in terms of UGC Regulations, had applied for the inclusion of 2nd Petitioner-College under its ambit; the UGC on the basis of its Expert Committee opinion 9 recommended the case for inclusion; but the State Govt. and later the State Health University had opposed the proposal for inclusion; this, they had done way back in 2017 as well, is their contention in the Objection Statement; despite that, the Central Govt. permitted the 'inclusion' of 2nd Petitioner- College under the ambit of 3rd Petitioner-University. (b) After the issuance of the Inclusion Notification, the 3rd Petitioner-University has admitted the students both for undergraduate & postgraduate courses disregarding the objection of the State Health University which at the instance of the State Govt. had declined to grant disaffiliation of the 2nd Petitioner - College; because of this, the Petitioners in W.P.No.7482/2020 grieve that the 2nd Petitioner-College is not in a position to function as a constituent institution of the 3rd Petitioner-University despite issuance of the Inclusion Notification; this is how the said Writ Petition appears to have been structured in terms of language & legal content, the pleadings of these Petitioners lack a bit, is beside the point. (c) As stated above, the State Govt. in it's W.P.No.9236/2020, complains against the impugned Notification of the Central Govt. which permitted inclusion of 10 2nd Petitioner-College under the ambit of 3rd Petitioner- University contending that its views in serious opposition thereto have not been considered by the UGC and have remained un-adverted to by the Central Govt., as well; a host of factors entered the decision of the State Govt. to oppose inclusion which has several implications of public interest of the State in general and concerns of the students of the College, in particular; the same has been issued in gross violation of the provisions of law, governing the matter, contends the State Govt..
6. With the concurrence of the Bar, these Writ Petitions were clubbed together and taken up for final hearing; the fate of W.P.No.7482/2020 filed by the Moogambigai Trust was essentially dependent upon the outcome of the State Govt.'s case in W.P.No.9236/2020; having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is inclined to allow the Writ Petition of the State Govt. and dismiss that of the Moogambigai Trust, for the following reasons: (I) As to exclusive jurisdiction of the Apex Court under Article 131 of the Constitution, in disputes between Central Government and State Governments:
11. (a) In W.P.No.9236/2020 the State of Karnataka and its Director of Medical Education are the petitioners; the Union of India and its Joint Secretary of HRD along with some others happen to be the respondents; apparently, in view of the provisions of Article 131 of the Constitution of India, some doubt arose in the mind of this Court as to the maintainability of said writ petition, although none of the parties in their pleadings or submissions mentioned about the same; it is profitable to reproduce Article 131, for the ease of reference: “Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (marginal note to the Article) Art.
131. Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute (a) between the Government of India and one or more States; or (b) between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other; or (c) between two or more States, if and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends:” (Proviso to this Article not being relevant, is not reproduced) 12 (b) Going by the text & context of this Article, it can be stated that the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in disputes as to the existence of a legal right between the Union and the States, or between the States inter se, is exclusive, subject to constitutional exceptions; going by its intent & content, this Article would ordinarily be attracted only when the dispute arises between or amongst the States and the Union in their constitutional capacity, stricto sensu as contradistinguished from other capacities, of course subject to all just exceptions; it is a constitutional conferment of jurisdiction in regard to certain specified matters which are required to be decided by the Apex Court by reason of the nature of the “differences and disputes” that may crop up in the functioning of a federal structure like ours; in a constitutional set up based on the federal principle, sovereignty having been divided between the federation and the units, obviously disputes arise inter se; this conferment of jurisdiction is under special circumstances and for special reasons having the concept of justice as being the predominant factor that appears to have prompted the Makers of our Constitution to enact such a provision in the Primary Document; the Apex Court in STATE OF13KARNATAKA vs. UOI, (1977) 4 SCC608observed “… Disputes of the nature described in Article 131 are usually of an urgent nature and their decision can brook no delay. It is therefore, expedient in the interest of justice that they should, as far as possible, be brought before and decided by this Court so as to obviate the dilatoriness of a possible appeal. An original proceeding decided by this Court is decided once and for all”. (c) The Apex Court in Karnataka Case supra also observed that: a demarcation and definition of constitutional power between the rival claimants and restricted to them and therein alone is what a proceeding under Article 131 necessarily involves; the object of Article 131 is to provide a high powered machinery for ensuring that the Central Government and the State Govts. at within the respective spheres of their authority and do not trespass upon each others’ constitutional functions or powers; although the import of this Article is wide, its invokability depends upon the dispute involving in its centrality any question on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends; in the cases at hands, there is no much dispute about the existence or extent of power/right availing to the Central Govt., the UGC14Regulations being