# OSMANIA UNIVERSITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR

- **Citation:** [1987] 3 S.C.R. 949
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1987-08-13
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. F 1205-06 of 1987
- **Bench:** 0. Chinnappa Reddy, M.H. Kania, K. Jagannatha Shetty
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/osmania-university-teachers-association-v-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-9663
- **Pages:** 19

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950-Entry 66 List I and Entry 25 List
Ill-Seventh Schedule-Education-Whether State competent to legislate on subject falling within List I.
A
B
c
Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act,
1986--Validity of-Whether Act within legislative competence of State
Legislature.
The Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act,
1986 (Act No. 26 of 1986) providing for the constitution of a CommisD
sionerate to advise the 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 was enacted
on the basis of the recommendations of a high power committee conE
stituted by the State Government to study the Higher Education system in
the State with special reference to its curricula, courses of study,
finance and management .
The validity of the aforesaid Act was challenged in the High Court
which, while upholding it, held that the Act fell under Entry 25 List F
III-Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of
India.
In the appeals to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the
appellant that the Act was just a duplicate of the University Grants
"'1 Commission Act and the State had no legislative power at all to enact it G
since it squarely fell under Entry 66 List I. On behalf of the Staterespondent it was submitted that the enactment in pith and substance
fell within Entry 25 of List III and· not under Entry 66 of' List I of the
Seventh Schedule.
Allowing the appeals, this Court,
949
H
950
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1987] 3 S.C.R.
A
HELD: 1.1 Entry 25 List III relating to education lnclnding technical education, medical education and Universities had been made
subject to the power of Parliament to Iegis,Iate under Entries 63 to 66 of
List I. Entry 66 List I and Entry 25 List III should, therefore, be read
together. [955F-G]
B
1.2 Entry 66 gives power to the Union to see that a required
standard of higher education in tlie country is maintained. The standard of Higher Education including scientific and technical should not
be lowered at the hands of any particular State or States. It is the
exclusive responsibility of the Central Government to co-ordinate and
determine the standards for higher education. That power includes the
power to evaluate, harmonise and secure proper relationship to any
C project of national importance. It is needless to state, that such a
coordinate action in higher education with proper standards, i• of
paramount importance to national progress. It is in this national interest, the legislative field in regard to 'education' has been distributed
between List I and List III of the Seventh Schedule. [955G-H; 956A-B]
D
1.3 Parliament has exclusive power to legislate with respe<:t to
matters included in List I. The State has no power at all in regard to
such matters. If the State legislates on the subject falling within List I
that will be void, inoperative and unenforceable. [956B]
1.4 The Commissionerate Act bas been drawn by and large in the
E 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 Commissionerate Act may be different
from those used in the UGC Act, but nevertheless, they convey the same
J!leaning. It is just like referring the same person with different descripF lions and names. [966B-D]
G
H
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 ·;tS a whole and
compared it with the Commissionerate Act or vice-versa. [966D]
1.6 The Commissionerate Act contains sweeping provisions encroaching on the autonomy of the Universities. The Commission

## Text

-
. . 'r
I
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.
AUGUST 13, 1987
[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, M.H. KANIA AND
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950-Entry 66 List I and Entry 25 List
Ill-Seventh Schedule-Education-Whether State competent to legislate on subject falling within List I.
A
B
c
Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act,
1986--Validity of-Whether Act within legislative competence of State
Legislature.
The Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act,
1986 (Act No. 26 of 1986) providing for the constitution of a CommisD
sionerate to advise the 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 was enacted
on the basis of the recommendations of a high power committee conE
stituted by the State Government to study the Higher Education system in
the State with special reference to its curricula, courses of study,
finance and management .
The validity of the aforesaid Act was challenged in the High Court
which, while upholding it, held that the Act fell under Entry 25 List F
III-Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of
India.
In the appeals to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the
appellant that the Act was just a duplicate of the University Grants
"'1 Commission Act and the State had no legislative power at all to enact it G
since it squarely fell under Entry 66 List I. On behalf of the Staterespondent it was submitted that the enactment in pith and substance
fell within Entry 25 of List III and· not under Entry 66 of' List I of the
Seventh Schedule.
Allowing the appeals, this Court,
949
H
950
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1987] 3 S.C.R.
