http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 26  

PETITIONER: STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ADHIYAMAN EDUCATIONAL & RESEARCH INSTITUTE & ORS. ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT24/03/1995

BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (4) 104        JT 1995 (3)   136  1995 SCALE  (2)401

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: SAWANT, J.: 1.   The short question involved in these matters is whether after  the  coming into force of the All India  Council  for Technical  Education Act, 1987 [hereinafter referred  to  as the  ’Central Act’] the State Government has power to  grant and withdraw permission to start a technical institution  as defined  in  the  Central Act.  In  the  present  case,  the technical  institutions with which we are concerned are  the respondent  Engineering Colleges which are being run in  the State of Tamil Nadu, 2.   To understand the issue, we will refer to the facts  in C.A.  Nos. 1634-35/1990.  The State Government under  G.O.M. No.429  dated  17th  April, 1984 issued  by  the  Education, Science  and  Technology Department  had  permitted  private managements  to  start new Engineering  Colleges  under  the self-financing  scheme without any financial  commitment  to the  Government, but subject to the fulfillment  of  certain conditions.    The   first   respondent,   viz.,   Adhiyaman Educational  Research  Institute  [for  short,  the  Trust’] applied to the Government of Tamil Nadu for permission to 139 start  a new self-financing private Engineering  College  in terms  of  the  said policy.   The  Government  granted  the permission  to  the  Trust to start  a  private  Engineering College  under  the name and style of Adhiyaman  College  of Engineering  at Hosur in Dharmapuri district beginning  with the  academic year 1987-88 by its order of 9th  June,  1987. The  permission was to offer three degree courses  with  the intake  of  180 students per year, i.e., sixty  students  in each  course in the subjects of [a] Mechanical  Engineering, [b]  Electronics  and  Communication  Engineering  and   [c] Computer  Science  and Engineering.  One of  the  conditions imposed  by  the Government was that the Trust  could  admit candidates  of its choice upto 50 per cent of  the  approved intake under the management quota, and the remaining 50  per

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 26  

cent  of  the  seats would be allotted by  the  Director  of Technical  Education  from  among  the  candidates  of   the approved  list  prepared  for admission  to  Government  and Government-aided  Engineering Colleges.  The Government  had also  stipulated  that if any of the conditions  imposed  by them was not fulfilled, the permission granted to start  the College would be withdrawn and the Government will have  the right  to  take over the College with all  its  movable  and immovable  properties including endowment and  cash  balance without  paying compensation.  Pursuant to this  permission, the  Trust applied to the University on 18th June, 1987  for affiliation  of the College.  After inspection of  the  Col- lege, the Inspecting Commission of the University  submitted its report on 5th November, 1987 and the University on  21st November, 1987 granted temporary affiliation to the  College for  the academic year 1987-88 subject to the fulfilment  of certain  conditions.  The University also made it  clear  to the  Trust  that the Trust should make  an  application  for affiliation  for the second year B.E. degree course for  the academic  year 1988-89 and that no admission should be  made to the degree course until the permission was granted by the University. 3.   The  College  started functioning from July  1987.   On 17th   September,   1988,  the   University   extended   the affiliation  for  first year of B.E. degree course  for  the academic  year 1988-89 subject to the implementation of  the recommendations  of  the Inspecting Commission made  in  its report  of 5th November, 1987 and subject to the  conditions of affiliation already intimated while granting the  initial temporary  affiliation.  On 24th November, 1988,  the  Trust applied  for affiliation for third year B.E.  degree  course for the academic year 198990 and continuation of affiliation for  first  year and second year B.E.  degree  courses.   In March  1989,  the  Committee appointed by  the  Director  of Technical Education, inspected the College and submitted its report which was forwarded to the Trust with a direction  to take  necessary  steps to create  requisite  infrastructural facilities.  The Trust sent a reply to the Director  inform- ing  him  of  the progress made by it  with  regard  to  the provision of necessary infrastructural facilities. 4.   In  the  meanwhile,  on 27th  March,  1989,  the  State Government  appointed  a High Power Committee to  visit  the self-financing  Engineering Colleges and make an  assessment of  their  functioning.   In  its  report,  the  High  Power Committee  stated  that  the Trust  had  not  fulfilled  the conditions  imposed  by the Government at the  time  of  the grant  of permission and also the conditions imposed by  the University while 140 granting  affiliation.   On  receipt  of  this  report,  the Director  of Technical Education issued a show cause  notice on  16th  July  1989 and asked  for  an  explanation  within fifteen  days  as  to  why the  permission  granted  by  the Government to start the College should not be withdrawn. 5.In the meanwhile, in May 1989, the University appointed  a three-member  Inspection  Commission to  inspect  the  func- tioning  of the College for the purposes of considering  the question  of continuance of the affiliation of  the  College for  the academic year 1989-90.  Even before the receipt  of the  report of the Inspection Commission, the  Syndicate  of the  University  accepted  the  report  of  the  High  Power Committee appointed by the Government and resolved to reject the  request  for provisional affiliation for  the  academic year  1989-90 and also to issue a show cause notice  to  the Trust  as  to  why the affiliation granted  to  it  for  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 26  

academic years, 198788 and 1988-89 should not be  cancelled. Pursuant  to this resolution, the University on  25th  July, 1989,  issued a notice to the Trust to show cause as to  why the  Statute  44[A] of Chapter XXVI of Vol.1 of  die  Madras University Calendar should not be invoked in respect of  the provisional  affiliation already granted for the first  year for  the  academic year 1987-88 and for  the  academic  year 1988-89.   On  26th  July,  1989,  the  University  sent   a communication to the Trust informing that the Syndicate  had accepted the report of the High Power Committee appointed by the Government and it resolved to reject the request of  the Trust for provisional affiliation for 1989-90 for the  first year  and also the request for provisional  affiliation  for second and third year courses for 1989-90.The  communication also  informed  the Trust that it  should  make  alternative arrangement  to distribute the students already admitted  to the   academic   year  198788  and   1988-89   among   other institutions with adequate facilities. 6.The Trust, therefore, filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 10222 before the High Court for prohibiting the Director  of Technical  Education  from  taking  further  proceedings  in pursuance  of his show cause notice dated 16th  July,  1989. The  Trust also filed another writ petition being  W.P.  No. 10223  of  1989 for quashing the resolution  passed  by  the Syndicate of the University and for directing the University to  grant  provisional  affiliation  to  its  College.   The Secretary  to  the Government, Ministry of  Human  Resources Development  [central] and All India Council  for  Technical Education  were  also  impleaded  as  parties  to  the  writ petitions  as respondents.  During the pendency of the  writ petitions, the learned Single Judge appointed a Committee to inspect  the  College and make a report with regard  to  its deficiencies which are pointed out by the Government and the University.  The Court Committee submitted a report that the Trust  had not even provided the  requisite  infrastructural facilities  for conducting different courses.  By  a  common judgment,   the  learned  Single  Judge  allowed  W.P.   No. 10222/1989  which  was  against  the  State  Government  and dismissed W.P. No. 10223/1989 which was directed against the University.   The learned Single Judge held that  after  the passing of the Central Act the State Government had no power to  cancel the permission granted to the Trust to start  the College and it could not rely for the purpose on a report of the High Power Committee appointed by it since the  appoint- ment of such a committee was itself ille- 141 gal  and unconstitutional.  According to the learned  Judge, the  only course open to the State Government was  to  refer the  matter to the All India Council of Technical  Education [for short ’Council’].  According to him, under the  Central Act, the duty was imposed on the Council for recognising  or derecognising  any technical institution in the country  and it was not open to the State Government or the University to give  approval or disapproval to any technical  institution. According to the learned Judge, further, if after the coming into operation of the Central Act, each State Government and University  was  allowed  to recognise  or  derecognise  the technical institutions, each of them would follow  different yardsticks  which will be against the object of the  Central Act.  However, he held that the University could take action under  Statute  44  [A] in Chapter XXVI of Vol.   1  of  the Calendar  of  the University on the ground that one  of  the conditions  imposed by it for grant of  affiliation,  -viz., that the Trust should obtain concurrence of the Council  for the College was not fulfilled and consequently he field that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 26  