crystal clear, in this regard; but what is in dispute is the adherence to the procedure prescribed by these Regulations; this apart, it is not a case only between the State and the Centre, as the Cause Titles in both the writ petitions exhibit; there are a few others too in the array of parties, on either side; such cases do not fall in the ‘dispute’ as contemplated under Article 131; Mr. H.M.Seervai in his treatise “Constitutional Law of India” 4th Edition (Tripathi) at page 2635 of his treatise, writes: “… Under Article 131 there are only two limitations to the exercise of the Sup. Ct.’s jurisdiction, namely, that the suit or proceeding should be between the parties specified under Article 131 and the dispute between those parties must relate to a legal right…”; therefore, the State of Karnataka is entitled to maintain the writ petition for laying a challenge to the Inclusion Notification. (II) As to scheme of law relating to inclusion of institutions in the ambit of Deemed to be University: (a) The extant Regulations as amended in 2016 have been promulgated by the UGC in exercise of powers conferred under clauses (f) & (g) of sub-section (1) of section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956; principally, they provide for the procedure for granting the status of 'Deemed 15 to be University' on the institutions of higher education of repute engaged in teaching & research which fulfill the prescribed standards and comply with various requirements laid down by the UGC; incidentally, they also provide for the inclusion of other educational institutions in the ambit of Deemed to be Universities; on inclusion, such institutions become the constituent colleges of the University, concerned; going by the intent & content of these Regulations, one can safely conclude that they are mandatory, subject to all just exceptions; fairly enough, this position is not much disputed at the Bar. (b) Essentially the case & counter case of the parties are governed by the provisions of Regulation 13 read with Regulation 8, is the submission of the Bar; therefore, the examination of scheme of the law, in brief is undertaken; Regulation 13.0 has a heading which reads "INCLUSION OF OTHER INSTITUTIONS UNDER THE AMBIT OF INSTITUTION DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY"; Regulation 13.01 has the following text: “13.01: An institution deemed to be university may apply, in the proforma prescribed by the Commission, for inclusion of institutions existing under the same management as its constituent institution after confirmation of its declaration as an 16 institution deemed to be university, as mentioned under article 8.12. The application shall also be submitted online on UGC website."
Under this provision, a Deemed to be University can apply for inclusion of the institutions as its constituent colleges if both the said University and the institutions in question, are under the very same management; this is apparent from the expression "institutions existing under the same management" employed not only in this Regulation but also in Regulation 13.03; Regulation 13.02 requires the Deemed to be University to comply with the conditions as may be prescribed by the UGC for preventing franchising of education. (c) Regulation 13.03 prescribes disaffiliation from the affiliating University as a pre-condition for including the concerned institution/college in the ambit of Deemed to be Universities; even after disaffiliation, the students already admitted to the courses shall continue with the same affiliation and therefore, it is the affiliating University that awards degrees to them as provided in Regulation 13.03 which aspect is amplified in Regulation 13.12; Regulation 13.04 speaks of accreditation of the institutions included in the ambit of Deemed to be University; Regulation 13.05 has the following language:
17. "13.05: An institution deemed to be university intending to bring an institution within its ambit as its constituent institution shall submit a proposal, in duplicate, in the proforma prescribed by the Commission, to the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Higher Education) Government of India, subject to the said institution fulfilling the eligibility criteria and other relevant conditions stipulated under these Regulations. The application shall also be submitted online on UGC website."
This provision states that a Deemed to be University can submit to the Central Govt. a proposal in the UGC proforma for the inclusion of an institution in its ambit. (d) Regulation 8.05 enables the UGC to recommend rejection of incomplete applications; Regulation 13.10 empowers the Central Govt. to reject the applications in terms of such recommendations; Regulation 13.16 bars making of fresh application for inclusion till two years expire after the earlier one is rejected; on the contrary, if eligibility conditions are satisfied, the proposal for inclusion of the institutions shall be referred by the HRD Ministry to the UGC within thirty days, says Regulation 13.06; the UGC in terms of Regulation 13.07 forwards the same to its Expert Committee for examination as per Regulation 8.06 keeping in view the parameters contemplated in Regulation 8.07, the Expert 18 Committee after the examination shall submit its report to the UGC in terms of Regulation 13.08 which reads:
"13.08: The Commission shall verify all the relevant factors and aspects through its Expert Committee before making a suitable recommendation to the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India."
The above provision being as clear as Gangetic waters admits no interpretation. (e) Then comes the stage for the invocation of Regulation 13.09 which has the following script:
"13.09: The inspection report as well as the recommendation of the Expert Committee along with the opinion/comments of the Statutory/Regulatory body concerned and the views, if any, of the State Government concerned shall be examined by the Commission as per procedure before making recommendation to the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India."