A
HELD: 1.1 Entry 25 List III relating to education lnclnding technical education, medical education and Universities had been made
subject to the power of Parliament to Iegis,Iate under Entries 63 to 66 of
List I. Entry 66 List I and Entry 25 List III should, therefore, be read
together. [955F-G]
B
1.2 Entry 66 gives power to the Union to see that a required
standard of higher education in tlie country is maintained. The standard of Higher Education including scientific and technical should not
be lowered at the hands of any particular State or States. It is the
exclusive responsibility of the Central Government to co-ordinate and
determine the standards for higher education. That power includes the
power to evaluate, harmonise and secure proper relationship to any
C project of national importance. It is needless to state, that such a
coordinate action in higher education with proper standards, i• of
paramount importance to national progress. It is in this national interest, the legislative field in regard to 'education' has been distributed
between List I and List III of the Seventh Schedule. [955G-H; 956A-B]
D
1.3 Parliament has exclusive power to legislate with respe<:t to
matters included in List I. The State has no power at all in regard to
such matters. If the State legislates on the subject falling within List I
that will be void, inoperative and unenforceable. [956B]
1.4 The Commissionerate Act bas been drawn by and large in the
E 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 Commissionerate Act may be different
from those used in the UGC Act, but nevertheless, they convey the same
J!leaning. It is just like referring the same person with different descripF lions and names. [966B-D]
G
H
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 ·;tS a whole and
compared it with the Commissionerate Act or vice-versa. [966D]
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, [%SD; 966A-B]
1. 7 It is unthinkable as to how the State could pass a parallel
4
y
.,...
-+
>-r
-
y
~
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY v. STATE OF A.P.
951
enactment under Entry 25 of List DI, unless it encroaches Entry 66 or
List I. Such an encroachment is patent and obvious. The Commission·
erate Act is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature
and is hereby declared void and inoperative. [966E·F]
1.8 The Constitution of India vests Parliament with exclusive
authority in regard to co-ordination and determination of standards in
lnstitutlo11s tor higher education. The Parliament bas enacted the UGC
Act for that purpose. The University Grants Commission has, there·
fore, a greater role to play in shaping the academic life of the country.
It shall not falter or fail in its duty to maintain a high standard in the
Universities. Democracy depends for its very life on high standards of
general, vocational and professional education. Dissemination of learn·
ing with search for new knowledge with discipline all round must be
maintained at all costs. [967D-E]
The University Grants Commission, it is hoped will duly dis·
charge its responsibility to the Nation and play an increasing role to
bring about the needed transformation in the academic life of the
Universities. [967E-F]
Kera/a State Electricity Board v. Indian Alumihium Company,
(1976] 1 SCR 552; Gujarat University, Ahmedabad v. Krishna Ranganath, (1963] Suppl. 1SCR112; DAV College, Bhatinda etc. v. State
A
B
c
D
of Punjab & Ors., (1971] Suppl. SCR 677; R. Chitralekha & Anr. v.
E
_ ...... ~. State of Mysore & Ors., (1964] 6 SCR 368; State of Andhra Pradesh v.
Lavu Narendranath & Ors. etc., (1971] 3 SCR 699; Ambesh Kumar v.
Principal, LLRM College, Meerut, AIR 1987 SC 400 and Prem Chand
Jain v. R.K. Chhabra, (1984] 2 SCR 883, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
F
1205-06 of 1987.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.3.1987 of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 15582 of 1986.
'{
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, B. Parthasarathy and K.V. Sreekumar for the
G
Appellant.
T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, T.V.S.N. Chari, Ms. V. Grover and
Ms. Sunita M. for tlie Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
A
B
c
952
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1987] 3 S.C.R.
JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. This appeal on a certificate raises
a short but an important question as to the Constitutional validity of
the Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1986
(Act No. 26 of 1986) (called shortly "The Commissionerate Act").
The question is whether the enactment falls within Entry 66 List I or
Entry 25 List III-Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule to the ~
Constitution. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has upheld its validity by holding that the Act falls under the latter Entry, but granted a
certificate for leave to appeal to this Court under Article 133(1) of the
Constitution.
