Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 - ss. 3(d), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 - Madhya Pradesh Private Medical and Dental Postgraduate Courses Entrance Examination Rules, 2009 - r. 9 - Constitution of India - Art. 19(1)(g) and 19(6):

Validity vires of the provisions of the Act and the Rules - Challenged to, by appellants-private unaided medical and dental colleges - Challenge made to the provisions relating to admission of students in post graduate courses, fixation of fee, reservation of seats, provisions relating to eligibility for admission on the ground of being violative of Art. 19(1)(g) as also on the ground of competence of the State legislature since the subject matter was exclusively reserved for Parliament - Held: Right claimed by the appellants is a fundamental right guaranteed u/Art. 19(1)(g) - Act imposes reasonable restrictions on the right given to the appellants, thus. protected u/Art. 19(6) - Provisions in the Act and the Rules relating to fixation of fee not violative of Art. 19(1)(g) - Reservations of seats for SC/ST and OBC in private educational institutions in consonance with Art. 15(5) - Holding of common entrance test for admission under the control of State does not impinge the autonomy of such institutions - Further, impugned legislation is not beyond the legislative competence of the State - Thus, the Act and the Rules are constitutionally valid - High Court rightly upheld the validity of the provisions of the Act and the Rules.

Provisions in the Act and Rules relating to fixation of fee - Challenge to - Held: Parameters laid down in s. 9 have to be kept in mind while fixing the fee - Fee to be charged has to be suggested by the said educational institution itself - Committee is to satisfy itself that the fee charged did not amount to profiteering or commercialisation of education and was based on intelligible factors mentioned in s. 9(1) - It is only a regulatory measure and does not take away the powers of the educational institution to fix their own fee - Thus, the provision relating to fixation of fee by selling up a Committee to oversee that institutions are not charging a fee which amounts to capitation or profiteering are reasonable restrictions and do not suffer from any constitutional vice.

Power of State io conduct Common entrance test (CET) - Challenge to - Held: CET is in larger interest and welfare of the students to promote merit, add excellence and curb malpractices - Holding of CET under the control of the State does not impinge this autonomy - Admission is still in the hands of these institutions - Sole purpose of holding CET is to ensure that admissions done by the educational institutions are strictly on merit.

Regulatory mechanism - Regulations under Adhiniyam of 2007 - Need for - Held: Provisions of Adhiniyam of 2007 are aimed at seeking laudable objectives in larger public interest - Object of setting zip institutions for the State is a welfare function for the purpose of excelling in educational standards - Profit motive adopted by the private institutions leads to a large degree of secrecy and corruption - As such, mechanism of regulations under the impugned laws is legal, constitutional, fair, transparent and upholds the primary criteria of merit - Regulations do not infringe on the fundamental rights of either the minorities or non-minorities to establish and administer educational institutions and must as such be upheld as valid.

Constitution of India:

Art. 19(1)(g) and 19(6) - Right of private unaided professional institutions to establish and manage educational institutions - Held: Right of professional institutions to establish and manage educational institutions is regarded as an 'occupation' befitting the recognition of this right as a fundamental right u/Art. 19(1)(g) - Four specific rights which encompass right to occupation are, right to admit students; right to set up a reasonable fee structure; right to appoint staff (teaching and non-teaching); and right to take action if there is dereliction of duty on the part of any employees - Since, education is treated as a noble 'occupation' on 'no profit no loss' basis, those who establish and are managing the educational institutions are not expected to indulge in profiteering or commercialisation this noble activity - Thus. complete freedom is not given to the educational institutions in respect of right to admit the students and fixation of fee - It is subject to certain restrictions - These are regulatory measures which can be adopted by the State in respect of such institutions.

Art. 15(5), 19(1)(g), 19(6), 30 - Challenge made to the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes - Held: Since this Court in P.A. Inamdar held that there cannot be any fixation of quota or appropriation of seats by the State, reservation which inheres setting aside quotas, would not be permissible - It cannot be said that the provisions seek to bring back the Unni Krishnan system of setting up State quotas - Thus, reservation of seats for SC/ST and OBC in consonance with Article 15(5).

Art. 254 - List I Entry 66, List III Entry 25 - Legislative competence of the State to enact Adhiniyam of 2007 - Held: Entry 66 List I dealt with determination and coordination of standards, alld original Entry II of List II granted the States the exclusive power to legislate with respect to all other aspects of education, which was subsequently deleted, and replaced by amending Entry 25, List III, granting concurrent powers to both Parliament and State Legislature to legislate with respect to all other aspects of Education, except that which was specifically covered by Entry 63 to 66 of the List I - When two Entries relating to education, one in the Union List and the other in the Concurrent List, co-exist, they have to be read harmoniously - Reading in this manner; it would become manifest that when it comes to coordination and laying down of standards in the higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions, power rests with the Union/Parliament to the exclusion of the State Legislatures - However as regards technical and medical education, as well as governance of universities, even State Legislatures are given power by virtue of Entry 25 - Thus, there was no violation of right of autonomy of the educational institutions in the CET being conducted by the State or an agency nominated by the State or in fixing fee - Right of a Stale to do so is subject Jo a central law - MP Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Vinzvuman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 - Madhya Pradesh Private Medical and Denial Post Graduate Courses Entrance Examination Rules, 2009.

Doctrines: Doctrine of Proportionality - Explanation and application of - Held: While examining whether the impugned provisions of the statute and Rules amount to reasonable restrictions and are in the interest of general public, "doctrine of proportionality' is applied - it is the balancing of fundamental right to carry on occupation on the one hand and the restrictions imposed on the other hand - It is the set of rules determining the necessary and sufficient conditions for limitation of a constitutionally protected right by a law to be constitutionally permissible - For a proper balance between the two facts-rights and limitations imposed upon it by a statute, concept of 'proportionality', is a proper criterion - Impugned provisions which may amount to 'restrictions 'on the right of the institution to carry on their 'occupation' are clearly 'reasonable' and satisfy the rest of proportionality.