New Delhi, May 28 (IANS) In a scathing comment on teaching faculty in privately-run specialised institutions, the Supreme Court Friday wondered if they were incarnations of Lord Krishna as they simultaneously managed to be on the rolls of several institutions at a given time.
The vacation bench of the apex court of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice C.K. Prasad said: ‘Either they become Lord Krishna, who is omnipresent, or how else could they be present in all the colleges at the same time.’
The court made the observation while hearing a petition of minority institution Chhattisgarh Dental College and Research Institute against the state government seeking 50 percent share in the post-graduate seats in Periodontics, Orthodontics, Conservative Dentistry and Oral Medicine courses.
The institute has contended that being a minority institution, it was not bound to follow certain rules of the state government. It added that its rights were protected by the Constitution Bench judgment of the apex Court in the P.A. Inamdar case.
Apparently not satisfied with the status of the faculty in the Departments of Periodontics, Orthodontics, Conservative Dentistry and Oral Medicine where post-graduate students are to be taken, the court gave the example of Haryana and Rajasthan where either the entire or 50 percent of the faculty comprised of teachers who were common to all the colleges.
Justice Singhvi said that in Haryana, there were seven colleges where the entire faculty is the same in all the colleges. He said in nine institutions in Rajasthan 50 percent of the faculty members were common.
Assailing these institutions, Justice Singhvi said they were ‘playing with the careers of the students. These post-graduate students are going to be doctors treating you (to the lawyer for the Chhattisgarh College) and me. We don’t want to be threatened by them.’
Slamming the Chhattisgarh Dental College and Research Institute, Justice Singhvi said that ‘if you don’t have labs, teaching faculty and other infrastructure, how could you get approval from the government?’ Justice Singhvi wanted to know ‘What is the quid pro quo?’
Then Justice Singhvi went on to ask, ‘Which politician of your state is involved in this (college)? Name him. Who is running it?’
Pointing to the state of health of these institutions in different parts of the country, Justice Singhvi said that 16 institutions in Pune are controlled by one person.
The court told the petitioner college to go to the high court as it was already dealing with a similar matter.