The said Act was enacted on the basis of the recommendations of
a high power committee constituted by the State Government to study
the higher education system in the State of Andhra Pradesh with
special reference to its curricula, courses of study, finance and
management. The Committee in its report submitted to the Government observed, inter-alia, that there is no proper coordination and
academic planning among the various bodies like Universities, DirecD !orate of Higher Education and University Grants Commission etc.
E
There is no policy perspective in the development of higher education
system. The Commirtee said that in order to streamline the general
working and oversee the development of higher education in the State,
there is need to constitute a Commission to advise the Government in
that matter.
The Government appears to have accepted the said report of the
Committee. That is obvious from the Preamble to the Commissionerate Act. It states that "Act is to provide for the Constitution of a
Commissionerate to advise the Government in matters relating to
"!'
Higher Education in the State and to oversee its development with persF pective planning and for matters connected therewith and incidental
thereto."
G
Section 2(e) defin~s "Higher Education" to mean intermediate
education and education leading to a degree or post graduate degree
including professional and technical education.
Section 2(c) defines "Commissionerate" to mean the Andhra
Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education constituted under subsection (1) of Section 3. Thereunder, the Commissionerate has been
constituted as a Corporate body. The composition of the Commissionerate is provided under Section 4. The Commissionerate shall consist
H of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and not more than 10 members [Section
-
!~
....
I
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY v. STATE OF A.P. (SHETTY, J.J
953
4(1)]. The Chairman and the Vice-Chairman shall be appointed by the
Government [Section 4(2)1. Of the ten members of the Commission,
A
three are Secretaries to the Government: Education Secretary,
Labour Secretary and Finance and Planning Szcretary. Four of them -
shall be representing Professors and Vice-Chancellors of any of the
Universities in the State. One shall represent industry and commerce,
and another shall represent engineering or legal or medical education.
B
The last one shall be a distinguised educationalist. All these persons
are to be appointed only by the Government. The Chairman and ViceChairman shall be whole time and salaried persons and their terms and
conditions are provided under Section 5(1).
Section 9 gives overriding effect and power to the Commissionerate over all other authorities and bodies connected with the Higher
Education in the State. Section 9( 1) provides:
c
"With effect on and from the Constitution of the Commissionerate under Section 3 and notwithstanding anything
contained in the Andhra Pradesh Intermediate Education
D
Act, 1971, and the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982,
the Director of Higher Education, the Secretary, Board of
Intermediate Education and the Secretary to the Board of
Technical Education shall function under the administrative control of the Commissionerate."
Section 9(2) provides power to the Government to appoint a
Secretary to the Commissionerate. Rest of the Officers and employees
are to be appointed from time to time by the Commissionerate but
with the previous approval of the Government.
E
The Central power of the Commissionerate has been located in
F
Section 11. We may give the gist of it here. The Commissionerate shall
(i) evolve a perspective plan for the development, of Higher
Education in the State;
(ii) monitor and evaluate the academic programmes in higher G
education and enforce accountability in the system;
(iii) establish and develop resources centre for curriculam
materials and continuing edu~ation of teachers;
(iv) co-ordinate the academic activities of various institutions
H
of higher education in the State;
954
A
B
c
D
E
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1987] 3 S.C.R.
(v) undertake examination reforms;
(vi) establish linkages between Universities industries and
community development organisations:
(vii) transfer teachers appoipted in aided posts from one aided
private college to another such college subject to such rules
as may be made by the Government in this behalf and
generally encourage mobility of teachers; and
(viii) perform any other functions necessary for the furtherance
and maintenance of excellence in the standards of higher
education in the State.
Section 11(2) provides:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in any !aw relating to
Universities in the State, the Board of Intermediate Education Act, 1971 and the Andhra Pradesh Education Act,
1982, every University or college including a private
college in the State shall obtain the prior approval of the
Commissionerate in regard to-
(i) creation of new posts;
(ii) financial management; and
(iii) starting of new higher educational institutions.
Section 13 is another important Section. It provides power for
F
inspection for ascertaining the fiqancial needs of a University or its
standards of teaching, examination and research. The Commissionerate shall communicate to the University its views in regard to the
result of any such inspection and may, after ascertaining the opinion of
the University, recommend to the University the action to be taken as
a result of ·such inspection and the University shall comply with any
G
such direction.
