# STATE OF A~DHRA PRADESH & ORS v. LAVU NARENDRANATH & ORS. ETC

- **Citation:** [1971] 3 S.C.R. 699
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971-02-11
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-a-dhra-pradesh-ors-v-lavu-narendranath-ors-etc-5234
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

A
STATE OF A~DHRA PRADESH & ORS.
v.
LAVU NARENDRANATH & ORS. ETC.
February 11, 1971
B
[S. M. SIKRI, C.J., G. K. MITTER, K. S. HEGDE AND
c
D
E
F
G
ff
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.]
ConsUtution oj India, 1950, Arts. 21 162 and Entry 6G, Ll51 I, 'Sl:h •.
VII-Executive Power of State-Scope of-Entrance test tiFTnedical colleges-If affects personal liberty-Scope of Entry 66-1/ affects Govt.'s
power to hold rm.
Andhra University Act (2 of 1926), "· 23 and 33-Government If
obliged to make selection according to qualifying examination.
Education-Medical
Colleges-Admission to according to Entrancir
/est held by Government-If substitute of addition to qualifyinf? test.
In the Andhra area of the State of. Andhra Pradesh there are four
medical collegts run by the State Government.
In July 1970, the .Government prescribed for the first time an Entrance test for admission
to the colleges and also prescribed the standard of eligibility for the test.
A large number of candidates. far in excess of the seats available took
the test. Some of the candidates, who were unsuccessful, filed writ peti·
tions challenging the validity of the test prescribed and the method of
selection for admission. They contended that, (I) under the provisions
of the Andhra University Act, 1926 it was only the Academic Council of
the Andbra University th;lt was competent to prescribe qualifications
for admission into all degree courses, includirig the M.B.B.S. course in
Govt. Colleges; and it was not for the Government to substitute itself for
the statutory _,Academic oody and test the academic standards of candidates; (2) ,the holding of the Entrance Test and making selections on the
basis thereof in disregard of the marks obtained at the public exantination
held by the' University epcroached upon the central subject listed in
Entry 66 of List I of VU. Schedule to the Constitution; nnd, (3) the test
interfered with the personal liberty of the candidates violating Art. 21 . ef
the Constitution. The Hiah Court allowed the petitions. In appeal to thi•
Court,
·
HELD : ( 1) Under Art. 162 of the Constitution the executive power
of a State extends to the matters with resp.ect to which the Leaislature
!>f the Stata has power . to make la~. If there is no leaislatlen cover.
ma the field the State ·qovernment would un.doubtedly be competent to
prtscribe a test itself IC) screen the best candidates. (703 F·Hl
. The Andhra. Univers!ty Act, 1926, prescribes the minimum. qualification for enfrv mto a higher course of study.
A candidate bas not an
unq1:1alified. right .to a seat in a medical college merely because he has
ob~med his'!P,r marks tha_n another candidate at the qualifying examination. Secllons 23 and 33 of the Act do not make it incumbent upon
the Government to make their selection in accordance with the marks
obtained bv. applicant-candidates at the qualifying examination.. . Since
all the apphcants could not be admitted, the Government which ran the
colleges; had a right to make a selection out of the J~rge number of.
700
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1971] 3 S.C.R
candidates and for this purpose they could prescribe a test of their own
which was not against any law and prescribe the minimum number of
marks at the qualifyini: examination for eligibility tu the Entrance test.
Merely because the Government supplemented the eligibility rule by a
writt.11 test in slihjects with which the candidates were already familiar,
their action cannot be impeached nor was there anything unfair in the
test prescribed.
The test was not in
substitution of
the University
Examination but something 11dditional to that; and the mere fact that
the test was introduced for the first time would be no ground for holding that the method of selection was invalid [704 D-F; 708 F-G; 709 A-R, Fl
(2) The test prescribed by the Government in no way militates against
the power of Parliament under Entry 66 of List I of the Vil Schedule
to the <:;onstitution The Entry gives Parliament power to make laws for
layin&. d

## Text

A
STATE OF A~DHRA PRADESH & ORS.
v.
LAVU NARENDRANATH & ORS. ETC.