the resolution passed by the University Syndicate was valid. 7.Aggrieved   by  this  decision,  the  Trust,   the   State Government as well as the University preferred writ appeals. It  appears  that  during  the  appellate  stage,  even  the students were allowed to intervene in the proceedings.   The Division  Bench allowed the, writ appeal of the.  Trust  and quashed the resolution of the University Syndicate passed on 21st July, 1989 and dismissed the writ appeals of the  State Government and the University.  The Division Bench not  only confirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge that  the State  Government  had no jurisdiction  to  derecognise  the College, but it also held that even the University could not have  acted  on the report of the High Power  Committee  ap- pointed  by the State Government and could not have  refused extension of affiliation without giving reasons for the same which   were  admittedly  not  discussed  in  its   impugned communication.    The  Division  Bench  further  held   that condition  No.18  which was mentioned  in  the  University’s letter  dated  21st November, 1987  while  granting  initial temporary  affiliation  was beyond the jurisdiction  of  the University  since  after the coming into  operation  of  the Central  Act,  the  concurrence of  the  then  Council  [the predecessor  of the present Council] which was a  non-statu- tory  body  and  which ceased to exist in  March,  1988  was neither necessary nor could it have been obtained. 8.   It  may thus be seen that although on the facts in  the present  case, what is questioned is the power of the  State Government  and the University respectively  to  derecognise and  disaffiliate the Engineering College, what is  involved is the larger issue as stated at the outset, viz., the  con- flict between the Central Act on the one hand and the  Tamil Nadu Private Colleges [Regulation] Act, 1976 [for short ’the State  Act’] and the Rules made thereunder, viz., the  Tamil Nadu  Private  Colleges  [Regulation] Rules,  1976  and  the Madras University Act, 1923 [hereinafter referred to as  the ’University  Act’]  and the, statutes  and  ordinances  made thereunder on the. other.  We have, therefore, in effect  to address ourselves to this larger issue. 9.   We  may  begin  by  examining  the  provisions  of  the Constitution  delineating respective spheres of the  Central and the State legislatures.  Entry 66 of List 1, i.e, 142 the Union List of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution reads as follows:               "66.    Co-ordination  and  determination   of               standards in institutions for higher education               or  research  and  scientific  and   technical               institutions." 10.This Entry has remained unchanged since the inception  of the  Constitution.   Before the Constitution  [Forty  Second Amendment]  Act,  1976  which came  into  force  w.e.f.  3rd January, 1977, Entry 11in List 11, i.e., the State List  was as follows:               "Education  including Universities subject  to               the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of               List I and Entry 25 of List 111" 11.  Entry  63  of  List I  relates  to  the  Benares  Hindu University,  the  Aligarh Muslim University  and  the  Delhi University;  the  University  established  in  pursuance  of Article  371-E, i.e, Central University in  Andhra  Pradesh, and  other institutions declared by Parliament by law to  be an institution of national importance.  Entry 64 of the said List  refers  to institutions for  scientific  or  technical education  financed by the Government of India wholly or  in part   and  declared  by  the  Parliament  by  law   to   be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 26  

institutions of national importance and Entry 65 relates  to the  Union agencies and institutions for  [a]  professional, vocational or technical training, including the training  of police officers; or [b] the promotion of special studies  or research;  or [c] scientific or technical assistance in  the investigation or detection of crime. 12.Entry 25 of List 111, i.e., the Concurrent List prior  to the said Constitutional Amendment read as follows:               "Vocational and technical Training of  Labour.               " 13.  After the Amendment it reads as follows:               "Education,  including  technical   education,               medical education and universities, subject to               the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of               List  1; vocational and technical training  of               labour." 14.The  Constitutional provisions dealing with the scope  of the  powers of the Union and the State legislatures  on  the subject in question may be summarised as follows: 15.The subject "coordination and determination of  standards in  institutions  for  higher  education  or  research   and scientific  and technical institutions" has always  remained the  special preserve of the Parliament.  This was  so  even before the Forty Second Amendment, since Entry 11 of List 11 even then was subject, among others, to Entry 66 of List  1. After  the  said Amendment, the Constitutional  position  on that  score  has  not undergone any change.   All  that  has happened  is  that Entry II was taken out from List  11  and amalgamated  with Entry 25 of List Ill.  However,  even  the new Entry 25 of List III is also subject to the  provisions, among  others, of Entry 66 of List 1. It cannot,  therefore, be  doubted  nor  is  it  contended  before  us,  that   the legislation with regard to coordination and determination of standards  in institutions for higher education or  research and  scientific and technical institutions has  always  been the preserve of the Parliament. what was contended before us on  behalf  of  the  State was that  Entry  66  enables  the Parliament  to lay down the minimum standards but  does  not deprive  the  State Legislature from laying  down  standards above, the said minimum standards.  We will 143 deal with this argument at its proper place. 16.  We may now refer to the provisions of Articles 246, 248 and  254  in  Part  II of Chapter 1  which  relates  to  the distribution  of  the legislative powers  between  the  Par- liament and the State Legislatures.- It is not necessary  to enter  into  a detailed discussion of these  Articles  since they  have been the subject matter of various  decisions  of this  Court.   We  may only summarise the  effect  of  these Articles  as has emerged through the judicial decisions,  so far  as  it is relevant for our present  discussion.  -While Article  246  states the obvious, viz. that  Parliament  has exclusive  power to make law.-, with respect to any  of  the matters enumerated in List I and has also the power to  make laws  with respect to any of the matters enumerated in  List 111, the State Legislature has exclusive power to make  laws with  respect  to any of the matters enumerated in  List  II subject,  of course, to the Parliament’s power to make  laws on  matters enumerated in List I and List  III.   Parliament has also power to make laws on matters enumerated in List II for  any  part of the territory of India not included  in  a State.  Article 248 vests the Parliament with the  exclusive power to make any law not enumerated in the Concurrent  List or  the  State List including the power of  making  any  law imposing  a  tax not mentioned in those Lists.   This  is  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 26  

residuary  power of legislation conferred on the  Parliament and  is specifically covered by Entry 97 of list 1. In  case of repugnancy in the legislations made by the Parliament and The   State  Legislatures  which  arises  in  the  case   of Legislations on a subject in List "ill, the law made by  the Parliament whether passed before or after the law passed  by the State Legislature shall prevail and to that extent,  the law made by the Legislature of a State will be void.  Where, however,  the  law  made by the Legislature of  a  State  is repugnant  to  the  provisions of an  carrier  law  made  by Parliament  or an existing law with respect to that  matter, the  law made by the Legislature of the State shall,  if  it has  received the assent of the President, prevail  in  that State.   However, this does not prevent the Parliament  from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including  a law adding to, amending, varying  or  repealing the  law  so  made by the Legislature  of  the  State.   The repugnancy  may also arise between a pre-Constitutional  law made  by the then Provincial Legislature which continues  to be in force by virtue of Article 372 and the  post-Constitu- tional law of Parliament in which case, the law made by  the Provincial Legislature shall stand impliedly repealed to the extent of repugnancy to the law made by the Parliament. 17.According to some jurists, the repugnancy may also  arise between  a pre--Constitutional law made by the then  Provin- cial Legislature which continues to be in force by virtue of Article 372 and the postConstitutional law of the Parliament in  which  case by virtue of the first part of  Article  254 [1],   the  law  made  by  the  Parliament  shall   prevail, notwithstanding   that   the  Provincial   Legislature   was competent  to make the law prior to the commencement of  the Constitution.   This  is  the consequence  of  the  relevant provision of Article 254 [1] which reads as follows:               "254  [1]  Inconsistency between laws made  by               Parliament   and   the  laws   made   by   the               Legislatures of States. - [1] If any provision               of a law made by the Legislature of a State is               repugnant  to any provision of a law  made  by               Parliament which               144               Parliament  is competent to enact...  the  law               made  by Parliament, whether passed before  or               after the law made by the Legislature of  such               State... shall prevail and the law made by the               Legislature of the State shall, to the  extent               of the repugnancy, be void." 18.According  to  this  view, it is to  take  care  of  this repugnancy that the aforesaid provision in the first part of Article 254 [1] is made.  The repugnancy arising out of  the two laws made on matters in the Concurrent List is  referred to  in the other part of Article 254 [1] and if the  framers of  this  Constitution  wanted  to  provide  only  for   the repugnancy arising between the two laws made on the subjects in  the Concurrent List, the aforesaid provision of  Article 254 [1] was unnecessary.  However, in view of the repugnancy resulting  in implied repeal of the pre-Constitutional  pro- vincial  law by the post-Constitutional  parliamentary  law, this controversy need not detain us here. 19.In the light of the aforesaid Constitutional  provisions, we may now cxamine the provisions of the Central Act and the two  State enactments and the subordinate  legislation  made thereunder to find out whether there is encroachment by  the said  law  on  Entry  66  of List  I  or  whether  there  is repugnancy between the Central Act and the State Acts. 20.The  Preamble of the Central Act states that it has  been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 26  