The text & context of this Regulation coupled with Regulations 8.05 & 8.11, mandate consideration by the UGC, of the views of the State Govt. and of the Statutory/Regulatory bodies like MCI, etc., a sine qua non for sending its recommendation to the Central Govt.; it is relevant to note that all the above provisions of Regulation 13 r/w Regulations 8.05, 8.11 & 8.11.1 which amongst other are 19 by reference made applicable, assign an important role and responsibility to the State Govt. even in the matter of inclusion of an educational institution in the ambit of a Deemed to be University. (f) The provisions of Regulations 8.11 & 8.11.1, going by their language, normally become applicable where an institution is seeking the status of a Deemed to be University, is true; however, Regulation 13.11 mandates the Central Govt. to follow the procedure prescribed in Regulation 8 (Article 8, sic); these provisions being very pertinent, are reproduced below:
"8.11: Each State/UT Government shall formulate a transparent policy for giving its views under article 8.05 and shall send their considered comments, in the proforma prescribed by the Commission, within 60 days, to the Commission and the Central Government, with a copy to the institution concerned. In case no such comments are received by the Commission within 60 days of the issue of the letter, it shall be presumed that the State/UT Government have no comments to offer on the application. 8.11.1: The State/UT Government recommending the proposal would have to indicate its willingness to safeguard the interest of the students to be admitted to the deemed to be university in the event it ceases to exist as such, for any reason whatsoever. "
2. As is apparent, Regulation 8.05 requires the UGC to write to the State Govt. concerned 'to elicit its views on the application' i.e., the claim for inclusion of an institution; Regulation 8.11 mandates the State Govt. concerned to send within sixty days its 'considered comments' both to the UGC and the Central Govt. with a copy marked to the institution concerned; if no comments are sent within sixty days, the Rule presumes that the State Govt. has no comments to offer. (g) What is intriguing is the language of Regulation 8.11.1; true it is, that if viewed as a stand-alone provision and construed textually, its application is confined to the cases wherein the status of Deemed to be University, is sought for; however, because of its reference in Regulation 13.11, the same also extends to the cases wherein a claim is laid for the inclusion of an institution in the ambit of a Deemed to be University; it is profitable to reproduce the relevant part of this Regulation, the remainder thereof being not significant to the case at hands:
"13.11 After taking the relevant steps of the procedure prescribed in article 8, the Central Government shall notify the inclusion of the institution under the ambit of the institution deemed to be university ..."
21 Going by the intent & content of Regulations 8.05, 8.06, 8.07, 8.11 & 8.11.1, this court assumes that the term “note of” needs to be read into immediately after the expression “After taking” with which Regulation 13.11 begins; it is so because, there is no step to be taken by the Central Govt. till after the stage contemplated by these provisions of Regulation 8, is accomplished by the UGC, on a claim for including an institution in the ambit of a Deemed to be University is made as distinguished from a claim for the grant of a status of 'Deemed to be University'. (h) As rightly submitted by learned AAG Mr. Subramanya, an argument in variance with the above that the application of Regulation 8.11.1 is confined only to a claim for the grant of status of 'Deemed to be University' and does not extend to claim for the inclusion of an institution in its ambit, if countenanced, would imperil the interest of the students of the institution which is comprised in the Inclusion Notification, in the event the said University 'ceases to exist as such, for any reason whatsoever'; a literal construction of the said provision would selectively defeat its underlying object of protecting the interest of the students, which a purposive construction thereof would achieve; in fact, 22 the UGC, presumably for the same reason, has reproduced inter alia this Regulation in so many words in its letter dated 15.11.2018 whereby the views of the State Govt. were solicited; these provisions coupled with other make the State Govt. a huge stake-holder in the matter relating to a claim for the issuance of an Inclusion Notification. (i) Regulation 13.12 enables a Deemed to be University to award degrees to the students enrolled after the issuance of Inclusion Notification; however, disaffiliation from the University to which the institution concerned was affiliated hitherto is explicitly stipulated as a pre-condition for the Deemed to be University to award degrees to such students; in respect of students that were admitted to the courses up to the issuance of Inclusion Notification, it is the same affiliating University which retains the power & prerogative to award degrees in terms of Regulation 13.03, as already discussed above; whether an institution comprised in the Inclusion Notification is to be treated as in-campus or off- campus, depending upon its location in the same city or not, is spoken of by Regulation 13.13. 23 (j) The transfer of all the movable & immovable properties and the existing man power and also the records of the institution sought to be comprised in the Inclusion Notification in favour of the Deemed to be University concerned in the ambit of which it is intended to be included, has also been made a sine qua non for the issuance of the Inclusion Notification, by Regulation 13.14; this provision being very relevant to the case at hands as argued at the Bar, is reproduced below:
"13.14: The entire movable and immovable property as well as the existing manpower of the institution and its records (except those pertaining to the students who had already registered till they pass out of the Institution) shall be transferred to the institution deemed to be university before the notification."
