RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the writ petitioner avers in paragraph 10 of the petition, that, the requisite qualification/course as has been obtained by him, from Vinayaka Mission University, has been approved by Distance Education Council, IGNOU, New Delhi, and, the Joint committee of "AICTE-UGC-DEC". However, the afore made submission only remains in the realm of pleadings, as, no evidence is brought on record to prove the same.

(2.) The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has contended, that Sec. 19 of the Himachal Pradesh Para Medical Council Act, 2003 (for short "the Act"), bars the imparting of relevant courses, by all educational institutions concerned, unless prior permission of the State Government rather is obtained. However the provisions of the Act (supra), as, carried in Sec. 19 of the Act, and, as become extracted hereinafter, only bars, establishment of paramedical institution(s), and, also bars the paramedical institution(s), to open a new course or training besides bars the institution(s) concerned to increase their admission capacity, rather beyond the prescribed limits, obviously unless prior permission of the State government is accorded. However, the afore mandate, if comes to be profoundly, and, deeply read, its application is limited only to establishments of paramedical institutions, within the State of Himachal Pradesh, and, cannot become extended to carry any meaning, that paramedical institutions rather established outside the territory of the State of Himachal Pradesh, and imparting valid relevant distant courses or correspondence courses, vis -vis, the relevant discipline, also, there being barred to validly impart education, in the apposite courses to students concerned, unless prior thereto they obtained the statutory permission, from the government of Himachal Pradesh. Therefore, no prior permission of the Government of Himachal Pradesh is required, vis -vis, the afore valid modes of impartings of education by validly established institutions located outside the territory of the State of Himachal Pradesh.

(3.) The afore reasons, for making the afore interpretation to the mandate supra, as, carried in Sec. 19 of the Act, would bring it in concurrence with the mandate carried in Sec. 38 of the Act, relevant provisions whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, as, therein the statutory coinage appertaining, to the necessity of the aspirant concerned possessing the relevant recognized qualification(s), does extend, to the aspirant concerned, the apposite statutory privilege to seek the aspired registration, upon, his holding the apposite qualification, from any validly established educational institution, though not existing in the territory of Himachal Pradesh, (i) yet it being evidently affiliated to a valid educational institution, or its becoming recognized by the regulatory mechanism concerned. Consequently, when the clout of the coinage "recognized qualification", is not restricted to any recognized educational institution hence existing within Himachal Pradesh nor when the mandate (supra) occurring in Sec. 19 of the Act, does not, trammel the coinage "recognized qualification", as, occurring in Sec. 38 of the Act, to its emanating only hence from validly established institution within the State of Himachal Pradesh. Therefore a harmonious reading of the provisions (supra) paves way for an inference that any validly established institution rather outside Himachal Pradesh, hence purveying teachings to the students concerned, and, who thereafter become conferred with degree/diploma, thereupon concomitantly theirs bestowing a, recognized qualification to the students concerned, and, also empowering the aspirant concerned to seek his valid enlistment.