Section 16 states that the Commissionerate shall be guided by
such directions issued by the Government on questions ofpoiicy relating to State purposes or in case of any emergency as may be given to it
by the Government. Section 18 confers power to the Government to
H make rules to carry out all or any of the purposes of the Act. Section 19
-
'
-
•
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY v. STATE OF A.P. [SHETTY, J.J
955
provides power to the Commissionerate to make regulations consistent with the Act and the rules made thereunder.
A
The sole contention of Dr. Chitale, learned counsel for the
appellant is that the Commissionerate Act is just a duplicate of the
University Grants Commission Act ("The UGC Act") and the State
t-- has no legislative power at all to enact it, since it squarely falls under B
Entry 66 List I. But the contention of Mr. Krishnamurthy Iyer, learned
counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh, is to the contrary. While
supporting the judgement of the High Court, he submitted that the
enactment in pith and substance falls within Entry 25 of List III and
not under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. For proper
consideration of the contentions we may set out these two Entries:
Entry 66 List I:
"Co-ordination and determination of standards in institution for higher education or research and scientific and
c
technical institutions."
D
Entry 25 List III:
"Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63,
64, 65 & 66 of List I, vocational and technical training of
lab-our."
Till January 3, 1977, Education was a State subject under Entry
11 in List II. By the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, Entry 11 was deleted
and it was placed in the Concurrent List by enlarging the Entry 25, as
set out above.
Entry 25 List III relating to education including technical education, medical education and Universities has been made subject to the
power of Parliament to legislate under Entries 63 to 66 of List I. Entry
66 List I and Entry 25 List III should, therefore, be read together.
E
F
"'( Entry 66 gives power to Union to see that a required standard of G
higher education in the country is maintained. The standard of Higher
Education including scientific and technical should not be lowered at
the hands of any particular State or States. Secondly, it is the exclusive
responsibility of the Central Government to co-ordinate and
determine the standards for higher education. That power includes the
power to evaluate, harmonise and secure proper relationship to any
H
A
B
956
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1987] 3 S.C.R.
project of national importance. rt is needless to state that such a
coordinate action in higher education with proper standards, is of
paramount importance to national progress. It is in this national
interest, the legislative field m regard to 'education' has been
distributed between List I and List III of the Seventh Schedule.
The Parliament has exclusive power to legislate with respect to
matters included in List I. The State has no power at all in regard to
such matters. If the State legislates on the subject falling within List I
that will be void, inoperative and unenforceable.
In Kera/a State Electricity Board v. Indian Aluminium Company,
C [ 1976] 1 SCR 552 this Court said:
D
E
F
G
H
"The power of Parliament to legislate with respect to
matters included in List I is supreme notwithstanding anything contained in cla11se (3) (again leaving out of consideration the provision of clause 2). Now what is the meaning of the words "notwithstanding" in clause (1) and "subject to" in clause 3; They mean that where an entry is in
general terms in List I~ and part of that entry is in specific
terms in List I, the entry in List takes effect notwithstanding the entry in List II. This is also on the principle that the
'special' excludes the 'general' entry in Listll is subject to
the special entry in List I."
We may now refer to some of the decisions dealing with the inter
action of Entry 66 List I and Entry 25 List III. In Gujarat University,
Ahmedabad v. Krishna Ranganath, [ 1963] Suppl. I SCR 112, 137. Shah J.
'f
speaking for the majority view of the Constitution Bench observed:
"Item 63 to 66 of List I are carved out of the subject of
education and in respect of these items the power to legislate is vested exclusively in the Parliament. Use of the expression "Subject'to" in item 11 of List II of the Seventh
Schedule clearly indicates that legislation in respect of
excluded matters cannot be undertaken by the State Legis- )or
latures. In Hingir Rampur Coal Co. v. State of Orissa
[ 1961] 2 SCR 537, this Court ir considering the import of
the expression "Subject to" used in an entry in List II in
relation to an entry in List I observed that to the extent of
the restriction imposep by the use of the expression "subject to" in an entry in :List II the power is taken away from
-
•
~-·
-
"·-1
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY v. STATE OF A.P. (SHETfY, J.)
957
the State Legislature. Power of the State to Legislate in
A
respect of education including Universities must to the extent to which it is entrusted to the Union Parliament
whether such power is exercised or not, be deemed to be
restricted. If a subject of legislation is covered by items 63
to 66 even if it otherwise falls within the larger field of
"education including Universities" power to legislate on B
that subject must lie with the Parliament."