enacted  to  provide for the establishment of an  All  India Council  for Technical Education with a view to  [i]  proper planning  and  coordinated  development  of  the   technical education  system throughout the country [ii]  promotion  of qualitative  improvement  of such education in  relation  to planned  quantitative  growth [iii]  regulation  and  proper maintenance  of  norms and standards in the  technical  edu- cation  system  and  [iv] for  matters  connected  therewith [emphasis supplied].  Sections 2 [g], 2 [h] and 2 [i] of the Central   Act  define  ’technical   education’,   ’technical institution’ and ’University’ respectively as follows:               "2. In this Act, unless the context  otherwise               requires,               xxxxx               [g] "technical education" means programmes  of               education.    research   and    training    in               engineering,  technology,  architecture,  town               planning,  management,  pharmacy  and  applied               arts  and crafts and such other  programme  or               areas   as  the  Central  Government  may   in               consultation with the Council. by notification               in the official Gazette, declare;               [h]  "technical  institution"  means  an   in-               stitution, not being a university which offers               courses or programmes of technical  education,               and  shall include such other institutions  as               the  Central Government may,  in  consultation               with  the  Council  by  notification  in   the               Official   Gazette,   declare   as   technical               institutions;               [i]  "University" means a  university  defined               under   clause  (f)  of  section  2   of   the               University  Grants  Commission act,  1956  and               includes   an  institution  deemed  to  be   a               University under section 3 of that Act."                21. Section 3 [1] gives power to the  Central               Government  to establish the  Council.   Since               the composition of the Council is important to               deal  with one of the aspects of an  argument,               we  may cite the relevant provisions  of  sub-               section  [4] of Section 3 which refers to  the               said composition.  It reads as under:               145               "[4]  The  Council shall consist of  the  fol-               lowing members, namely:-                                  xxxxxxx               [i]  two  members of Parliament  of  who,  one               shall  be elected by the House of  the  People               and one by the Council of States.               [k]  eight  members  to be  appointed  by  the               Central  Government  by rotation  in  the  al-               phabetical  order to represent the  State  and               the Union territories:               Provided that an appointment under this clause               shall  be  made on the recommendation  of  the               Government  of the State, or as the  case  may               be, the Union territory concerned;               [l]  four  members  to  be  appointed  by  the               Central    Government   to    represent    the               organisations  in  the field of  industry  and               commerce;               [ml  seven  members  to be  appointed  by  the               Central Government to represent:-               [i].......................               [ii] the Association of Indian Universities;"

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 26  

22.Suffice it to say that the Council, besides having on  it the  representatives  of the various ministries,  of  higher educational  institutions, professional bodies in the  field of  technical and management education and organisations  in the  field  of industry and commerce, also  has  the  repre- sentatives  of  the  State in the form  of  the  Members  of Parliament  and the Members to be appointed by  the  Central Government to represent the States and the Union Territories and  also  of  the State Universities.   Section  1  further empowers  the  Council to associate with itself  any  person whose assistance or advice it may desire in carrying out any of the provisions of the Act. 23.Chapter  III  of  the  Act  enumerates  the  powers   and functions  of the Council.  Section 10 of the  said  Chapter states  that in order to perform its duties and to take  all such steps as it may think necessary to ensure the object of and  perform the functions under the Act, the  Council  may, among others,               "[b]  coordinate the development of  technical               education in the country at all levels;                                   xxxxxx               [f]  promote an effective link  between  tech-               nical  education  system  and  other  relevant               systems  including  research  and  development               organisations, industry and the community;               [g]  evolve  suitable  performance   appraisal               systems  for technical institutions  and  Uni-               versities  imparting technical education,  in-               corporating norms and mechanisms for enforcing               accountability.               [h]  formulate schemes for the initial and  in               service  training  of  teachers  and  identify               institution or centres and set up new  centres               for  offering  staff  development   programmes               including continuing education of teachers;               [i] lay down norms and standards for  courses,               curricula,    physical    and    instructional               facilities,      staff     pattern,      staff               qualifications, quality instructions,  assess-               ment and examinations;               [j]  fix  norms and  guidelines  for  charging               tuition and other fees;               [k] grant approval for starting new  technical               institutions and for introduction of               146               new courses or programmes in consultation with               the agencies concerned-,               [l]  advise the Central Government in  respect               of  grant of charter to any professional  body               or  institution  in  the  field  of  technical               education   conferring  powers,   rights   and               privileges  on  it for the promotion  of  such               profession  in its field including conduct  of               examinations   and  awarding   of   membership               certificates-,               [m]  lay down norms for granting  autonomy  to               technical institutions;               [n]  take  all  necessary  steps  to   prevent               commercialisation of technical education;               [o]   provide  guidelines  for  admission   of               students  to technical institutions  and  Uni-               versities imparting technical education;               [p] inspect or cause to inspect any  technical               institution;               [q] withhold or discontinue grants in  respect

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 26  

             of  courses,  programmes  to  such   technical               institutions  which  fail to comply  with  the               directions  given  by the Council  within  the               stipulated period of time and take such  other               steps   as  may  be  necessary  for   ensuring               compliance of the directions of the Council;               [r]  take  steps to  strengthen  the  existing               organisations, and to set up new organisations               to ensure effective discharge of the Council’s               responsibilities  and to create  positions  of               professional,  technical and supporting  staff               based on requirements;               [s] declare technical institutions at  various               levels and types offering courses in technical               education fit to receive grants;               xxxxxxx               [u] set up a National Board of Accredita-               tion  to  periodically conduct  evaluation  of               technical  institutions or programmes  on  the               basis  of  guidelines,  norms  and   standards               specified by it and to make recommendations to               it, or to the Council, or to the Commission or               to others bodies, regarding recognition or de-               recognition   of   the  institution   or   the               programme;" 24.Section  11 provides for inspection to be caused  by  the Council,  of  any department or departments of  a  technical institution  or University for the purposes of  ascertaining the financial needs of such institutions or a University  or standards  of teaching, examination and research.   It  also provides  for  inspection as well as for  communicating  the results   of  such  inspection  to  such   institution   and University  with a view to recommending to it the action  to be  taken  as a result of such  inspection.   The  executive authority  of  the  institution or University  is  under  an obligation  to  report to the Council , the  action  if  any which  is  proposed  to be taken by it for  the  purpose  of implementing  the  recommendations  made  by  the   Council, pursuant  to  the  result  of the  inspection  made  by  it. Section 13 requires the Council to establish, among  others, an  All India Board of Technical Education and an All  India Board   of   Under-graduate  Studies  in   Engineering   and Technology  and  Post-graduate  Education  and  Research  in Engineering  and Technology.  The Council is also  empowered to  establish such other Boards of Studies as it  may  think fit.   These  Boards of Studies are required to  advise  the Executive Committee of the Council constituted under Section 12  of  the Act on academic matters including on  norms  and standards,  model curricula, model facilities and  structure of  courses.  Section 14 requires the Council  to  establish four Regional Committees; viz., Northern, Southern, West- 147 ern  and Eastern Regional Committees with their  offices  at Kanpur, Madras, Bomb and Calcutta respectively.  The Council has  also the powers to establish other Regional  Committees if it thinks fit.  These Regional Committees have to  advise and assist the Council to look into all aspect of  planning, promoting  and  regulating technical  education  within  the region.  Section 20 empowers the Central Government to  give directions to the Council from time to time on questions  of policy,  and the Council is bound by such directions.   Sec- tions 22 and 23 give power to the Central Government and the Council to make rules and regulations respectively under the Act  which arc to be laid before the Parliament.  It is  not necessary to refer to other provisions of the Act.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 26  

25.The  aforesaid  provisions  of  the  Act  including   its preamble make it abundantly clear that the Council has  been established  under  the Act for coordinated  and  integrated development of the technical education system at all  levels throughout  the  country and is enjoined to  promote  quali- tative improvement of such education in relation to  planned quantitative  growth.   The  Council  is  also  required  to regulate   and  ensure  proper  maintenance  of  norms   and standards  in the technical education system.   The  Council is, further to evolve suitable performance appraisal  system incorporating  such norms and mechanisms in enforcing  their accountability.   It is also required to provide  guidelines for  admission  of  students and has power  to  withhold  or discontinue grants and to derecognise the institutions where norms and standards laid down by it and directions given  by it  from  time  to time are not  followed.   This  duty  and responsibility  cast on the Council implies that  the  norms 0and  standards to be set should be such as would prevent  a lopsided  or an isolated development of technical  education in  the country.  For this purpose, the norms and  standards to be prescribed for the technical education have to be such as  would  on the one hand ensure development  of  technical educational  system in all parts of the  country  uniformly; that there will be a coordination in the technical education and  the education imparted in various parts of the  country and will be capable of being integrated in one system;  that there  will  be sufficient number  of  technically  educated individuals  and  that their growth would be  in  a  planned manner;  and that all institutions in the country are  in  a position  to properly maintain the norms and standards  that may  be prescribed by the Council.  The norms and  standards have, therefore, to be reasonable and ideal and at the  same time, adaptable, attainable and maintainable by institutions throughout  the  country  to ensure  both  quantitative  and qualitative growth of the technically qualified personnel to meet the needs of the country.  Since the standards have  to be  laid down on a national level, they have necessarily  to be   uniform  throughout  the  country  without  which   the coordinated  and  integrated development  of  the  technical education  all over the country will not be  possible  which will  defeat one of the main objects of the  statute.   This country as is well-known, consists of regions and population which are at different levels of progress and development or to put it differently, at differing levels of  backwardness. This  is not on account of any physical or intellectual  de- ficiencies  but  for want of opportunities  to  develop  and contribute to the total good of the country.   Unnecessarily high norm or standards, say for admission to the educational institutions or to pass the exami- 148 nations, may not only deprive a vast majority of the  people of  the benefit of the education and the qualification,  but would  also result in concentrating technical  education  in the hands of the affluent and elite few and in depriving the country  of a large number of otherwise deserving  technical personnel.  It is necessary to bear this aspect of the norms and  standards to be prescribed in mind, for a major  debate before  us  centered  around  the right  of  the  States  to prescribe  standards  higher than the one laid down  by  the Council.  What is further necessary to remember is that  the Council has on it representatives not only of the States but also of the State Universities.  They have, therefore, a say in  the matter of laying down the norms and standards  which may  be  prescribed by the Council for such  education  from time to time.  The Council has further the Regional  Commit-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 26  