(k) Where the institution and the Deemed to be University are under different managements, Regulation 13.15 prescribes a special procedure for applying for the issuance of the Inclusion Notification; this is in juxta-position with Regulation 13.03 which envisages that the institution to be included and the Deemed to be University in the ambit of which it is sought to be included, are under the same management. 24 This completes a short biography of the scheme of law relating to the inclusion of an educational institution in the ambit of a Deemed to be University. (III) As to Moogambigai Trust and MGR Trust being administered by separate managements: (a) Learned Addl. Advocate General Mr. Subramanya vehemently contended that the Inclusion Notification has been issued contrary to UGC Regulations; from the record of W.P.No.7482/2020 filed by Moogambigai Trust, he pointed out that the 2nd Petitioner-College and the 3rd Petitioner- University are not under the same management and therefore, the Inclusion Notification could not have been issued at all; in the instant case, the 2nd petitioner-College having been established in the year 2005-06, admittedly is being administered by the first Petitioner-Moogambigai Trust at Bangalore; the said Trust is created under the Trust Deed dated 28.05.1992 which was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bangalore vide Registration No.62/92-93 (Annexure-A); the 3rd Petitioner-University is established & administered by MGR Trust at Chennai; thus, the statutory requirement in terms of Regulation 13.03 that 25 both the University and the college in question should be under the same management has not been satisfied. (b) The contention of Mr.Ponnanna, the learned Sr. Advocate for the Moogambigai Trust that both these Trusts have the same person as the Managing Trustee and that the same individuals figure as their trustees, as well, is not substantiated by producing necessary material; this version even if is assumed to be true, per se does not render these two Trusts as a composite entity in the absence of proof of unity of their purposes and integrity of their administration; these Trusts are located not only in two different cities but in two different States; MGR Trust is not a party eo nomine to the Writ Petition filed by Moogambigai Trust; this court presumes that they are treated as separate & independent entities inter alia under the municipal laws, taxation laws and UGC/MCI Regulations; this important aspect having not been adverted to by those associated with the impugned decision making process, there is a legal infirmity that has infected the impugned Inclusion Notification; Regulation 13.15 provides for the claim for the issuance of Inclusion Notification where the management of the educational institution is different 26 from that of a Deemed to be University; however, no steps are taken in terms of this provision. (c) The contention of Mr.Ponnanna that the Moogambigai Trust and MGR Trust are under the very same management, is inconsistent with the intent & content of registered lease deed dated 15.5.2018, a copy whereof is produced after the hearing of the case was complete; the text of the lease deed whereby the transfer inter alia of 2nd Petitioner-College is made by the former in favour of the latter, does not lend credence to the version which he had put forth; if his version were to be true, some where it would have sneaked into this deed and other documents which formed the foundational basis for the issuance of Inclusion Notification. (IV) As to Lease of Raja Rajeshwari Medical College by Moogambigai Trust to MGR Trust, and the requirement of law: (a) Learned counsel Mr.Ponnanna drew attention of the court to clause (xxii) at internal page 20 of the registered Trust Deed of Moogambigai Trust which empowers the Managing Trustee to make over the assets & institutions of the Trust to any other public & charitable Trust having 27 similar objects; such clauses being standard texts, almost invariably appear in all Trust Deeds of the kind; it is his case that, in terms of this clause, the Moogambigai Trust has made over the 2nd Petitioner-College and the assets to the MGR Trust; making over assets & institutions to some other Trust is one thing and such a making over to the Deemed to be University is another, latter being the requirement of law vide Regulation 13.14; the former arguably being a step-in-aid for the latter, is beside the point; this apart, it is not shown from the registered Trust Deed of MGR Trust that there is a provision for taking over the assets & institutions that are made over by other like Trusts; therefore, this argument of Mr.Ponnanna does not come to the rescue of his clients. (b) After the hearing of these cases was complete, the counsel on record for the Moogambigai Trust has filed a Memo dated 9.10.2020 along with a photostat copy of a registered Lease Deed dated 15.5.2018 whereby the Moogambigai Trust has leased to the MGR Trust, the 2nd Petitioner-College and it's hospitals along with all the infrastructure for a period of thirty years; he submitted that the execution & registration of the Lease Deed satisfies the requirement of Regulation 13.14 which is already reproduced 28 above; he vehemently contended that the word 'transferred' employed in this Regulation having wide connotation includes a transfer by way of lease; in other words, according to him, it need not necessarily