February 11, 1971
B
[S. M. SIKRI, C.J., G. K. MITTER, K. S. HEGDE AND
c
D
E
F
G
ff
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.]
ConsUtution oj India, 1950, Arts. 21 162 and Entry 6G, Ll51 I, 'Sl:h •.
VII-Executive Power of State-Scope of-Entrance test tiFTnedical colleges-If affects personal liberty-Scope of Entry 66-1/ affects Govt.'s
power to hold rm.
Andhra University Act (2 of 1926), "· 23 and 33-Government If
obliged to make selection according to qualifying examination.
Education-Medical
Colleges-Admission to according to Entrancir
/est held by Government-If substitute of addition to qualifyinf? test.
In the Andhra area of the State of. Andhra Pradesh there are four
medical collegts run by the State Government.
In July 1970, the .Government prescribed for the first time an Entrance test for admission
to the colleges and also prescribed the standard of eligibility for the test.
A large number of candidates. far in excess of the seats available took
the test. Some of the candidates, who were unsuccessful, filed writ peti·
tions challenging the validity of the test prescribed and the method of
selection for admission. They contended that, (I) under the provisions
of the Andhra University Act, 1926 it was only the Academic Council of
the Andbra University th;lt was competent to prescribe qualifications
for admission into all degree courses, includirig the M.B.B.S. course in
Govt. Colleges; and it was not for the Government to substitute itself for
the statutory _,Academic oody and test the academic standards of candidates; (2) ,the holding of the Entrance Test and making selections on the
basis thereof in disregard of the marks obtained at the public exantination
held by the' University epcroached upon the central subject listed in
Entry 66 of List I of VU. Schedule to the Constitution; nnd, (3) the test
interfered with the personal liberty of the candidates violating Art. 21 . ef
the Constitution. The Hiah Court allowed the petitions. In appeal to thi•
Court,
·
HELD : ( 1) Under Art. 162 of the Constitution the executive power
of a State extends to the matters with resp.ect to which the Leaislature
!>f the Stata has power . to make la~. If there is no leaislatlen cover.
ma the field the State ·qovernment would un.doubtedly be competent to
prtscribe a test itself IC) screen the best candidates. (703 F·Hl
. The Andhra. Univers!ty Act, 1926, prescribes the minimum. qualification for enfrv mto a higher course of study.
A candidate bas not an
unq1:1alified. right .to a seat in a medical college merely because he has
ob~med his'!P,r marks tha_n another candidate at the qualifying examination. Secllons 23 and 33 of the Act do not make it incumbent upon
the Government to make their selection in accordance with the marks
obtained bv. applicant-candidates at the qualifying examination.. . Since
all the apphcants could not be admitted, the Government which ran the
colleges; had a right to make a selection out of the J~rge number of.
700
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1971] 3 S.C.R
candidates and for this purpose they could prescribe a test of their own
which was not against any law and prescribe the minimum number of
marks at the qualifyini: examination for eligibility tu the Entrance test.
Merely because the Government supplemented the eligibility rule by a
writt.11 test in slihjects with which the candidates were already familiar,
their action cannot be impeached nor was there anything unfair in the
test prescribed.
The test was not in
substitution of
the University
Examination but something 11dditional to that; and the mere fact that
the test was introduced for the first time would be no ground for holding that the method of selection was invalid [704 D-F; 708 F-G; 709 A-R, Fl
(2) The test prescribed by the Government in no way militates against
the power of Parliament under Entry 66 of List I of the Vil Schedule
to the <:;onstitution The Entry gives Parliament power to make laws for
layin&. down bow stanards in an institutino for higher education
are to
be determined and how they can be co-ordinated.
It has no relation
to a teat prescribed by Government or by a universiy for selection of
a number of students from out of a large number applying for admission
to a particular course of stllily. [705 B-D]
(3) The test in no way, affects the personal liberty of the candidates
$CCUJed under Art. 21 of the Constitution.