tees, at present, at least, in four major geographical zones and the constitution and functions of the Committees are  to be prescribed by the regulations to be made by the  Council. Since  the Council has the representation of the States  and the professional bodies on it which have also representation from  different States and regions, they have a say  in  the constitution  and  functions of these  Committees  as  well. That  is  further  important to note  is  that  the  subject covered by this statute is fairly within the scope of  Entry 66  of  List  I and Entry 25 of List  111.   Further,  these regulations along with other regulations made by the Council and  the rules to be made by the, Central  Government  under the Act are to be laid before the Parliament.  Hence, on the subjects covered by this statute, the State could not make a law  under  Entry  11   of List  II  prior  to  Forty-Second Amendment  nor can it make a law under Entry 25 of List  III after  the  Forty-Second Amendment.  If there was  any  such existing  law  immediately before the  commencement  of  the Constitution  within  the  meaning of  Article  372  of  the Constitution,  as  the Madras University Act, 1923,  on  the enactment of the present Central Act, the provisions of  the said  law if repugnant to the provisions of the Central  Act would stand impliedly repealed to the extent of  repugnancy. Such  repugnancy would have to be adjudged on the  basis  of the  tests which are applied for adjudging repugnancy  under Article 254 of the Constitution. 26.We may now examine the provisions of the State law, viz., Tamil Nadu Private Colleges [Regulation] Act.  Section 1 [3] makes  the Act applicable to all private colleges.   Reasons for the enactment circulated with the Bill of the Act stated that  the  State  Government had  decided  to  regulate  the conditions  of  service  of  teachers  employed  in  private colleges and to make the law relating to managing bodies and payment  of grant to such colleges statutory.  It  was  also proposed  to make provisions to the effect that  no  private college  shall  be  established  without  affiliation  to  a University, that the non-teaching staff of private  colleges would also come within the scope of the measure and that the University  may  make regulations, statutes  and  ordinances specifying  the qualifications for appointment  of  teachers and  other persons employed in private colleges.  Section  2 [3]  defines  the  "competent authority"  to  mean  [i]  any university, [ii] authority, officer or person, empowered  by the Government to be the competent authority in relation  to any   provision  of  the  Act  and  states  that   different authorities may be appointed for different provisions or for different areas or in relation to differ 149 classes of private colleges.  Section 2 [8] of the State Act defines "private college" as follows:               "2.Definitions.-  In  this  Act,  unless   the               context otherwise requires -               [8]   "private   college"  means   a   college               maintained   by  an  educational  agency   and                             approved by, or affiliated to, a university bu t               does not include a college -               (a)established  or administered or  maintained               by the Central Government or the Government or               any local authority or any university; or               (b)giving,  providing or  imparting  religious               instruction   alone,   but   not   any   other               instructions;" 27.Section 3 prohibits a person save as otherwise  expressly provided in the Act, from establishing on or after the  date

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 26  

of  the  commencement of the said Act  any  private  College without  the  permission  of the Government  and  except  in accordance  with the terms and conditions specified in  such permission.   It also enjoins that the college so  permitted will have to obtain affiliation to the University.   Section 4  requires the educational agency of every private  college proposed  to be established, to make an application  to  the Government  for permission to establish such college  giving particulars, among other things, with regard to [a] the need for the private college in the locality; [b] the course  for which  such  private college proposes to prepare,  train  or guide   its  students  for  appearing  at  any   examination conducted by or under the authority of a university; [c] the amenities  available  to  students  and  teachers;  [d]  the equipment,  laboratory,  library and  other  facilities  for instruction;  [e]  the  sources  of  income  to  ensure  the financial  stability  of the private college;  and  [f]  the situation and the description of the buildings in which such private   college  is  proposed  to  be  established.    The educational agency of every private college in existence  on the  date  of commencement of the Act is  also  required  to furnish  a  statement giving some of the  said  particulars. Section  5  [1] gives power to the Government  to  grant  or refuse to grant permission after considering the particulars in the application.  Section 5 [3] prohibits the  University from granting affiliation to any private college unless per- mission  has  been granted under Section 5 [1] of  the  Act. Section  8,  however, permits a minority  whether  based  on religion  or  language,  to  establish  and  administer  any private college without permission under sub-section (1)  of Section 5 read with Section 3. Section 10 [1] provides  that the Government may pay to the private college grant at  such rate  and for such period as may be prescribed.  Section  10 [2] entitles the Government to withhold permanently or for a specific  period,  whole  or part of any  grant  paid  under Section  10 [1] if the private college does not comply  with any of the provisions of the Act or rules made thereunder or the  directions issued in that behalf, or where the  private college has not paid to teacher or other person employed  in such college pay and allowances payable to him or which con- travenes  or fails to comply with any conditions as  may  be prescribed, while granting permission to start the  college. Section  11 makes it mandatory to have a  college  committee for the private college [not being a minority college  which shall  include the principal of the private college and  two senior professors employed in such college.  Section 14 then lays  down  the functions of the college committee  and  the responsibility of the educational agency 150 under  the said Act.  The functions arc [a] to carry on  the general administration of the private college excluding  the properties and funds of the private college; [b] to  appoint teachers and other persons of the private college, fix their pay an allowances and define their duties and the conditions of  their  service;  and [c]  to  take  disciplinary  action against  teachers and other persons of the private  college. Sub-section [2] of Section 14 lays down that the educational agency  shall  be  bound by anything  done  by  the  college committee in the discharge of its functions and  sub-section [3]  of the said Section states that any decision or  action taken  by the college committee in respect of any matter  or on  which the committee has jurisdiction shall be deemed  to be  the decision or action taken by the educational  agency. Section 15 leaves it to the University to make  regulations, statutes,   or  ordinances  specifying  the   qualifications

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 26  

required  for  the  appointment of the  teachers  and  other persons employed in the private college.  Section 17 enables the  Government  to  make rules  in  consultation  with  the University  regulating the number and conditions of  service of  the teachers and other persons employed in the  College. Section 19 prohibits the teacher or other person employed in the private college from being dismissed removed or  reduced in rank or the appointment being otherwise terminated except with prior approval of the competent authority.  Section  24 states that Chapter IV which deals with terms and conditions of  service  of teacher and other persons  employed  in  the private colleges or any rule providing for all or any of the matters  specified  in  this Chapter or any  order  made  in relation   to   any   such   matter   shall   have    effect notwithstanding anything contained [i] in any other law  for the time being in force, or [ii] in any award, agreement  or contract  of  service,  whether  such  award,  agreement  or contract  of  service was made before or after the  date  of commencement  of this Act, or [iii] in any judgment,  decree or order of court, tribunal or other authority.  Section  25 prohibits  a  private college or a class or  course  of  in- struction  therein from being closed without notice  to  the competent authority and without making such -Arrangements as may be prescribed for the continuance of the instruction  of the  students  of  such college or the class  or  course  of instruction  as the case may be for the period of study  for which the students have been admitted.  Section 28 prohibits private college from levying any fee or collecting any other charge or receiving any other payment except a fee charge or payment  specified by the competent authority.   Section  30 provides for the taking over of the management of a  private college  if the educational agency running such college  had neglected  to discharge any of the duties imposed on  or  to perform  any  of  the functions entrusted  to  such  agency. Section  34  provides  for the  accounts  of  every  private college  being audited at the end of every academic year  by such  authority as may be prescribed.  Section  35  provides that  the competent authority shall have the right to  cause an  inspection of or an inquiry in respect of,  any  private college,  its building, laboratories,  libraries,  workshops and equipment, and also for the examinations, teachings  and other  work  conducted or done by the private  college.   It also  gives  power to the competent authority  to  cause  an inquiry to be made in respect of any other matter in respect of  the  discharge  of any other  function  under  the  Act. Section  37  provides for appeal against the  order  of  the competent authority whereas Section 151 38  provides for constitution of tribunals for the  purposes of  the  Act.   Section 41 gives power of  revision  to  the Government   over  the  orders  passed  by   the   appellate authority.  Section 49 bars the jurisdiction of Civil  Court to decide or deal with any question which is by or under the Act required to be decided or dealt with by any authority or officer empowered under the Act.  Section 52 states that the provisions of the Act shall have the effect  notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for  the time  being in force including any regulation or statute  of any university.  Section 53 gives power to the Government to make  rules to carry out the purpose of the Act.  These  are the  only  relevant provisions of the State  Act  which  are necessary to be noted for our purpose. 28.Under  Section 53 of the said Act, the  State  Government has   made   rules  called  Tamil   Nadu   Private   College [Regulation]  Rules,  1976.  Rule II [1] provides  that  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 26  