be a transfer of ownership but can be a limited transfer; per contra, the learned panel counsel for the MCI rightly pointed out that this lease does not satisfy the requirement of the said Regulation which contemplates an absolute transfer wherein the transferor is divested of the ownership and the transferee is vested with the same, the former retaining no shades thereof. (c) The word 'transferred' employed in this Regulation cannot be construed as wide as section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which ordinarily includes all the five conventional modes of transfer viz., sale, gift, exchange, lease & mortgage; the concept of 'the transfer of lock, stock & barrel' appears to have figured in the mind of the Rule-Maker who has structured this Regulation; if Rule intended the expanse of section 5 of the T.P. Act, it's text would have been much different; the Regulation employs the expression 'The entire movable and immovable property as well as the existing man power of the institution and its records'; what is intended is thus, the cutting of 'umbilical cord' from the management of 29 the institution and implanting it in the Deemed to be University in the ambit of which the said institution is sought to be included; (d) if Mr.Ponnanna's argument of ‘limited transfer’ is accepted as satisfying the said Regulation, then even an equitable mortgage has to be treated as the compliance of legal requirement and that would defeat the very purpose for which it is made, to say the least; the MCI counsel Mr.Khetty is more than justified in submitting that wherever only lease would suffice, normally there is an indication to that effect in the language of the Regulations of the kind and that such indication is conspicuously absent here; this apart, it is not a permanent lease, its tenure having been fixed at thirty years; what would happen if the lease is terminated on fault grounds giving rise to a right of re-entry or after its determination by efflux of time, is also a matter of great concern, especially when the Inclusion Notification is enduring in time; by very nature of the Notification of the kind, the transfer has to be absolute and perpetual; such an enduring life of the Inclusion Notification, cannot be limited by the restrictive transfers agreed to by the parties. 30 (e) The above apart, the said Regulation requires such a transfer being made in favour of Deemed to be University and not to the Trust which manages it, as submitted by Mr. Subramanya; the transfer from one Trust to another is not within the contemplation of this Regulation; an argument to the contrary cannot be sustained without bruising its language; therefore, even if Mr.Ponnanna's first limb of argument is accepted, there is no compliance of legal requirement under the subject Regulation; the transfer in question made pursuant to said lease is admittedly in favour of MGR Trust and not to the third respondent-University; thus, the mandatory requirement of transfer prescribed under Regulation 13.14 having not been complied with, the Inclusion Notification could not have been issued; in fact this has not been duly addressed either by the UGC or the Central Government; admittedly, this lease has been entered into by & between the two Trusts for securing an Inclusion Notification; the said Notification having been found with legal infection, is being quashed, for the discussion herein; on such quashment, what would turn out from the said lease and whether it is legally cognizable or not the questions that 31 fell for the examination of this Court, especially when the MGR Trust is not a party eo nomine to these writ petitions. (V) As to non-consideration of views of the State Government both by the UGC and the Central Government: (a) The second contention of Mr.Subramanya that at any stage of the inclusion proceedings that was undertaken in terms of the provisions of Regulation 13, the specific stand of the State Govt. opposing the proposal for inclusion of the 2nd Petitioner-College in the ambit of 3rd Petitioner- University has not factored even in the penumbra of consideration, merits countenance; Regulation 13.05 provides that a Deemed University can submit to the Central Govt. a proposal for inclusion of an institution; the said proposal subject to compliance of other conditions, shall be referred by the Central Govt. to the UGC for it's advice under Regulation 13.06; the UGC in terms of Regulation 13.07 forwards the same to it's Expert Committee for examination as per Regulation 8.06; the Committee shall examine the proposal in the parameters specified in Regulation 8.07; the UGC after examining the Report of the Expert Committee shall make a suitable recommendation to the Central Govt., says Regulation 13.08; this legal aspect is already discussed 32 above; there has been a grave lapse on the part of UGC in terms of these Regulations; the Inclusion Notification is inscrutably silent about the objection of the State Government. (b) The UGC in its 536th Meeting held on 14.11.2018 vide agenda 2.04 had unanimously accepted the Report of the Expert Committee; the agenda of the Meeting reads as under:
"To consider the report of the UGC Expert Committee constituted to assess the proposal submitted by Dr. M.G.R. Educational and Research Institute (Deemed to be University), Chennai (Tamil Nadu) for inclusion of Raja Rajeswari Medical College and Hospital, Bengaluru under its ambit."