Everybody, subject to the
eligibility prescribed by the University was at liberty to apply for
ad·
mission to the medical colleges. The number of scats being limited every
candidate could not expect !(> be admitted. The deprivation of personal
liberty, if any, in the matter of admission to a medical college was according to procedure established by law. [709 H; 710 A-BJ
R. Chltralekha v. Sate ofi Mysore, Ll964] 6 S.C.R. 368, Rajendran v.
State of Madras, [1968] 2 .S.C.R. '786 and Chitra Ghosh & Anr. v. Union
of l11dla, (1970) 1 S.C.R. 413, followed.
Spottswood v. Sharpe,
'1~ L.Ed. 884 and Stawant ~ingh v. Pa.Bport
Ofjicer, L1967] 3 S.C.R. 525, 540, referred oo.
CIVIL APPELLATE Jujt!SDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 2161-A
and 2161-B of 1970.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated
September 18, 1970 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ
Appeals Nos. 587 and 588 of 1970.
S. V. Gupte and P. Phrameshwara Rao, for the appellants (in
both the appeals).
P.A. Chaudhury and~. Rajendra Chowdhary, for respondents
Nos. 1 to 7 (in C.A. No. 2161-A of 1970) and respondent No. 1
(in C.A. No. 2161-B of i970).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
I
K
Mitter, J.
These two appeals are from a co~mon jud~
ment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh rendered m two wnt
appeals from the judgment and order of a learned Judge of the
"
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A. P. STATE 11. NARENDRANATH (Mitter. J.)
701
same court dismissing the applications filed by the appellants in
tl!e High Court and some others under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
The central question in these appeals is, whether the
Entrance Test prescribed under notification o! the Government
dated July 23, 1970 for selection of candidates in the four Medical Colleges run by the State in the Andhra area is justified in
law.
The facts are as follows.
In the Andhra area of the State
there are four Medical Colleges run by the Government and the
total number of s~ats available for admission in the first year
Integrated M.B.,B.S. course in all the four colleges is 550. The
State Government has been issuing rules every year after the
publication of the results of the H.S.C. or S.S.L.C. Board of the
University for selection of candidates for admission into the Medical Colleges.
The test which was prescribed in July 1970 was
the first of its kin~. The test was duly held after the Additional
Director of Medical and Health Services had issued a notification
inviting applications from candidates for the purpose on July 31,
1970.
Any one desiring to enter any of these Medical Colleges
had to complete and file his application in the prescribed form by
August 14, 1970 and appear at the Entrance Test to be conducted by the Director of Medical and Health Services on 30th August,
1970 at any of the centres indicated in the rules. There was an
exemption from appearance at such examination for candidates
who had taken an M.Sc. or B.Sc. Degree. The·6overnment
notification of 23rd July prescribed inter a1ia the following standard of eligibility :
(I) Candidates possessing the minimum qualification
of
H.Sc.
(Multipurpose),
I.S.C.,
P.U.C.,
A.I.H.S.C. or equivalent qualifications were eligible to
appear for the Entrance Test provided that :
(a) In the above qualifying examinations, the candidaites had ta.ken up Physical sciences and Biological
sciences for study and examination.
.
()>) Candidates had passed the qualifying examination m one attempt.
( c) Candidates had obtained not less than 50%
of the marks in Physical and Biological Sciences put
together in their qualifying examination.
(2) The Entrance Test was to consist of four
papers ?f 50 marks each of the following subjects in
two sessions :
(a) The subject of Physical Sciences
(Chemistry
and Physics).
·
-
702
SUPREME cOURT REPORTS
[1971] 3 S.C.R.
'
(b) The subj•~ct qf Biological Sciences
(Zoology
and Botany).
'
The candidates had to appear and
answer
two
papers i.e. Chemistry' and Physical Sciences in
the
morning session and the remaining two papers
i.e.
Zoology and Botany , in the evening session.
The
Entrance Test was t6, be conducted in a single day in
two sessions eac)l' of two hours' duration.
( 3) The standard of the test was to be comparable
to the standard of qualifying examinations referred to
above.
·
'
( 4) The test wa~ to be partly objective and partly
narrative.
5,137 candidates applied for the Entrance Test out of which
4,669 were accepted for the ,test.
4,331 candidates actually took
the test.
