|
|
|
|
|
| Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Private medical college counselling subject to outcome of appeal
- Apex court posts hearing for July 19
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it clear that counselling
for admission to the private self-financing Chettinad Medical
College to be held on Thursday would be subject to the outcome
of the appeal filed by the college challenging the Madras High
Court ruling on sharing of seats in private medical colleges.
A three-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan,
Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice Dalveer Bhandari passed
the order while posting the matter for hearing to July 19.
The High Court by its common judgment on July 12 had struck
down the provisions for surrendering of 65 per cent of seats
to the Government by private colleges with only 35 per cent
seats for the management. However, the court held that the ruling
would be effective only from next year.
Senior counsel Arun Jaitley, appearing for Dr. Rajah Muthiah
Chettiar Charitable and Educational Trust running the Chettinad
college submitted that counselling for the college was to be
held on July 19.
If admissions were made on the basis of the law that had been
struck down it would cause great prejudice to the appellant,
he said, pleading for early hearing and stay on counselling.
Appearing for the State, senior counsel A.K. Ganguly and Advocate-General
R. Viduthalai said that staying the counselling would upset
the schedule.
The petitioner said the imposition of seat-sharing rule as well
as the insistence on a centralised counselling or a single window
system to be followed by unaided educational institutions was
ultra-vires the Constitution.
The petitioner said the SLP raised important questions of law,
namely, whether the High Court was correct in directing the
private institutions to surrender seats after striking down
the provisions; whether it had the power to postpone the operation
of its order to next year; whether or not the direction to private
unaided non-minority educational institutions to follow the
rule of reservation for the current year was contrary to the
law laid down by the apex court in the Inamdar case. The SLP
sought quashing of the impugned judgment.
Courtesy: The Hindu
|
| << Back |
|
|