The decision of UGC states:
"Considered and approved"; Regulation 13.09, employs the word 'shall' and thus, mandatorily requires the UGC to examine the Expert Committee Report inter alia along with the 'views of the State Govt.'; this apart, it is un-understandable as to what purpose would be served by having the views of the State Govt. once the UGC had already accepted the Report of the Expert Committee even before soliciting the views of the said Government; nowadays we are in the era of ritualistic adherences, is proving truer than before. 33 (c) Strangely enough, the fact that the UGC had accepted the opinion of the Expert Committee, was not disclosed to the State Govt. in its letter sent a day after; the State Govt. is more than justified in grieving against the process that was abundantly unfair to it; as already made out above, the UGC Regulations assign a vital role to the State Govt.; the conduct of a statutory body like the UGC falls militantly short of 'fair standard procedures'; at least, before forwarding its advice to the Central Govt., the UGC in all fairness ought to have mentioned about the serious objection of the State Govt. which it had solicited post approval of the Expert Committee Report; arguably, this could have arguably diminished the enormity of unfairness in its proceedings; perhaps UGC was unaware that it is only a statutory creature and that the State Govt. is a constitutional functionary. (d) The UGC vide letter No.F.40-2/2018(CPP-1) dated 15.11.2018 mailed by speed post (Annexure-N to W.P.No.7482/2020) had solicited the "comments of the State Government in respect of the Rajarajeshwari Medical College and Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka about its potential, academic excellence and financial viabilities for bringing under the ambit of Dr.MGR Educational & Research Institute 34 Trust (deemed to be university), Chennai, Tamilnadu (sic)..."
; this letter specifically reproduces inter alia Regulation 8.11.1 which expects an assurance from the State Govt. that it would safeguard the interest of the students of the 2nd Petitioner-College in the event the 3rd Petitioner-University ceases to exist as such, for any reason whatsoever; this is in view of the construction placed by this court on the text & context of the said Regulation as rightly argued by Mr. Subramanya; the State Govt. not only did not indicate its willingness but registered its disagreement with the proposal for inclusion vide reply dated 14.1.2019 which reads as under:
"With reference to the above letters at reference (1) dated 15-11-2018 and 15-12-2018 wherein it has been mentioned that Raja Rajeshwari Medical College and Hospital, Bengaluru applied to the UGC for grant of Deemed University status. In regard of conferment of Deemed University status, the State Government has arrived at a decision to reject the proposal as it will not benefit students from Karnataka”. Therefore the Government rejects the request to include Raja Rajeshwari Medical College and Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka under Dr.MGR Educational & Research Institute Trust (Deemed to be University), Chennai, Tamilnadu for conferment of Deemed University status."
35 (e) It sounds anguishingly strange that the Central Govt. has not cared to enquire with the UGC as to how it could accept the Expert Committee Report even before soliciting the views of the State Govt. and about the conspicuous absence of States’ willingness to safeguard the interest of the students of the 2nd Petitioner-College in the event the 3rd Petitioner-University ceases to exist in future; there is not even a whisper about the stand of the State Govt. in the Inclusion Notification which is issued exactly one month after the State Govt. conveyed its objection to the proposal; this is not a happy thing to happen, in a serious matter like this; it is often said that the entrustment of power in the hands of high functionaries of State is itself a guarantee against its abuse potential; these cases gather the clouds on the soundness of this conventional proposition of administrative law. (f) The State Govt. happens to be a heavy stakeholder in the matter, as already discussed above; that is the reason, why the UGC Regulations mandate having the views of the State Govt. in the matters relating to the claim for issuance of Inclusion Notification; the State Govt. had issued the 'Essentiality Certificate' & 'Feasibility Certificate' for the 36 establishment of the 2nd Petitioner-College so that the same would serve the interest of Tamil Minority candidates residing in the State; that is the reason for conferring the linguistic minority status on the said college; there is force in the contention of Mr.Subramanya that the petitioner-Trust and the petitioner-college having enjoyed these benefits at the hands of the State Govt. and the State Health University, now cannot turn around and seek relationship with a Deemed University functioning in the neighbouring State; there is also force in his contention that catapulting the 2nd Petitioner- College into the lap of the 3rd Petitioner-University has serious implications in terms of statutory seat-sharing- arrangements that obtain between the State Govt. and COMED-K institutions; it has a bearing on the compulsory service to be rendered by the graduating candidates of the said college under the provisions of Karnataka Compulsory Service Training by Candidates Completed Medical Courses Act, 2012; it may affect the existing statistical balance between the colleges of the kind and the requirement of the aspiring students in the State, including those staking claim for admission under reserved category. 37 (g) The State Govt. on the request of Moogambigai Trust made way back in the year 2003-04, had accorded linguistic minority status (Tamil) to the 2nd Petitioner-College vide order dated 8.2.2006 at Annexure-R1; relevant conditions subject to which this status was accorded, are as under: “(