This decision turned on the interpretation of Section 4(27) of
Gujarat University Act, and it was· held that the University has no
power to prescribe Gujarati or Hindi as exclusive medium of instruction in higher education. The principles enunciated in the Krishna C
Rangnath case have been reiterated in D.A. V. College, Bhatinda etc. v.
State of Punjab & Ors., (1971] Suppl. SCR 677.
The power of the State to prescribe certain norms for admission
to colleges came for consideration before this Court in R. Chitralekha
& Anr. v. State of Mysore & Ors., (1964] 6 SCR 368 where Subba Rao D
J., as he then was, observed:
"that if the law made by the States 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 E
determination of standards in institutions 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 devastatF
ing 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."
~
...,-
The learned Judge, however, upheld the impugned scheme of
· the State in that case for selection of students to colleges maintained G
by the State since it was found that that scheme only prescribed criteria
for making admissions to colleges from among students who secured
the minimum qualifying marks prescribed by the University. It was
held that the scheme did not encroach upon the field covered by Entry
66 List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Similar was the
view expressed by this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Lavu H
A
B
c
958
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1987] 3 S.C.R.
Narendranath & Ors. etc., [ 1971] 3 SCR 699 and in Ambesh Kumar v.
Principal, LLRM College, Meerut, AIR 1987 SC 400.
What do we have in the present case? There is no scheme for
admission to colleges. There is a corporate body established under the ·-i.
State enactment with powers supreme in regard to all matters pertaining to higher education. To mention a few, the Commissionerate
constituted thereunder shall evolve a perspective plan for the develop- 1
ment of higher education in the State. It must monitor and evaluate
the academic programmes. It must co-ordinate the academic activities
of various institutions and universities. It must oversee the develop-
-
ment and streamline the higher education in the entire State. It shat(
perform all functions necessary for the furtherance and maintenance y·
of excellence in the standards ofhigher education in the State. It also
controls the entire fund meant for the universities including grants
given by the Central Government for higher education.
D
Since it was argued that 'both these enactments are in pari
~
E
F
G
materia, it will be useful to compare the UGC Act with the corresponding provisions of the Commissionerate Act by keeping them side
by side:
U.G.C.Act, 1956
The Commissionerate Act
1. Statement of Objects and reasons:
"The Constitution of India
vests Parliament with
exclusive authority in
regard to Co-ordination
and determination of
standards in institutions
fot higher education or
research and scientific
and technical institutions. It is obvious
that neither coordination
nor determination of
standards is possible
unless the Central
In order to bring a change
in the higher education
system in the State so as
to make the courses of
study more relevant to the
needs of the modern society
and to provide opportunities of earning and
learning simultaneously
at college level to all the
students in the State, a
four man committee was
appointed in February, 1986
H Government has some voice
, by the State Government to
study the higher education
. ..,..
.....
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY v. STATE OF A.P. [SHETfY. J.]
959
in the determination of
system in the State witl;i
A
standards of teaching
special reference to curriand examination in
cula and courses of studies,
Universities, both old
Finance and Management in
and new.
~··
the Higher Education system.
2. It is, therefore,
The Committee in its
B
t
proposed to establish
report submitted to
a University Grants
Government observed
Commission as a
that there is no proper
corporate body which
co-ordination and academic
will inquire into the
planning among the various
y
financial needs of
bodies like universities;
c
universities and
the Directorate of Higher
allocate and disburse
Eduation and the Univergrants to Universities
sity Grants Commission etc.
for any general or
and there is no policy
~
specified purpose. The
perspective in the
D
Commission will act as an
development of the
expert body to advise
Higher Education system
the Central Government
in the State and in order
on problems connected
to streamline the general
with the coordination of
working of the higher
,_
facilities and
'
Education system in the
maintenance of standards
State the Committee
E
.,,
in Universities.
suggested to constitute
The Commission, in consula commission to advise
'r
talion with the University
the Government in
connected, will also have
matters relating to
the power to cause an
higher education in the
F
inspection or inquiry to
State and to oversee
be made of any university
its development. The
established by law in
Government have exammed
India and to advise the
the above recommendations
'{ university on any matter
and suggestions and
which has been the
decided to constitute
subject of an inquiry or
a Commissionerate of
G
inspection. The CommiHigher Education.
ssion shall also advise,
whenever such advise is
sought, on the establishment of new Universities.
