| Statement of objects and Reasons - The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgement in Islamic Academy of Education & others Vs State of Karnataka sought to regulate admissions to professional courses through two Judicial Committees, one for overseeing admissions and the other for approving fee structure in professional institutions, pending enactment of appropriate law by Parliament. These directives, the Apex Court declared, shall be the law of the land. The State Government appointed the Justice S.Venkataraman Committee for overseeing admissions to professional colleges in the State and the Justice A.B.Murgod Committee for fixing the fee structure.
In the TMA Pai case, the 11 Judges Bench of the Supreme Court had directed that it was the State Government which had to fix the quota or seat sharing ratio between the Government and the managements in private un-aided professional colleges. The State Government after due consideration determined the seat sharing ratio between the Government and the managements at 75:25. This was based upon an assessment of the local needs and after taking into consideration the fact that for the last ten years from 1994-95 at least 75% of the seats in professional colleges were filled by the State CET. The State Government also took into consideration the fact that in 2004, the State CET Cell had received 1,09,314 applications whereas the Association of un-aided professional colleges had received only 20,072 applications. The total number of seats available in medical, dental and engineering colleges is appropriately 41,000.
Subsequently the Association appealed to the Justice S.Venkataraman Committee which after detailed examination of the merits on both sides, upheld the seat sharing ratio of 75:25 fixed by the Government.
The Association appealed against the decision of the Justice S.Venkataraman Committee before the two judges Bench of the Supreme Court which decided on 15.7.2004 to refer the matter to a larger Bench but passed an interim order without going into the merits of the case, fixing the quota at 50:50
The CET Cell had commenced the counseling of the students on 8.7.2004 on the basis of 75:25 quota. The interim order of the Supreme Court on 15.7.2004 led to the suspension of the counseling by the CET Cell. It was also noticed that the applications received by the Association were not adequate to fill up 50% of the seats in all cases.
Hence exercising its inherent powers endorsed by the Supreme Court in the TMA Pai case and the Inslamic Academy of Education case, the State Government has decided to fix the quota, itself to meet the exigency.
The Justice A.B.Murgod Committee, which was appointed under the orders of the Supreme Court to determine the fees of all the professional colleges had fixed the fees for the medical and dental colleges. These were challenged in more than forty writ petitions before the High Court. These writ petitions are still pending. In the meantime the Justice A.B.Murgod Committee resigned on 19.7.2004, thereby adding to the uncertainty.
It is incumbant on the State Government to adhere to the time limits fixed for admission to medical seats by the Supreme Court in Medical Council of India Vs Madhu Singh and others in its order dated:11.9.2002. The students also require to have some certainty with regard to the fees, more so in the wake of the resignation of Justice Murgod and other members of the Committee. The State Government met the representatives of the managements several times to evolve a workable formula to resolve the issue, particularly with regard to fees, but with no result.
The Government therefore feels it necessary and expedient to bring out a special law in order to finalise the seat selection process to professional courses for the current academic year only i.e., the year 2004-05. The Bill has retained the quota at 75:25 based on the local needs upheld by the Justice Venkataraman Committee and the fact that the counseling had already commenced on this basis. The Bill provides for charging fees as determined by the Justice Murgod Fee Determination Committee. The law is enacted as a purely temporary measure to alleviate the difficulties faced in this transitional year.
Hence the Bill. (LA Bill No.22 of 2004)
(Entry 25 of list III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India)
|