2) PÀ£ÁðlPÀzÀ°è ªÁ¹¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ vÀ«Ä¼ÀÄ ¨Ás µÁ C®à¸ÀASÁåvÀ «zÁåyðUÀ½AzÀ DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ C®à¸ÀASÁåvÀ ¹ÃlÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨sÀwð ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ, CAvÀºÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ 1£Éà vÀgÀUÀw¬ÄAzÀ CºÀðvÁzÁAiÀÄPÀ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀ£ÁðlPÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ ªiÀ Á£ÀåvÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀ ²PÀët ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼À°è ªÁå¸ÀAUÀ ªÀiÁr J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹/ºÀvÀÛ£Éà vÀgÀUÀwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CxÀªÁ ¢éwÃAiÀÄ ¦.AiÀÄÄ.¹/12£Éà vÀgÀUÀwAiÀÄ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¢AzÀ vÉÃUÀðqÉAiÀiÁVgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. (3) PÀ£ÁðlPÀzÀ°è ªÁ¹¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ vÀ«ÄüÀÄ ¨Ás µÁ C®à¸ÀASÁåvÀjUÉ ¹ÃlÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ®¨sÀå«zÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀàµÀÖ¥Àr¹ ¥ÀæªÀÄÄR ¢£À ¥ÀwæPÉUÀ¼À°è ¥ÀæPÀluÉ ¤ÃqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. (4) PÀ£ÁðlPÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ «zÁåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ zÉÆgÉAiÀÄ¢zÀÝ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj ¹ÃlÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀ«ÄüÀÄ ¨Ás ¶PÀgÀÄ C¢üPÀ ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ vÀ«Ä¼ÀÄ£Ár£À C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ EvÀgÉ gÁdåUÀ¼À vÀ«Ä¼ÀÄ C®à¸ÀASÁåvÀgÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ½UÉ ¥ÀæªÉñÀ ¤ÃqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. (5) MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É vÀªÀļÀÄ C®à¸ÀASÁåvÀ ªÀUÀðPÉÌ «ÄøÀ¯ÁzÀ ¹ÃlÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨sÀwðAiÀiÁUÀzÉà G½zÀ°è CzÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄÄ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ¥ÀæªÉñÀ ¥ÀjÃPÁë WÀlPÀPÉÌ ¥ÁægÀA¨sÀªÁUÀĪÀ 7 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À ªÀÄÄAZÉAiÉÄà «±ÉõÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ¥ÀæªÉñÀ ¥ÀjÃPÁë WÀlPÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀjUÉ »AwgÀÄV¹ gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉåzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ²PÀët ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÄÀ UÀ½UÉ ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.” The purpose with which these conditions were stipulated would be defeated if the 2nd Petitioner-College is put in the embrace of 3rd Petitioner-University; that is the reason why 38 the State Govt. had taken a decision to oppose the proposal for the inclusion. (VI) As to Center-State relationship in a federal structure and mutual deference between them: (a) The people of this country through their Constitution have secured to themselves a polity of federal nature, arguably, whatever be its variants; the Apex Court in KESAVANANDA BHARATI VS. STATE OF KERALA, (1973) 4 SCC225has held that, 'federalism' is one of the basic features of our Constitution; it hardly needs to be stated that in the constitutionally-ordained-federal structure, the States cannot be treated as vassals of the Center, the sovereignty having been constitutionally divided between them; the Australian jurist Prof. K.C.Wheare, ascribes a 'quasi federal' tag to our Constitution, is beside the point; in the Center- State relations, the Constitution of India expects that the Center and the States should show due deference to each other, as being the co-ordinates; this assumes increasing importance with the increasing complexities of the enlargement of inter-state engagements in the context of ever widening socio-economic order; 39 (b) the UGC Regulations which are mandatory in nature recognize the stake-holding of the State Govts. in the matters relating not only to the grant of status of 'Deemed to be University' but also to the claims for inclusion of institutions of higher education & research in the ambit of such Universities; therefore, they explicitly require solicitation of the views of the State Govt. and their due consideration at the hands of the concerned in the decision making process; the same has not happened in this case is the complaint of the State Govt. which is substantiated by the abundance of material on record; the State Govt. has to notify its views to a statutory body like the UGC, does not relieve the Central Govt. from the duty imposed by law; the instances of the case at hand may give some scope for the criticism that the impugned action of the Central Govt. stands as a refutation of the elements that animate the federal character of our governance. (VII) As to denial of disaffiliation and its consequences: (a) As already discussed above, Regulation 13.03 provides that the disaffiliation from the affiliating University is a pre-condition for including an educational institution in 40 the ambit of a Deemed to be University; the said Regulation being relevant to the case reads as under: “If an institution existing under the same management is affiliated to a University, it shall be included in the