number  of teachers employed in a college shall  not  exceed the  number  of posts fixed by the  Director  of  Collegiate Education  from time to time with reference to the  academic requirements  and  norms  of  workload  prescribed  by   the respective  Universities  and  overall  financial  consider- ations.   Rule 11 [1-A] [1-B], [1-C] and [1D]  provides  for reservations in the post of teachers and other employees  in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes.   The rest of the said provision provides  for  the service  conditions of the teachers and others  employed  in the college including the scales of pay and allowances  etc. The  remaining  rules  are  made  to  work  out  the   other provisions  of  the Act and it is not necessary  to  discuss them here. 29.It will thus be apparent that since Section 1 [3] of  the State  Act makes it applicable to all private  colleges,  it could  also  apply  to  the  colleges  imparting   technical education including the Engineering Colleges.  However,  the Rules  as  is apparent from Rule 2  [b],  exclude  technical institutions like Engineering Colleges.  Rule 2 [b]  defines "College," as follows:               "2.  Definitions.- In this rules,  unless  the               context otherwise requires-               [b].   "College" means and includes  Arts  and               Science  College, Teachers  Training  College,               Physical Education College, Oriental  College,               School  of Institute of Social Work and  music               College  maintained by the educational  agency               and   approved  by,  or  affiliated   to   the               University." It is not necessary to emphasise that the, expression "means and includes" used in the definition confines the definition to  only those species of the genus which  are  specifically enumerated  in  the  definition, and hence, the  Act  as  it stands  today, is not made applicable by the said  Rules  to the  technical colleges including the  engineering  colleges with  which we are concerned in the present case.   In  this context, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.10001-03 of 1983 [P.  Kasilingam &  Ors. v.  P.S.G.  College  of  Technology]  pronounced  today.  it cannot,  however,  be  denied  that  in  view  of  the  wide application  of the Act by virtue of Section 1 [3]  and  the wide definition of "private college" contained in Section  2 [8]  of the Act, it is capable of being made  applicable  at any  time to the institutions imparting technical  education by amending the Rules. 30.  The provisions of the State Act enu- 152 merated  above  show that if it is made  applicable  to  the technical  institutions,  it  will overlap and  will  be  in conflict  with the provisions of the Central Act in  various areas  and, in particular, in the matter of  allocation  and disbursal of grants, formulation of schemes for initial  and in-service training of teachers and continuing education  of teachers,  laying  down  norms and  standards  for  courses, physical and institutional facilities, staff pattern,  staff qualifications,    quality   instruction   assessment    and examinations,  fixing  norms  and  guidelines  for  charging tuition  and other fees, granting approval for starting  new technical  institutions and for introduction of new  courses or programmes, taking steps to prevent commercialisation  of technical  education, inspection of technical  institutions, withholding  or discontinuing grants in respect  of  courses and taking such other steps as may be necessary for ensuring the  compliance of the directions of the Council,  declaring

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 26  

technical  institutions at various levels and types  fit  to receive  grants,  the constitution of the  Council  and  its executive Committee and the Regional Committees to carry out the  functions under the Central Act, the compliance by  the Council  of the directions issued by the Central  Government on questions of policy etc. which matters are covered by the Central  Act.   What is further the primary  object  of  the Central  Act,  as discussed earlier, is to provide  for  the establishment   of  an  All  India  Council  for   Technical Education with a view, among others, to plan and  coordinate the development of technical education system throughout the country  and to promote the qualitative improvement of  such education  and to regulate and properly maintain  the  norms and  standards in the technical education system which is  a subject  within  the  exclusive  legislative  field  of  the Central  Government as is clear from Entry 66 of  the  Union List  in the Seventh Schedule.  All the other provisions  of the   Act  have  been  made  in  furtherance  of  die   said objectives.   They can also be deemed to have  been  enacted under  Entry 25 of List 111.  This being so, the  provisions of  the State Act which impinge upon the provisions  of  the Central  Act are void and, therefore, unenforceable.  It  is for  these  reasons that the appointment of the  High  Power Committee by the State Government to inspect the respondent- Trust was void as has been rightly held by the High Court. 31.  As  regards the Madras University Act, 1923,  which  is the  other  State enactment, Section 2 [a]  thereof  defines "Affiliated  College" to mean any college affiliated to  the University  established  under the said  Act  and  providing courses  of  study  for admission  to  the  examination  for degrees of the university.  Section 2 [aa] defines "Approved College" to mean any college approved by the university  and providing courses of study for admission to the examinations for  titles and diplomas and the pre-university  examination of  the  University.   Section  2[aaa]  defines  "Autonomous College" as any college designated as an autonomous  college by statutes, i.e., the Statutes of the University.   Section 2[aaaa]  defines  "College"  to  mean  any  college  or  any institution  maintained or approved by or affiliated to  the University  and providing courses of study for admission  to the  examinations of the University.  Section 2 [2]  defines "Post-Graduate  College"  as  a  University  college  or  an affiliated college providing post-graduate courses of  study leading  up-to-the post-graduate degrees of the  University. Section  2 [gg] defines "Professional College" as a  college in which are provided courses of study leading up- 153 to-the professional degrees of the University. Section 15 of the Act creates Senate as the supreme governing body of  the University which also has power to review the action of  the Syndicate  and of the Academic Council, when  the  Syndicate and  the Academic Council have not acted in accordance  with the  powers  conferred  upon them  under  the  Statutes  and Ordinances or the Regulations.  Under Section 16, the Senate is  given  power, among others, to make statutes,  amend  or repeal  them or modify or cancel the ordinances  or  regula- tions,  and  under  subsection [6] of  Section  16  also  to prescribe  in  consultation with the  Academic  Council  the conditions for approving colleges or institutions or for the preparation  of the students for titles or diplomas  of  the University  and to withdraw the approvals and  to  prescribe after consultation with the Academic Council, the conditions for  affiliating colleges to the University and to  withdraw the affiliation from colleges.  The Senate has also power to provide  for such lectures and instructions for students  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 26  

university  colleges,  affiliated  colleges,  and   approved colleges, as the Senate may determine.  Sub-section [11]  of Section  16  gives  power  to  the  Senate  to  provide  for inspection of all Colleges and hostels, and sub-section [12] thereof  gives  powers to the Senate to  institute  degrees, titles, diplomas and other academic distinctions, The Senate is  further empowered to institute, after consultation  with the  Academic Council, fellowships, travelling  fellowships, scholarships,  studentships, bursaries, exhibitions,  medals and   prizes.   Sub-section  [17]  enables  the  Senate   to prescribe   fees  to  be  charged  for  the   approval   and affiliation of colleges, for admission to the  examinations, degrees and diplomas of the University, for the registration of graduates, for the renewal of   registration   etc.   Section  18  provides   for   the constitution  of the Syndicate.  Section 19 gives powers  to the Syndicate which, among others include the power to regu- late and determine all matters concerning the University  in accordance  with the said Act and the statutes,  regulations and ordinances made thereunder.  Section 19 [g] gives  power to  the Syndicate to appoint University Professors,  Readers and   Lecturers  and  the  Teachers  and  servants  of   the University,  fix their emoluments, define their  duties  and the  conditions of service, among others.  Under Section  19 [jj]  it has power to affiliate colleges to  the  University and to recognise colleges as approved colleges.  Section  19 [1]  gives  power  to the Syndicate  to  prescribe  in  con- sultation  with  the  Academic  Council  qualifications   of teachers  in  University colleges, affiliated  and  approved colleges.   Section 19 [n] enables it to charge and  collect such  fees as may be prescribed and Section 19 [o] gives  it power to conduct the University examinations and approve and publish the results thereof It can make Ordinances regarding the  admission of students to the University or  prescribing examinations  to be recognised as equivalent  to  University examinations under Section 19. 32.  The  Senate  and the Syndicate  can  make  respectively statutes  and  ordinances to enforce the provisions  of  the Act.   The  Act’ and the statutes and  the  ordinances  made thereunder  show  that  the University is  given  powers  to prescribe  terms and conditions for affiliation also of  the technical colleges such as the engineering colleges and also the  power to disaffiliate such colleges for  non-fulfilment of  the  said  conditions.  It further gives  power  to  the University to prescribe the qualifications of the’  teachers and also their service conditions, The Uni- 154 versity  is also given the power to inspect, and to  conduct local  inquiries  of the affiliated colleges  and  to  issue directions  to the colleges on the basis of the  reports  of such  inspection  and  inquiries.   It  can  prescribe   the curricula  for  the  different  courses  conducted  by   the colleges  and  conduct examinations to  confer  degrees  and diplomas.   It can recommend to the appropriate  authorities empowered  to sanction, withhold or refuse the teaching  and other  grants,  to  decline  to  forward  to  the  UGC   any application  made  by  the management for  sanction  of  any grant,  to suspend the provisional affiliation  or  approval granted  to  the college in course or courses of  study,  to decline to entertain any new application’ for affiliation or approval  or  applications for increase in strength  in  any course. of studies conducted by the college, to recommend to the  Government to take over the management of  the  college temporarily  or  permanently.   Statute  44-A  enables   the University  to  grant affiliation provisionally,  for  fixed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 26  

