HP High Court Strikes Down Rule That Forced Statutory Universities to Seek State Council Recognition for Para-Vet Registration

The Himachal Pradesh High Court found that Rule 14 of the HPPVC Rules, 2011 impermissibly tightened registration eligibility beyond what the parent Act permitted, and directed the State Council to register a Punjab-qualified diploma holder within one week.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma, has quashed a portion of Rule 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Para Veterinary Council Rules, 2011 as ultra vires the Himachal Pradesh Para Veterinary Council Act, 2010. The petition was filed by Riya Sharma, a resident of Himachal Pradesh who completed a Diploma in Veterinary Science and Animal Health Technology from the College of Veterinary Science, Rampura Phul, Punjab, a constituent college of Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University. The State Council had refused to register her on the ground that her university was neither recognised by the State Government nor registered with the Council. The Bench held that the Act itself drew a clear line between universities established by law — which needed no State recognition — and other institutions, and that the Rules could not redraw that line.

The Registration Refusal and the Petitioner’s Route to Court

Riya Sharma applied for registration as a Para Veterinary Practitioner with the Himachal Pradesh Para Veterinary Council (State Council) after completing her diploma from GADVAS University, Ludhiana. GADVAS University was established by Act No.16 of 2005 of the Punjab State Legislature and has been recognised by the University Grants Commission under Section 12-B of the UGC Act, 1956. It also holds accreditation from the UGC and the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, and is a member of the Association of Indian Agricultural Universities and the Association of Indian Universities. The College of Veterinary Science, Rampura Phul, has been functional since 1 October 2019 as a constituent college with approval from the Veterinary Council of India.

When her registration application was rejected, Sharma wrote to the Registrar on 8 July 2025 seeking reasons. By communication dated 28 July 2025, the Registrar replied that the diploma from GADVAS University was “not recognized by the Himachal Pradesh State Government” and that the institution was also not registered with the State Council, both conditions being described as mandatory under Rule 14 of the HPPVC Rules, 2011.

Sharma then approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the refusal and the validity of the relevant portion of Rule 14.

What the Act Said and Where the Rule Diverged

Section 2(j) of the HPPVC Act, 2010 defines “recognised Para-veterinary qualifications” as a degree, diploma or certificate granted by any University established by law or any other institution recognised by the State Government. The Act therefore creates two distinct categories: universities that derive recognition from their statutory origin, and non-university institutions that must separately obtain State Government recognition.

Section 38 of the Act governs the State Register of Para Veterinary Practitioners and stipulates that a person must hold a recognised qualification. It does not make registration with the State Council a precondition for a university that is itself established by statute.

Rule 14(1) of the HPPVC Rules, 2011, however, required that “Private Institutions and Universities imparting this training shall have to be got registered with the Council.” It further limited eligibility to persons who qualified from institutions and universities recognised by the State Government. The Bench found this to be a direct conflict with the Act: once a university is established by a statute, the Act imposes no further condition of recognition by the State Government, and a rule framed under the Act cannot impose one.

How the Bench Reasoned on Ultra Vires Delegated Legislation

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, writing for the Bench, traced the rule-making chain carefully. Section 53 of the HPPVC Act empowers the State to frame rules; Section 54 empowers the Council to make regulations with prior State approval. The power to make rules under Section 53 is, like all delegated legislative power, bounded by the parent statute. Rules framed under it can supplement the Act but cannot supplant it.

The Bench applied the settled principle that a rule which travels beyond the enabling Act, or is inconsistent with it, is void. It referred to the Supreme Court’s formulation in Union of India v. S. Srinivasan, (2012) 7 SCC 683, that a rule must conform to the provisions of the statute under which it is framed and must not travel beyond it. The Bench also drew on the Supreme Court’s recent restatement in Ram Chandra Choudhary v. Roop Nagar Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Limited, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 583, which set out a structured test: identify the source of power, construe the subordinate legislation, and determine whether it is consistent with and within the scope of the delegated power.

Applying that test, the Bench was clear. The Act recognised qualifications granted by any university established by law without any further gateway of State approval or council registration. Rule 14’s requirement that even such universities must register with the Council, and that only State-recognised universities qualify, created a disability that the Act itself did not contemplate. That part of the Rule was therefore ultra vires.

The Bench also cited this High Court’s own earlier authority in Som Krishan v. Paras Ram, AIR 1958 (Himachal Pradesh) 26, and the Supreme Court’s decisions in St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, NCTE, (2003) 3 SCC 321, and Nedurimili Janardhana Reddy v. Progressive Democratic Students’ Union, (1994) 6 SCC 506, all of which affirm that delegated legislation must remain within the four corners of the enabling statute.

The Bench drew specific attention to the fact that GADVAS University is established by a Punjab statute, is UGC-recognised, and holds ICAR accreditation. Requiring such a university to obtain State Government recognition or register with the State Council as a precondition for its graduates to practise in Himachal Pradesh was precisely the kind of additional disability that the Act never authorised the rule-maker to impose.

Outcome

The Bench quashed and set aside Rule 14 of the HPPVC Rules, 2011 to the extent it requires universities imparting Para Veterinary Science training to register with the State Council, and to the extent it confines eligibility for council registration to universities recognised by the State Government.

As a direct consequence, the Registrar’s communication dated 28 July 2025 rejecting Riya Sharma’s application was also quashed and set aside.

The State Council was directed to register the petitioner within one week of the date of the judgment, subject to completion of all other codal formalities, and to issue her a registration certificate accordingly. The petition was disposed of, and all pending miscellaneous applications were closed.