ambit of the institution Deemed to be University only on its disaffiliation from the affiliating University. The affiliating University shall also give its consent to the effect that the students of that particular institution(s), who have already been enrolled under it, shall continue to pursue their courses under its affiliation for all purposes and that it shall also award degrees to these students upon successful completion of the courses they are presently pursuing at such institution(s)”. In the case at hands, the 2nd petitioner-College is affiliated to the State Health University which has declined affiliation; this decline cannot be faltered because the said College and the said University, as already mentioned above are not under the same management; the presence of same management is a pre-condition for invoking this Regulation which arguably imposes a duty on the affiliating University to grant disaffiliation; this provision could have been invoked on the unspoken principle of mutatis mutandis, had the 2nd petitioner-College had pursued the procedure prescribed under Regulation 13.15 in order to seek refuse on the lap of 3rd petitioner-University; that having not being done, the action of the State Health University is inexplicable; the 3rd 41 petitioner-University is not justified in admitting the students to the medical courses even in the absence of disaffiliation that too in disregard of the objection of the Health University; this Court however has to ensure that the students so admitted shall not be put to any prejudice because of this legal battle between the two sides, with which they are not associated. (VIII) As to conflict between section 5 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 and the provisions of UGC Regulations: (a) Mr. Ponnanna, learned counsel appearing for the Moogambigai Trust contends that the provisions of Section 5 of RGUHS Act is unconstitutional since it is in conflict with the provisions of UGC Regulations which provide for inclusion of an educational institution established in one State being included in a Deemed to be University as a constituent college; Sub-sections (1) & (2) of Sec. 5, being relevant to adjudication are reproduced below: “(1). Jurisdiction and admission to privileges.- (1) No college in the State of Karnataka imparting education in health sciences shall, save with the consent of the University and the sanction of the Government, be associated in any way with or seek admission to any privileges of any other University in India or abroad. 42 (2) Any such privilege enjoyed from other University before the appointed date by any medical college or institution of health sciences situated in the State shall be deemed to be withdrawn with effect from such date”. (b) Firstly there is no contention as to legislative competence of the State, except the one loosely taken up in the pleadings; that too lacks the minimum of material particulars; secondly there is no conflict between the provisions of Section 5 of the Act and the provisions of UGC Regulations; the State Government being a stakeholder in the matter of inclusion of an educational institution in the ambit of a Deemed to be University, is required to be consulted by the UGC (immediately) and by the Central Government (mediately), in terms of subject Regulations; assuming that there is a conflict, that per se would not be a ground for invalidating a State Law which is otherwise valid, there being a strong presumption of constitutionality of plenary legislations vide Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Justice S. R. Tendolkar, 1959 SCR279 in the case of conflict, arguably the Central law prevails over the State law; however, a deeper examination of this contention has not been undertaken, since these cases are being decided on other grounds; H.M.Seervai in his treatise, supra, at page 261 having 43 surveyed the law relating to constitutional adjudication, writes: “The Court will not decide Constitutional questions if a case is capable of being decided on other grounds… The Court will not decide a larger Constitutional question than is required by the case before it”. No extraordinary case is made out warranting a deviation from what the said jurist has opined on the basis of judicial precedence. In the above circumstances, this Court enters the following order: (i) the case in W.P.No.7482/2020 filed by Moogambigai Charitable & Educational Trust, Bengaluru and two others, being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is; the companion case in W.P.No.9236/2020 filed by the State of Karnataka & another being meritorious, is entitled to be allowed and accordingly it is; (ii) a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned Inclusion Notification issued by the Central Government whereby Raja Rajeshwari Medical College & Hospital, Bengaluru was included in the ambit of Dr.MGR Educational 44 & Research Institute, Chennai (a Deemed to be University), and consequently the said Inclusion stands undone; (iii) a Writ of Mandamus issues to the Central Government and the Medical Council of India, to take within eight weeks, all steps as are required for restoring the position of the parties i.e., College, State Health University and Deemed to be University, inter se, as before, subject to the rider that such steps or the restoration shall not affect the admission of students to the undergraduate & post-graduate medical courses hitherto done by Dr MGR Educational and Research Institute, post impugned notification and, only to that limited extent, Regulations 13.03 & 13.12, shall be invokable. Costs made easy. Sd/- JUDGE Snb/cbc