period   and  to  grant  extensions  for  such   provisional affiliation. 33.  A comparison of the Central Act and the University  Act will show that as far as the  institutions         imparting technical  education are concerned, there is a conflict  be- tween  and overlapping of the functions of the  Council  and the University.  Under Section 10 of the Central Act, it  is the Council which is entrusted with the power, particularly, to   allocate  and  disburse  grants,  to  evolve   suitable performance   appraisal  systems  incorporating  norms   and mechanisms  for maintaining accountability of the  technical institutions,  laying down norms and standards for  courses, curricula,  staff pattern, staff qualifications,  assessment and  examinations, fixing norms and guidelines for  charging tuition fee and other  fees,  granting approval for starting  new  technical institutions  or introducing new courses or  programmes,  to lay   down   norms  or  granting   autonomy   to   technical institutions,   providing   guidelines  for   admission   of students,  inspecting  or causing to inspect  colleges,  for withholding or discontinuing of grants in respect of courses and programmes, declaring institutions at various levels and types fit to receive grants, advising the Commission consti- tuted  under  the Act for  declaring  technical  educational institutions as deemed universities, setting up of  National Board of Accreditation to periodically conduct evaluation on the basis of guidelines and standards specified and to  make recommendations to it or to the Council or the Commission or other   bodies  under  the  Act  regarding  recognition   or derecognition of that institution or the programme conducted by  it. Thus, so far as these matters are concerned, in  the case of the institutes imparting technical education, it  is not  the  University Act and the University but  it  is  the Central Act and the Council created under it which will have the  jurisdiction.   To that extent, after the  coming  into operation  of  the  Central  Act,  the  provisions  of   the University  Act will be deemed to have become  unenforceable in case of technical colleges like the Engineering Colleges. As  has been pointed out earlier, the Central Act  has  been enacted  by the Parliament under Entry 66 of the List  I  to coordinate   and  determine  the  standards   of   technical institutions  as well a.-. under Entry 25 of List 111.   The provisions  of the University Act regarding  affiliation  of technical  colleges  like the Engineering Colleges  and  the conditions for grant and continuation of such affiliation by the  University  shall, however, remain  operative  but  the conditions that are prescribed by the University 155 for grant and continuance of affiliation will have to be  in conformity  with the norms and guidelines prescribed by  the Council in respect of matters entrusted to it under  Section 10 of the Central Act. 34.  Shri  P.P. Rao, the learned counsel appearing  for  the appellants, however, contended that while it may be open for the   Council  to  lay  down  the  minimum   standards   and requirements,  to achieve the object as mentioned  in  Entry 66,  it  does not debar the State  from  prescribing  higher standards and requirements while making a law under Entry 25 of  List III.  According to him, further, that is what  both the  State  Act and the University Act purport to  do.   He, further,  contended  that the University  has  an  exclusive power  to affiliate or not to affiliate and to  disaffiliate the  colleges.   That  power cannot be  taken  away  by  the Central Act and in fact, it has not done, so. 35.  As   pointed   out  earlier,  so   far   as   technical

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 26  

institutions are concerned, the norms and standards and  the requirements   for   their   recognition   and   affiliation respectively  that the State Government and  the  University may  lay down, cannot be higher than or be in  conflict  and inconsistent  with those laid down by the Council under  the Central  Act.  Once it is accepted that the whole object  of the Central Act is to determine and coordinate the standards of technical education throughout the country, to  integrate its  development  and to maintain certain standard  in  such education, it will have to be held that such norms standards and requirements etc. will have to be uniform throughout the country.   Uniformity  for the purposes of  coordinated  and integrated development of technical education in the country necessarily   implies  a  set  of  minimum   standards   the fulfilment  of which should entitle an -institution and  its alumni,  titles,  degrees and  certificates  to  recognition anywhere  in the country.  It is true that the  higher  than the  minimum  standard implies compliance with  the  minimum standard.  But as has been aptly pointed out by Justice  Rau while dealing with the meaning of repugnancy in G.P. Stewart v. B.K Roy Chowdhury [AIR 1939 Cal. 6291 which is a decision approved by this Court in Tika Ramji v. Stale of UP. [(1956) SCR 3931.               "It is sometimes said that two laws cannot  be               said to be properly repugnant unless there  is               a  direct conflict between them, as  when  one               says  "do" and the other "don’t", them  is  no               true repugnancy, according to this view, if it               is  possible  to  obey  both  the  laws.   For               reasons which we shall set forth presently, we               think that this is too narrow a test there may               well  be cases of repugnancy where  both  laws               say  "don’t"’  but  in  different  ways.   For               example one law may say "’No person shall sell               liquor  by  retail that is, in  quantities  if               less than five gallons at a time" and  another               law  may say, "No person shall sell liquor  by               MA  that  is, in quantities of less  than  ten               gallons  at  a time." Here,  it  is  obviously               possible  to  obey both laws, by  obeying  the               more stringent  of the two, namely the  second               am;  yet  it is equally obvious that  the  two               laws am repugnant, for to the extent to  which               a citizen is compelled to obey one of them the               other,  though  not  actually  disobeyed,   is               nullified.   This was the type  of  repugnancy                             that arose for consideration in (1996) AC 348. " 36.For the same reasons the argument advanced by the learned counsel that there is no repugnancy or inconsistency between the minimum and the higher than mini- 156 mum standard will have to be rejected. 37.Shri   Rao   also  contended  that   in   practice,   the prescription  of higher standard by the State may not be  in conflict  wit the standards laid down by the  Council  under the   Central  Act.   To  bring  this  home,  he   gave   an illustration  that  where  several  institutions  apply  for starting  technical  institution and  the  State  Government choose the one which has the best equipment,  infrastructure and  resources,  compared to others who  merely  fulfil  the minimum  requirements  laid down under the Central  Act,  it cannot be said that the preference given to the  institution by the State Government was contrary to or inconsistent with the  Central statute.  Yet another illustration he gave  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 26  

where the Central Act prescribes minimum marks for admission to a technical institution or minimum qualifications for the teaching  staff, but among the applicants, there are  enough number   of  students  or  teachers  with  higher  mark   or qualifications, respectively, than the minimum prescribed to compete  for  the limited number of seats.  In  such  cases, when  a technical institution selects those with  more  than minimum  marks  or qualifications, it cannot  be  said  that there  is non-compliance with the provisions of the  Central Act.   It  is  true that, in practice, it  may  happen  that institutions with higher resources and students and teachers with higher marks and qualifications, respectively, than are prescribed  apply  and  compete for  the  places,  seats  or vacancies  as the case may be.  However, it is equally  true that  when the vacancies are available for  institutions  or students  or  teachers as the case may  be,  the  applicants cannot  be  denied die same on the ground that they  do  not fulfil  the  higher requirements laid down under  the  State Act, if they are qualified under the Central Act, Similarly, the institutions cannot be derecognised or disaffiliated  on the  ground that they do not fulfil the higher  requirements under  the State Act although they fulfil  the  requirements under the Central Act.  So also, when the power to recognise or  derecognise  an institution is given to a  body  created under  the Central Act, it alone can exercise the power  and on  terms and conditions laid down in the Central  Act.   It will not be open for the body created under the State Act to exercise such power much less on terms and conditions  which are  inconsistent with or repugnant to those which are  laid down under the Central Act. 38.In this connection, we may refer to certain  authorities, In  The Gujarat University, Ahmedabad v.  Krishna  Ranganath Mudholkar and others [(1963) Supp.  SCR 112], a Constitution Bench  of this Court was called upon to decide  whether  the University was authorised under the Gujarat University  Act, 1949  to prescribe Gujarathi or Hindi or both  as  exclusive medium  or  media  of instruction  or  for  examination  and whether the legislation authorising the University to impose such media was constitutionally valid in view of Entry 66 of List 1, Seventh Schedule.  This Court held as follows:               ".........  Power to legislate in  respect  of               medium of instruction is, however, not a  dis-               tinct  legislative head, it resides  with  the               State  Legislatures  in  which  the  power  to               legislate on education is vested, unless it is               taken  away  by necessary  intendment  to  the               contray.   Under items 63 to 65, the power  to               legislate in respect of medium of  instruction               having  regard  to the width of  those  items,               must be deemed to vest in the Union.  Power to               legislate in respect of medium of instruction,               in so far it has               157               a  direct  bearing and impact  upon  the  leg-               islative head of coordination and determintion               of   standards  in  institutions   of   higher               education  or  research  and  scientific   and               technical institutions, must also be deemed by               item 66 of List I to be vested in the Union.               The  State  has  the power  to  prescribe  the               syllabi   and   courses  of   study   in   the               institutions  named  in  Entry  66  (but   not               falling  within  entries 63 to 65) and  as  an               incident thereof it has the power to  indicate               the  medium  in which  instruction  should  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 26  