H
960
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1987] 3 S.C.R.
Sec. 4 Establishment of
A the Commission:
B
c
( l} With effect from such
date as the Central Government may, by notification
in the official Gazettee,
appoint, there shall be
established a Commission
by the name of the University Grants Commission.
(2) The said Commission
shall be a body corporate
D having perpetual
succession and a common
seal, and shall by the
E
said name sue and be sued.
Sec. 5 Composition of the
Commission:
( l} The Commission shall
F
consist of:-
G
(i) A Chairman, and
(ii) A Vi~-Chairman, and
(iii) ten other members, to
be appointed by the
Central Government
Sec. 9 Temporary Association of person with the
CtJmmission for particular
purpose
H
(Both these Sections are similar\
Sec. 3. Constitution of
Commissionerate of
Higher Education:
The Government may, by
notification, and with
effect on and from such
date as may be specified
therein constitute a
Commissionerate for the
purpose of this Act
to be called The Andhra
Pradesh Commissionerate
of Higher Education.
(2) The Commissionerate
shall be a body corporate
having perpetual succession and a common seal and
shall sue and be used
by the said corporate name.
(2}(b) xxx I
xxx
xxx
Sec. 4 Composition of the
Comissionerate:
( l) The Commissionerate
shall consist of:-
(i) A Chairman
(ii) A Vice-Chairman, and
(iii) not more than ten
members to be appointed by
the State Government
Sec. 8 Temporary Association of persons with the
Commissionerate for
particular purpose
y
-t
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY v. STATE OF A.P. (SHETTY, J.J
961
Sec. 12 Functions of the
Sec. 11 Powers and Functions
A
Commission:
of the Commissionerate
It shall be the general duty
It shall be the general duty
of the Commission to take,
of the Commissionerate to:•
f--
in consultation with the
Universities or other
a) evolve a prospective
B
t
bodies concerned, all
plan for the development
such steps as it may
of higher education in the
think fit for the
State;
promotion and co-ord;.
-
nation of University
b) administer and release
Education and for the
grants-in-aid to Univer-
'Y determination and mainsities as private
c
tenance of standards
colleges in the State and
of teaching, examinareport the same to the
tion and research in
Government.
University and for the
-1
purpose of performing
c) xxx
xxx
xxx
D
its functions under
this Act, the Commission
d) monitor and evaluate
may:-
the academic programmes
in higher education and
enforce accountability
,._
in the system.
E
"""
a) Inquire into the financ) xxx
xxx
cial needs of Universities
y
f) xxx
xxx
b) Allocate and disburse,
out of the fund of the
g) co-ordinate the
Comission, grants to
academic activities of
F
Universities established
various institutions of
or incorporated by or
higher education in the
under a Central Act for
State.
the maintenance and
,
'->{ development of such
xxx
xxx
universities or for
G
any other general or
p) Perform any other
specified purpose.
functions necessary to
the furtherance and
c) Allocate and disburse
maintenance of excel!-
out of the fund of the
ence in the standards of
Commission, such grants
higher education in the
H
962
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1987] 3 S.C.R. -tA to other Universities as
State.
it may deem necessary or
appropriate for the
develo~ment of such
Universities or for the
1
B maintenance, or development or both, of any
1
specified activities of
such Universities or
for any other general or
specified purpose re-
-
commended to any Univerc sity the measure necessy
ary for the improvement
of University education
and advise the University upon the action
D to be taken for the
purpose of implementing
such recommendations.
Sec. 13 Inspection:
Sec. 13 Inspection:
(I) For the purpose of
(1) For the purpose of
E ascertaining the finanascertrining the financial
~
cial needs of a Univerneeds of a University or its
~
sity or its standards of
standards of teaching, examiteaching, examination and
nation and research, the
research, the Commission
Commissionerate may, after
may, after consultation with
consultation with the UniF the University cause an
versity, cause an inspection
inspection of any department
of any department or departor departments thereof to
ments thereof to be made in
be made in such manner as
such manner as may be
may be prescribed and by
prescribed and by such
such person or persons as
person or persons as it may
it may direct.
direct.
