Retrospective invalidation of recognised degrees rejected: earlier GAMS qualifications remained valid despite later permission requirements.

A later permission-based regulatory regime did not retrospectively cancel GAMS degrees lawfully conferred under an earlier recognised framework. The State Faculty's authority under the 1951 Act, together with continued recognition in the Second Schedule to the 1970 Act, meant the GAMS qualification remained valid despite the introduction of the BAMS course and Bihar's indigenous medical regulations. The 1982 Act regulated institutions but did not annul existing degrees. The 2003 amendment introducing prior permission requirements for medical colleges was construed prospectively, so it did not invalidate degrees already awarded before its commencement. The students' GAMS degrees therefore remained recognised for higher studies and employment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the GAMS degree granted by the State Faculty remained a recognised medical qualification under the 1970 Act after the introduction of the BAMS course and the Bihar indigenous medical regulatory regime; (ii) Whether the 2003 amendment to the 1970 Act rendered earlier GAMS degrees unrecognised because the colleges had not obtained Central Government permission.

Issue (i): Whether the GAMS degree granted by the State Faculty remained a recognised medical qualification under the 1970 Act after the introduction of the BAMS course and the Bihar indigenous medical regulatory regime.

Analysis: The State Faculty was constituted under the 1951 Act and was empowered to affiliate institutions, conduct examinations, and confer GAMS degrees. The Second Schedule to the 1970 Act continued to recognise the GAMS qualification granted by the State Faculty from 1953 onwards. The later introduction of the BAMS course did not by itself extinguish the statutory recognition of GAMS, and the 1951 Act was not shown to be repugnant to the 1970 Act. The 1982 Act regulated opening and continuation of indigenous medical institutions in Bihar, but it did not contain any provision cancelling degrees already granted by the Faculty under the earlier regime. The statutes were therefore read as complementary, not destructive of each other.

Conclusion: The GAMS degree continued to be a recognised qualification and could not be treated as de-recognised merely because of the BAMS regime or the 1982 Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the 2003 amendment to the 1970 Act rendered earlier GAMS degrees unrecognised because the colleges had not obtained Central Government permission.

Analysis: Sections 13A, 13B and 13C introduced a prior-permission regime for establishing medical colleges and opening new or higher courses, and non-compliance affected qualifications granted by such colleges. However, a reasonable construction was adopted to avoid injustice to students who had already completed studies and been awarded degrees before the amendment. The amendment was held to operate prospectively and not to invalidate degrees already legally conferred prior to the commencement of the amending Act. The provision requiring existing colleges to seek permission within three years was not read as retrospectively destroying qualifications already granted.

Conclusion: The 2003 amendment did not invalidate the earlier GAMS degrees already conferred on the appellant-students.

Final Conclusion: The appellant-students' GAMS degrees remained valid and recognised for admission to higher courses and for employment, and the contrary view of the High Court was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A later regulatory or permission-based statutory amendment will not retrospectively nullify degrees lawfully conferred under an earlier recognised regime unless the statute clearly and expressly so provides; statutes should be construed to avoid injustice and absurdity.

---