The Madras High Court on Thursday directed the University Grants Commission (UGC) as well as Human Resource Development (HRD) Ministry to constitute a committee, as ordered by the court on June 16 last year, for fixing the fee structure that could be charged by deemed to be universities in Puducherry for admission in medical courses.
First Division Bench of Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Abdul Quddhose issued the direction on a public interest litigation petition filed by advocate V.B.R. Menon accusing the deemed universities of charging ₹40 lakh to ₹ 50 lakh a student from even those who had been selected through common counselling in the State quota and liable to pay ₹5.5 lakh.
After finding that the committee was yet to be constituted despite directions issued 10 months ago, the judges ordered that the committee should be constituted within three weeks and its recommendations submitted within four months, from the date of constitution, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all stakeholders including the deemed universities.
Although the petitioner sought a similar direction with respect to the self-financing colleges, the judges asked him to file a separate writ petition on that issue. In so far as one more PIL filed by the advocate to discharge 35 students who, according to him, had been admitted illegally, the judges refrained from passing any orders. Pointing out that those students had been discharged by Medical Council of India and they had filed individual writ petitions in the High Court and obtained interim orders from a single judge, The Division Bench pointed out that the issue of them having been admitted illegally or not could be decided only in the writ petitions filed by them.
The Bench, led by the Chief Justice, disposed of a third PIL petition filed by Mr. Menon, seeking a direction to constitute an independent body with statutory powers for redressing grievances on medical admissions in Puducherry, with an observation that no such direction could be issued since it would amount to the court usurping the powers of the legislature.
It, however, gave liberty to the petitioner to make representations to the legislators concerned.