G
(2) The Commission
(2) The Commissionerate shall
shall communicate to
communicate to the University
the University the date
the date on which any inspecon which any inspection
tion under sub-section (1)
under sub-section ( 1) is
shall be made and the UniverH to be made and the
sity shall be entitled to be
University shall be
associate with inspection
,
-+-
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY v. STATE OF A.P. [SHETfY, J.]
963
entitled to be associain such manner as may be
A
ted with the inspection
prescribed.
in such manner as may
be prescribed.
(3) The Commi~sionerate shall
t
communicate to the University
its views in regard to the
result of any such inspection
B
-r
and may, after ascertaining
the opinion of the University,
recommend to the University,
the action to be taken as a
-
result of such inspection,
'(
and the University shall
c
comply with any such
direction.
Sec. 16 Fund of the
Sec. 12 Fund of the
Commission
Commissionerate:
·~
D
( 1) The Commission shall
( 1) The Commissionerate shall
have its own fund and
have its own fund consisting
all sum which may, from
of the grants from Government
time to time, be paid
voted by the Legislative Assto it by the Central
embly of the State towards
/
Government and all the
grants to Universities, and
E
....
receipts of the Commiaided Junior and Degree
ssion (including any
Colleges and grants received
sum which any State
from Central Government for
7
Government or any other
higher education.
authority or person may
handover to the Commi-
(2) All moneys belonging to
F
ssion) shall be carried
the Fund shall be deposited
to the fund and all
in such banks or invested in
payments by the
such manner as may, subject
Commission shall be
to the approval of the
~
made therefrom.
Government, be decided by the
Commissionerate.
(2) All moneys belongG
ing to the fund shall
(3) The Commissionerate may
be deposited in such
spend such sums as it thinks
banks or invested in
fit for performing its
such manner as may,
functions under this Act,
subject to the approval
and such sums shall be
H
964
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1987] 3 S.C.R.
A of the Central Government be decided by
the Commissioin.
(3) The Commission may
spend such sums as it
B thinks fit for performing
its functions under this
Act, and such sums shall
be treated as expenditure
payable out of the fund
of the Commission.
c
Sec. 18 Annual Report
The Commission shall
prepare, once in every
year in such form and at
D such time as may be
prescribed, an annual
report giving a true and
full account of its activities during the previous
year, and copies thereof
E shall be forwarded to the
Central Government and the
Government shall cause the
same to be laid before
both Houses of Parliament.
F
Sec. 19 Accounts & Audit
Sec. 20 Directions by
the Central Government
( 1) In the discharge of
G its functions under this
Act. the Commission shall
be guided by such directions on questions of
policy relating to
national purposes as may
H be given to it by the
treated as expenditure
payable out of the fund
of the Commissionerate.
Sec. 14 Annual Report
The Commissionerate shall
prepare once in every year,
in such form and at such time
as may be prescribed an Annual
Report giving a true and full
account of its activities
during the previous year,
and copies thereof shall be
forwarded to the Government
and the Government shall
cause the same to be laid
before the Legislative
Assembly of the State.
Sec. 15 Accounts & Audit
Sec. 16 Directions by the
Governments
( 1) In the discharge of
its functions under this Act,
the Commissionerate shall be
guided by such directions
on question of policy
relating to State purposes
or in case of any emergency as
may be given to it by the
I
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY v. STATE OF A.P. (SHETTY, J.)
965
• iCentral Government.
Government.
A
(2) If any dispute arises
(2) If any dispute arises
between the Central
between the Government
Government and the Commi·
and the Commissionerate
~-
ssion as to whether a
as to whether a question
B
question is or is not a
is or is not a question of
~
question of policy
policy relating to State
relating to national
purposes, or whether an
purposes the decision of
emergency has arisen, the
-
I
-(
the Central Government
decision of the Government
shall be final.
thereon shall be final.
c
Sec. 25 Power to make Rules
Sec. 18 Power to make Rules
Sec. 26 Power to make
Sec. 19 Power to make
Regulations.
Regulations."
