JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners, by the instant petition, are challenging the decisions of the respondents 1 and 2 reflected in various communications dated 23/12/2010 to 28/7/2011 refusing to enroll the students who have been admitted to the post graduate course and further directing the petitioners to cancel their admissions for want of permission from the respondent 1 and affiliation from respondent no.2. 3. The petitioner no.1 is the Society and is also a trust which runs the medical college at Amravati – the petitioner no.2 herein, since the year 1984. The petitioners wanted to start post graduate courses in 18 subjects for which they applied to Maharashtra University of Health Sciences – the respondent no.1 herein, vide application dated 25/10/2010. In turn, the respondent no.1 constituted a Local Committee for inspection of the infrastructure available in the college, which visited the college and submitted its report. The respondent 1 permitted the petitioners and granted provisional affiliation to start post graduate courses in 18 subjects. Simultaneously, the petitioners applied to Medical Council of India for the requisite permission. The Medical Council of India deputed Assessment Committees to visit the college, to carry out inspection about availability of the necessary infrastructure and other requirements. However, no Assessment Committee for the subjects of Anatomy and Respiratory Medicine had visited the college. The Medical Council of India issued the letter of intent followed by letters of permission in respect of 11 subjects as detailed in Annexure VI and VII, respectively. Meanwhile, the petitioners proceeded with admitting the students by issuing an advertisement. The final merit list of 13 admitted students was published on 21/5/2011. However, the respondent no.1 vide communication dated 1/6/2011 informed the petitioners that the students to the post graduate course admitted by them cannot be enrolled till the college receives affiliation as required under section 65 of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 (for short “M.U.H.S. Act”). The petitioners responded to this communication by stating that the further approval either of respondent 1 or respondent 2 is not necessary for the reason that the Central Government had already issued such permission. This was followed by exchange of communications between the petitioners and the respondent no.1. The petitioners responded to this communication by stating that the further approval either of respondent 1 or respondent 2 is not necessary for the reason that the Central Government had already issued such permission. This was followed by exchange of communications between the petitioners and the respondent no.1. The last communication by respondent 1 to the petitioners states that the resolution by the State Government and in turn affiliation by the respondent 1 is necessary to start the post graduate courses and refused to enroll the students and further directed the petitioners to cancel their admissions. 4. It is the contention of the petitioners that vide public notice dated 8/11/2010, the Medical Council of India (for short “I.M.C.”) granted one time exemption to the medical colleges exempting them from the requirements of obtaining permission from the respective State Governments for introducing post graduate courses in the concerned medical colleges which have had an approval by the State Government for conducting M.B.B.S courses. Such permission from the State Government was already granted to the petitioner college in the year 1984 under the provisions of the Amravati University Act, 1983. It is their case that the subject “coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions” falls in Entry No.66 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution. In pursuance of this power, the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short “I.M.C. Act”) was enacted. Section 10 A of I.M.C. Act provides for grant of permission by the Central Government to establish the medical college and further provide for introducing new or higher course of studies in such college. Sections 64 and 65 of M.U.H.S. Act relate to procedure for permission to open new college and procedure for grant of affiliation. It is the case of the petitioners that vide public notice dated 8/11/2010, I.M.C. had done away with the requirement of the permission from the respective State Governments for starting post graduate courses in the existing medical colleges. That being so, the petitioners were not required either to seek permission of the State Government or seek affiliation from the University. 5. The respondents do not concede the legal position set out by the petitioners and reiterated the stand taken by them which is reflected in various communications, which are impugned in this petition. That being so, the petitioners were not required either to seek permission of the State Government or seek affiliation from the University. 5. The respondents do not concede the legal position set out by the petitioners and reiterated the stand taken by them which is reflected in various communications, which are impugned in this petition. Provisions of section 64 (5) and 65 (1) of M.U.H.S. Act, relied upon by the respondents are reproduced below. “..... 