             imparted.   But  the Union Parliament  has  an               overriding  legislative power to  ensure  that               the  syllabi and courses of  study  prescribed               and   the  medium  selected  do   not   impair               standards  of  education  or  render  the  co-               ordination of such standards either on an  All               India  or  other  basis  impossible  or   even               difficult.   Thus,  though the powers  of  the               Union  and of the State are in  the  Exclusive               Lists, a degree of overlapping is  inevitable.               It  is  not possible to lay down  any  general               test  which would afford a solution for  every                             question  winch might arise on this  head.   O n               the  one  hand,  it is  certainly  within  the               province  of the Sum Legislature to  prescribe               syllabi  and courses of study and, of  course,               to   indicate   the   medium   or   media   of               instruction.  On  the other hand, it  is  also               withinpower  of  the  Union  to  legislate  in               respect  of  media  of instruction  so  as  to               ensure  co-ordination  and  determination   of               standards, that is to ensure.  maintenance  or               improvements  of standards. The fact that  the               Union has not legislated or refrained    from               legislating  to the full extent of its  powers               does not invest the State with  the  power  to               legislate in respect of  a matter assigned  by               the  Constitution to the Union.  It does  not,               however, follow that even within the permitted               relative fields there might not be legislative               provisions    in  enactments   made  each   in               pursuance  of separate exclusive and  distinct               powers  which nay conflict.  Then would  arise               the  question  of repugnancy  and  paramountcy               which   may  have  to  be  resolved   on   the               application  of  the  "doctrine  of  pith  and               substance"  of  the impugned  enactment.   The               validity   of   the   State   legislation   on               University   education  and  as  regards   the               education   in   technical   and    scientific               institutions  not falling within Entry  64  of               List  I would have to be judged having  regard               to  whether it impinges on the field  reserved               for the Union under Entry 66.  In other words,               the validity of State legislation would depend               upon  whether  it  prejudicially  affects  co-               ordination  and determination of  stands,  but               not upon the existence of sonic definite Union               legislation directed to achieve that  purpose.               If  there be Union legislation in  respect  of               co-ordination and determination of  standards,               that would have paramountcy over the State law               by  virtue of the first part of Art  254  (1);               even  if  that power be not exercised  by  the               Union  Parliament  the  relevant   legislative               entries being in the exclusive lists, a  State               law trenching upon the Union field would still               be invalid.               Counsel for the University submitted that  the               power  conferred  by item No.66 of List  I  is               merely   a   power  to  co-ordinate   and   to               determined  standards  i.e.,  it  is  a  power               merely  to  evaluate  and  fix  standards   of               education,   because,  the   expression   "co-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 26  

             ordination"   merely  means  evaluation,   and               "determination"  means  fixation.   Parliament                             has  therefore power to legislate only for  th e               purpose   of   evaluation  and   fixation   of               standards in institutions referred to in  item               66.  In the course  of the argument   however,               it  was  some what reluctantly  admitted  that               steps   to  remove  disparities   which   have               actually  resulted  from  the  adoption  of  a               regional medium and the falling of  standards,               may   be   undertaken  and   legislation   for               equalising  standards in higher education  may               be  enacted by the Union Parliament.   We  are               unable to agree with this contention for               158               several reasons.  Item No. 66 is a legislative               head  and  in interpreting it,  unless  it  is               expressly or of necessity found conditioned by               the words used therein, a narrow or restricted               interpretation  will  not  be  put  upon   the               generality  of the words.  Power to  legislate               on a subject should normally be held to extend               to all ancilliary or subsidiary matters  which               can  fairly  and  reasonably  be  said  to  be               comprehended in that subject.  Again there  is               nothing either in items 66 or elsewhere in the               Constitution  which  supports  the  submission               that the expression "co-ordination" must  mean               in  the  context in which it  is  used  merely               evaluation.    Co-ordination  in  its   normal               connotation means harmonising or bringing into               proper  relation in which all the  things  co-               ordinated  participate in a common Pattern  of               action.  The power to co-ordinate,  therefore,               is not merely power to evaluate, it is a power               to   harmonise  or  secure  relationship   for               concerted  action. The power conferred by  tan               66 List I is not conditioned by the  existence               of  a state of emergency or unequal  standards               calling for the exercise of the power.               There is nothing in the entry which  indicates               that  the power to legislate on  co-ordination               of   standards  in  institutions   of   higher               education  does  not  include  the  power   to               legislate for preventing the occurrence of  or               for  removal  of  disparities  in   standards.               This power is not conditioned to be  exercised               merely   upon the existence of a condition  of               disparity nor is it a power merely to evaluate               standards  but not to take steps to rectify or               to prevent disparity.By express  pronouncement               of  the Constitution makers, it is a Power  to               co-ordinate  and of necessity,implied  therein                             is the power to prevent make    co-ordination               impossible or difficult. The power is absolute               and  unconditional and in the absence  of  any               controlling reasons it must be given     full               effect  according to its plain  and  expressed               intention.    It  is  true  that  "medium   of               instruction" is not an item in the legislative               list.   It  falls  within item  No.  11  as  a               necessary  incident of the power to  legislate               on  education : it also falls within items  63               to  66.-  In  so  far as  it  is  a  necessary

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 26  

             incident of the powers under item 66 List I it               must be deemed to be included in that item and               therefore excluded from itemii  List II....... 39.In  R.  Chitralekha  & Anr. v. State  of  Mysore  &  Ors. [(1964)  6 SCR 368] the majority of the  Constitution  Bench after  referring  to the Gujarat University v.  Sri  Krishna [supra]  observed  after quoting a part of  the  passage  to which we have already made a reference above, as follows:               "This and similar other passages indicate that               if  the  law made by the State  by  virtue  of               entry 11 of list II of the Seventh Schedule to               the Constitution makes impossible or difficult               the  exercise of the legislative power of  the               parliament under the entry "Co-ordination  and               determination of standards in institution  for               higher  education or research  and  scientific               and  technical institutions" reserved  to  the               Union, the State law may be bad.  This  cannot               obviously   be  decided  on  speculative   and               hypothetical  reasoning. If the impact of  the               State  law  providing for  such  standards  on               entry 66 of List I is so heavy or  devastating               as  to  wipe out or  appreciably  abridge  the               central  field,  it may be struck  down.   But               that  is a question of fact to be  ascertained               in each case.  It is not possible to hold that               if a State legislature made a law  prescribing               a  higher  percentage  of  marks  for   extra-               curricular   activities  in  the   matter   of               admission  to colleges, it would  be  directly               encroaching  on the field covered by entry  66               of  List  I  of the Seventh  Schedule  to  the               Constitution  If so, it is not  disputed  that               the  State  Government  would  be  within  its               rights   to   prescribe   qualifications   for               admission  to colleges so long as  its  action               does not con               159               travene any other law.  " 40.In State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Lavu Narendranath  & Ors.  etc.  [(1971) 3 SCR 6991, the  State  Government  pre- scribed for the first time an entrance test for admission to the  medical  colleges  and also prescribed  a  standard  of eligibility for the test.  A large number of candidates  far in excess of the seats available took the test.  Thereafter, unsuccessful  candidates filed a writ  petition  challenging the  validity  of  the test prescribed  and  the  method  of selection  for admission.  One of the grounds on  which  the petition was filed was that the holding of the entrance test and making selections on the basis thereof, in disregard  of the   marks  obtained  at  the  examination  held   by   the University,  encroached upon the Central subject  listed  in Entry  66  of  list  I  of  the  Seventh  Schedule  to   the Constitution.  Dealing with the said ground, the Court  held as under:               "In  our  view  the  test  prescribed  by  the               Government  in  no way militates  against  the               power  of Parliament under Entry 66 of List  I               of  the Seventh Schedule to the  Constitution.               He said entry provides:               "Co-ordination and determination of  standards               in   institutions  for  higher  education   or               research   and   scientific   and    technical               institutions."               The above entry gives Parliament power to make