We have extracted only such of the provisions similar to those D
contained in the UGC Ac.I. That is not all. The Commissionerate Act
yet contains sweeping provisions encroaching on the autonomy of the
Universities. Under Section 11( l)(c) it is for the Commissionerate to
decide on the need for, and location of new colleges and courses of
study including Engineering Co1leges. Section 11( l)(f) provides power
to the Commissionerate to establish and develop resources centre for
E
curriculuam materials and continuing education of teachers. Section
11(1)(g) confers power on the Commissionerate to coordinate the
academic activities of various institutions of higher education in the
State. It is also the duty of the Commissionerate to undertake examination reforms and assume accreditation functions [Section 11(1)(h) &
(i)]. Section 11( l)(j) states that it is the duty of the Commissionerate F
to organise entrance test for University admission. Section 11( l)(k)
states that it shall administer and grant scholarship and organise work
study programmes. Section 11(1)(0) provides power to transfer
teachers from one aided private college to another such college, subject to the rules made by the Government. There is yet a devastating
'of
provision on the autonomy of Universities. Section 11(2) states that G
every Urtiversity or College including the private college shall obtain
the prior approval of the Commissionerate in regard to: (i) creation of
new posts; (ii) financial management; and (iii) starting of new higher
educational institutions. This 'Super Power' has been preserved to the
Commissionerate notwithstanding anything contained in any law relat·
ing to Universities in the State, the :13oard of Intermediate Education H
966
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1987] 3 S.C.R.
A
Act, l97 land the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982.
B
It will be seen that the Commissionerate has practically taken
over the academic programmes and activities of the Universities. The
Universities have been rendered irrelevant if not non-entities.
'
It is apparent from this discussion that the Commissionerate Act -1
has been drawn by and large in the same terms as that of the U.G.C.
Act. The Commissionerate Act, as we have earlier seen also contains
some more provisions. Both the enactments, however, deal with the -f
c
- same subject matter. Both 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 Commissionerate Act may be different from those used in the
UGC Act, but nevertheless, they convey the same meaning. It is just
like referring the same person with different descriptio~s and names.
The intention of the legislature has to be gathered by reading the
statute as a whole. That is a rule which is now firmly established for the
D
purpose of construction of statutes. The High Court appears to have
gone on a tangent. The High Court 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-cersa.
In Prem Chand Jain v. R.K. Chhabra, [ 1984] 2 SCR 883 this
E
Court has held that the UGC Act falls under Entry 66 of List I. It is
then 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 legislative competence of the State Legislature and is
hereby declared void and inoperative.
F
In the result, these appeals are allowed with costs. The judgment
of the High Court is reversed. There shall be a direction to the State
not to enforce the provisions of the impugned Act.
Before parting with the case we may say a word more. The
G impugned Act was the result of a report from a High Power Commity
tee constituted by the State Government. The Committee weal into
the affairs of the higher education in the State. The Committee
examined among other things, the curricula and courses of studies.
The Committee found as a fact .that there is no proper coordination
and academic planning among the various bodies. It recommended to
H the State Government the need to pass a proper legislation to stream-
-
~-
I
'{
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY v. STATE OF A.P. (SHETTY, l.)
967
line the higher education. The State Government accepted the recomA
mendations and passed the Act in question. The Act now disappears
for want of legislation competence. What about the need to enact that
Act 0 It will not vanish to the thin air. The defects and deficiency
pointed out by the High Power Committee in regard to higher education may continue to remain to the detriment of the interest of the
~ State and the Nation. Such defects in the higher education may not be B
an isolated feature only in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It may be a
common feature in some other States as well.
That apart, .we often hear and read in news papers with disgust
about the question papers leakage and mass copying in the University
examinations. It has stripped the university degrees of all its credibiC
lity. He indeed must be blind who does not see what is all happening In
some of the Universities.
The Constitution of India vests Parliament with exclusive authority in regard to co-ordination and determination of standards in
institutions for higher education. The Parliament has enacted the D
CGC Act for that purpose. The University Grants Commission has,
therefore, a greater role to play in shaping the academic life of the
country. It shall not falter or fail in its duty to maintain a high standard
in the Universities. Democracy depends for its very life on a high
standards of general, vocational and professional education. Dissemination of learning with search for new knowledge with discipline all
E
·'" round must be maintained at all costs. It is hoped that University
Grants Commission will duly discharge its responsibility to the Nation
and play an increasing to role bring about the needed transformation in
the academic life of the Universities.
N.P.V.
Appeal allowed.
F