64(5) Out of the applications recommended by the University, the Government may grant permission to such institutions as it may consider right and proper in its absolute direction, taking into account the Government’s budgetary resources, the suitability of the managements seeking permission to open new institutions and the State level priorities with regard to location of institutions of Health Sciences learning : Provided however that, in exception cases and for the reasons to be recorded in writing, any application not recommended by the University may be approved by the State Government for starting a new college or institution of Health Sciences learning.” According to them, the grant of permission by the Central Government under section 10A of the I.M.C. Act is always subject to the permission to be granted by the State Government and affiliation by the University as provided under M.U.H.S. Act. Therefore, their contention is that directions issued by them to the petitioners to cancel the admissions granted to the students in various post graduate courses are in accordance with law and consequently unassailable. 6. It is not the case of the respondents that provisions of section 64 and 65 of the M.U.H.S. Act overrides the provisions of section 10A of I.M.C. Act. Even otherwise such objection, if at all raised, does not survive in view of clear mandate of the Constitution. The power of the State to Legislate in respect of education including Universities must, to the extent to which it is entrusted to the Union Parliament, be deemed to be restricted. If a subject of Legislation is covered by Entries 63 to 66 of List I, even if it otherwise falls within the larger field of ‘education including Universities’ power to Legislate on that subject must lie with Parliament. If a subject of Legislation is covered by Entries 63 to 66 of List I, even if it otherwise falls within the larger field of ‘education including Universities’ power to Legislate on that subject must lie with Parliament. This was the view of the Apex Court in case of Gujarat University V/s. Krishna Rangnath Mudholkar reported in A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 703 particularly, before the deletion of Item No.11 in List II by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976. 7. In Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust, V/s. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 1996 S.C.2384 the similar question had fallen for consideration before the Supreme Court. By referring to the provisions of Dr. M.G.R. Medical University Act (37 of 1987) which was the State Legislation and section 10A of the I.M.C. Act it was held that if the permission in accordance section 10A of the I.M.C. Act is granted by the Central Government, further permission of the State Government under the provisions of the State Enactment is not required for the purposes of obtaining affiliation of such a college to the Medical University. 8. Interpretation of Entry 66 in List I vis-a-vis provisions of section 10K of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 and the power of the State Government on the subject mentioned in Entry 25 of List III was the subject matter of consideration before the Apex Court in case of Jaya Gokul Educational Trust V/s. Commissioner and Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Thiruvanathapuram, Kerala State and another reported in (2000) 5 S.C. 231 in which it was held that “the University ought to have considered the grant of final or further affiliation without waiting for any approval from the State Government and should have acted on the basis of the permission granted by the AICTE and other relevant factors in the University Act or statutes, which are not inconsistent with the AICTE Act or its Regulations” 9. In State of Maharashtra V/s. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others reported in (2006) 9 S.C.C. 1 , the issue before the Supreme Court was about the role of University in granting affiliation to the new B.Ed. college which had already received permission by the NCTE after the enactment of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1983. In State of Maharashtra V/s. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others reported in (2006) 9 S.C.C. 1 , the issue before the Supreme Court was about the role of University in granting affiliation to the new B.Ed. college which had already received permission by the NCTE after the enactment of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1983. Referring to sections 81 and 83 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, the Supreme Court held that University was bound to implement the decision of the National Council for Teachers Education and grant an affiliation in accordance therewith irrespective of the bar in section 83. The Supreme Court further held that the provisions of section 82 and 83 do not apply in such cases. We may add that provisions of Sections 82 and 83 of the Maharashtra Universities Act and sections 64 and 65 of M.U.H.S. Act are Statutes in parimateria enacted by the same Legislature. 10. In State of Tamil Nadu and another V/s. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute and others reported in (1995) 4 S.C.C. 104 the subject in Entry 66 in List I was explained by the Supreme Court and observed that “the expression ‘coordination’ used in Entry 66 of the Union List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution does not merely mean evaluation. It means harmonization with a view to forge a uniform pattern for a concerted action according to a certain design, scheme or plan of development. It, therefore, includes action not only for removal of disparities in standards but also for preventing the occurrence of such disparities. It would, therefore, also include power to do all things which are necessary to prevent what would make ‘coordination’ either impossible or difficult. This power is absolute and unconditional and in the absence of any valid compelling reasons, it must be given its full effect according to its plan and express intention.” 11. After considering the principles enunciated in the cases supra, the issue of legal position involved in this petition need not detain us any longer. Now, we advert to the few facts which according to us clinch the issue. The Medical Council of India issued public notice dated 8/11/2010 which reads as under. After considering the principles enunciated in the cases supra, the issue of legal position involved in this petition need not detain us any longer. Now, we advert to the few facts which according to us clinch the issue. The Medical Council of India issued public notice dated 8/11/2010 which reads as under. “The Board of Governors, Medical Council of India, with the prior approval of Government of India, has, as a cone-time exemption, extended the last date of receipt of applications by the council for (i) establishment of Medical Colleges, (ii) increase of intake capacity in MBBS seats of the recognized institutions, (iii) starting of PG Courses, and (iv) the increase of intake capacity int eh PG Courses. Applications may be sent directly to Medical Council of India upto 30th November, 2010. It may further be informed that the Central Government has granted approval for exemption to the medical colleges from the requirement of permission letter from the respective State Governments/Union Territory Administration for starting of the PG courses/increase of seats in PG courses, if the concerned colleges had earlier been issued the permission letter by the respective State Governments/Union Territory Administration for conduct of MBBS course. It may further be informed that the details regarding the various norms and the other need-based modifications in the various Regulations of Medical Council of India are available on the MCI website -www.mclindia.org.” 12. In pursuance to the above public notice, the petitioners applied to the respondent no.1 as well as to the Indian Medical Council for starting post graduate courses in 18 subjects. On 29/11/2010, the respondent no.1 issued consent of affiliation which was in respect of courses in M.S. Obstetrics and Gynecology with intake capacity of 5 students per year and it was made subject to grant of permission by Government of India under section 10A of the I.M.C. Act as well as final permission of the Government of Maharashtra and the M.U.H.S. Nashik. Vide letter dated 31/3/2011 the Board of Governors in Supersession of Medical Council of India granted permission to the petitioners for starting M.D. Anesthesia course with intake capacity of one student per year w.e.f. 2011 – 2012. Vide letter dated 31/3/2011 the Board of Governors in Supersession of Medical Council of India granted permission to the petitioners for starting M.D. Anesthesia course with intake capacity of one student per year w.e.f. 2011 – 2012. On 1/5/2011 the respondent no.1 University communicated to the petitioners that “on perusal of University records, it is observed that University has not granted affiliation to your College till date and as such students admitted at your College cannot be enrolled by the University. This is for your information and necessary action. This fact shall be brought to the notice of the students.” Again on 11/6/2011 the respondent no.1 informed the petitioners that “though the Central Government has issued permission letter to start Post Graduate Courses at your College State Government Resolution (G.R.) is mandatory for the same. Therefore, you are requested to obtain State Government Resolution (G.R.) for starting P.G. Courses at your college. On receipt of G.R. Local Inquiry Committee will be appointed to inspect the infrastructure of your college. The report submitted by local inquiry committee will be placed before the Academic Council for its decision on the same will be intimated to you.” 13. In view of decision of the Supreme Court in case of Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust, V/s. State of Tamil Nadu and others (supra) the provisions of section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act override the provisions of section 64 and 65 to the extent they are contrary. As has been held in Sant Dnyaneshwar V/s. State of Maharashtra 2006 (9) S.C.1, the provisions of sections 64 and 65 will have to be held as not applicable in the present case. That means, once the permission has been granted by Indian Medical Council to start the particular post graduate course, the further resolution by the State Government as well as the affiliation by the University would be a mere formality and would not debar the college in admitting the students. 14. Thus the petition deserves to be allowed in the following terms. 15. The writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (ii), however, to the extent and relating to those post graduate courses for which approval by the Medical Council under Section 10A of I.M.C. Act, 1956 has been granted. 16. Rule made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.