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 26  

             laws  for  laying  down how  standards  in  an               institution  for  higher education are  to  be               determined  and how they can  be  coordinated.               It  has no relation to a test prescribed by  a               Government or by a University for selection of               a  number  of  students from out  of  a  large               number applying for admission to a  particular               course  of  study  even if it  be  for  higher               education in any particular subject." 41. In Dr. Ambesh Kumar etc. etc. v. Principal, LLRM Medical College,  Meerut and Ors. etc. etc., [(1987) 1 SCR 6611  the facts were that in accordance with the provisions of Section 33  of  the Indian Medical Council Act,  1956,  the  Medical Council   with   the  previous  sanction  of   the   Central Governmental had made Regulations laying down the  standards of proficiency to be obtained and the practical training  to be   undertaken  in  medical  institutions  for   grant   of recognised medical qualifications.  The said Regulations lay down  the  criterion for selection of candidates  for  post- graduate training and one such criteria is that the students of  post-graduate  training should be selected  strictly  on merit  judged on the basis of academic record in the  under- graduate  course. while inviting applications for  admission to the various postgraduate courses in degree and diploma in different specialities, the State Government issued an order which was to the effect that no candidate would be  eligible for admission to postgraduate degree or diploma courses  who had  obtained  less than 55 per cent and 52 per  cent  marks respectively  for the degree and diploma courses  in  merit. The  unsuccessful  candidates approached  this  Court  under Article  32  making a grievance about  the  prescribed  per- centage of marks and some approached this Court against  the judgment  of the Allahabad High Court by special  leave  pe- titions.  He question that arose for consideration was about the  competence  of the State Government  to  prescribe  the minimum  marks obtained in M.B.B.S. for admission  to  post- graduate  courses and whether such an order was in  conflict with  the power of the Central Legislature to make  laws  in respect  of matters specified in Entry 66 of List  1.  While dismissing the appeals, this Court held that since the 160 number  of  seats  for admission  to  various  post-graduate courses  is  limited  and  a  large  number  of  candidates, undoubtedly,  apply for admission to these courses, the  im- pugned  order laying down the qualifications for  candidates to  be.  eligible  for being considered  for  selection  for admissions  cannot  be  said  to be  in  conflict  with  the Regulations made under the Indian Medical Council Act or  in any way to have encroached upon the standards prescribed  by the  said  Regulations.  On die other hand, by  laying  down such  standard of eligibility, it furthers the  standard  of instruction.   It must be noted in this connection that  the Regulations made under the Indian Medical Council Act do not prescribe  any  minimum percentage of marks  in  the  under- graduate  courses for being eligible to be admitted  to  the post-graduate courses and it was not a case where the number of  seats  were more than the number of candidates  and  the candidates  though  qualified according to  the  Regulations under  the  Central  statute,  were  not  admitted  to   the available seats. 42.In  Osmania University Teachers Association v.  State  of Andhra  Pradesh  & Anr. [(1987) 3 SCR 949], the  facts  were that  the  State Government had enacted the  Andhra  Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1986 providing  for the   constitution  of  a  Commissionerate  to  advise   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 26  

Government  in matters relating to higher education  in  the State  and  to  oversee  its  development  with  perspective planning and for matters connected therewith and  incidental thereto  and  to  perform all functions  necessary  for  the furtherance  and maintenance of excellence in the  standards of  higher education in the State.  The validity of the  Act was  challenged in the High Court which while  upholding  it held that the Act fell under Entry 25 of Con-, current List. In appeal, it was urged in this Court that the State Act was a mere duplicate of the University Grants Commission Act and the  State  had no legislative power to enact  it  since  it squarely  fell  under Entry 66 of List 1. On behalf  of  the State  Government, it was contended that the  enactment,  in pith  and substance fell within Entry 25 of list HI and  not under Entry 66 of List 1. It was held that -               1.4   The Commissionerate Act has be= drawn by               and  large  in the same terms as that  of  the               U.G.C. Act.  Both the enactments deal with the               co-ordination and determination of  excellence               in the standards of teaching and   examination               in the universities.  Here and there, some  of               the  words and sentences used in  the  Commis-               sionerate  Act may be different from  used  in               the UGC Act, but nevertheless, they convey the               same  meaning.  It is just like referring  the               same  person with different  descriptions  and               names.               1.5.  The  High Court has gone on  a  tangent,               and would not have fallen into an error if  it               had  perused  the  UGC  Act  as  a  whole  and               compared  it with the Commissionerate  Act  or               vice.-versa.               1.6.  The    Commissionerate   Act    contains               sweeping   provisions   encroaching   on   the               autonomy    of    the    Universities.     The               Commissionerate has practically taken over the               academic  programme  and  activities  of   the               universities.   The  universities  have   been               rendered irrelevant if not nonentities.               1.7   It  is unthinkable as to how  the  State               could pass a parallel enactment under Entry 25               of List III, unless it encroaches Entry 66  of               List  I.  Such an encroachment is  patent  and               obvious.   The Commissionerate Act  is  beyond               the legis-               161               lative competence of the State Legislature and               is hereby declared void and inoperative". 43.Shri Rao also contended that if the colleges for want  of inadequate  infrastructure  and resources  ultimately  close down,   the   State  Government  may  have   to   bear   the responsibility of accommodating the students who are already admitted and are taking their courses in such colleges,  and in  some  cases, the Government may also have to  take  over such colleges.  It is, therefore, necessary that the  higher standards  and  requirements  prescribed by  the  State  for starting and running the institutions should prevail.  There is  no  material on record to show that  the  standards  and requirements  prescribed  by the Council are such  that  the institutions  complying with them are unable to conduct  the relevant courses.  If, however, the State Government  thinks that  the  standards prescribed by the Council are  low  and will  not enable an institution to conduct the courses,  the State  Government can certainly take up the matter with  the Council  and get the standards raised by it, As pointed  out

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 26  

earlier, under the Central Act, the State Governments have a representation on the Council and have a say in laying  down the  standards  and requirements for  starting  and  running technical institutions, Even otherwise, it is always open to the  State Government to bring to the notice of the  Council the  inadequacies  of  the  requirement  laid  down  by  it. However,  pending  the  modifications, if any,  in  the  re- quirements  laid down by the Council, the  State  Government cannot reject the permission of any technical institution or derecognise  the  existing institution because  it  has  not satisfied the standards and requirements laid down by it. 44.What emerges from the above discussion is as follows: [i]  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 harmonisation 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 plain  and  express intention. [ii] To the extent that the State legislation is in conflict with the Central legislation though the former is  purported to have been made under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List  but in effect encroaches upon legislation including  subordinate legislation  made  by  the  Centre under  Entry  25  of  the Concurrent  List or to give effect to Entry 66 of the  Union List, it would be void and inoperative. [iii]  If there is a conflict between the two  legislations, unless  the State legislation is saved by the provisions  of the  main part of clause [2] of Article 254, the State  leg- islation  being  repugnant to the Central  legislation,  the same would be inoperative. [iv]  Whether the State law encroaches upon Entry 66 of  the Union List or is repugnant to the law made by the Centre 162 under  Entry  25  of the Concurrent List, will  have  to  be determined  by  the  examination of the two  laws  and  will depend upon the facts of each case. [v]  When  there  are more  applicants  than  the  available situations/seats, the State authority is not prevented  from laying  down higher standards or qualifications  than  those laid  down by the Centre or the Central authority to  short- list  the applicants.  When the State authority does so,  it does not encroach upon Entry 66 of the Union List or make  a law which is repugnant to the Central law. [vil  However, when the situations/seats are  available  and the  State  authorities deny an applicant the  same  on  the ground that the applicant is not qualified according to  its standards  or qualifications, as the case may  be,  although the applicant satisfies the standards or qualifications laid down  by the Central law, they act  unconstitutionally.   So also when the State authorities derecognise or  disaffiliate an   institution  for  not  satisfying  the   standards   or requirement  laid down by them, although_ it  satisfied  the norms  and requirements laid down by the central  authority, the State authorities act illegally. 45.  We  find nothing in the impugned judgment of  the  High Court  which  is  contrary  to  or  inconsistent  with   the propositions  of law laid down above.  Hence we dismiss  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 26 of 26  

appeals and the special leave petitions with costs. 46.  As  a  result,  as has been pointed  out  earlier,  the provisions of the Central statute on the one hand and of the State  statutes  on  the  other,  being  inconsistent   and, therefore,  repugnant with each other, the  Central  statute will  prevail and the derecognition by the State  Government of  the, disaffiliation by the, State University on  grounds which  are inconsistent wit those enumerated in the  Central statute will be inoperative. 163