As the number of· :seats were limited· the majority of
the candidates who appeared for the test failed to secure admission.
Several writ petitions were filed in the. Andhra Pradesh
High Court challenging the validity of the Entrance Test pres- ·
cribed and the method of selection for admission to the Medical
Colleges.
·
Writ.Petition No. 3859 of 1970 was filed on August 6, 1970,
the main prayer being tnat the State should be directed to withdraw the notification published by the Additional. Director of
Medical and Health Services with a further direction to the State
to admit the _petitioners into the first year Integrated M.B., B.S.
course on the basis of the marks which had been awarded to them
in the public Examinations.
Reliance was placed by the petitioners on certain provisions of the Andhra University Act (II of
1926) under which inter alia the Andhra University had been
·constituted as a body corporate with powers to provide for instructions in such branches of learning as might be considered suitable
and to make provision for research and for the advancement and
dissemination of knowle~ge, to hold examinations, to confer
degrees on persons who, had pursued courses of study in the
Universrty and to institute and maintain colleges and hostels, .etc.
'
'
The contention of the petitioners was that it was the Academic:
Council of the University which was
competent to prescribe·
qualifications for admission intQ all degree courses in the University and it was not for the Government to substitute itself for a
statutory Academic body and test academic standards of candidates seeking admission iinto the Integrated M.B .. B.S. course by
the notification of the 23rd July.
This was described as an
attempt to assess the merits of the candidates on academic stanA
B
c
D
E
F
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A. P. STATE v. NARENDRANATH (Mitter, /,)
703
dards different from those fixed by the University.
Holding the
Entrance Test and making selection on the basis thereof in disregard of the marks obtained at the public .examinations he:ld by
the University was further said to constitute an encroachment
upon the Central subject listed in Entry 66 of List I of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
Besides the above1 other
grounds were also tak~, namely, that the Government oroer was
discriminatory, that it was not valid for want of publication-in the
official gazette, that the candidates were handicapped by reason
of the fact that they did not have sufficient time to prepare themselves for the test and lastly that the test held by the Government
interfered with the personal liberty of the candidates violating
Art. 21 of the Constitution.
The learned trial judge dismissed the Writ Petitions. In
appeal, however, the appellate Bench took a different view. 1n
substance the appellate court was of opinion that although the
State Government had a right to prescribe rules and lay down its
own criteria for making admissions into the colleges, it could not
do so in total disregard of the marks obtained by the students at
the University or other public examination necessary for eligibility
and they could only .do so if their action did not contravene the
University Act or any other law. It was also held that the
Government could hold a "test" in order to supplement or add to
the qualifications already prescribed by the University or other
educational authority for the purpose of assessing ~ merits of
candidates but they could not hold a test in substitution for the
qualifying examinations, as this would be encroaching upon the
jurisdiction of the universities concerned in the matter of laying
doY..11 academic standards of the students.
We have therefore to examine whether the Government had a
right to prescribe a test for making a selection of a number of
candidates from out of the large body of applicants for admission
into the first year M.B.,B.S. course and whether such action of the
Government contravened any provision already made by the
legislature in that respect.
Under Art. 162 of the Constitution
the executive power of a State extends to the matters with respect
to which the legislature of a State has power to make Jaws but
this is subject to the provisions of the Constitution. As the
Government runs these colleges, it undoubtedly has a right and a
duty to make a selection from the number of applicants applying
for admission if all could not be admitted. If there was no legislation covering this field Government would undoubtedly be competent to prescribe a test itself to screen the best candidates. We
have next to scrutinile the urovisions of the Andhra Universify
Act relied on by· the High Court to see whether the action of the
Government ran counter to any of those provisions. Under s. 23
..
704
I.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
'
[1971 J3 S.C.R.
-Of the Act it was a body 'known as the Academic Council of the
University which had the, power by regulations of prescribing all
courses of study and of determining curricula and the general
control of teaching within the university and was responsible for
the mainten3nce of the standards thereof.
Under sub-s. (2) (h)
of the Act these powers include the power to make regulations
regarding the admission bf students to the university or pi;escribing examinations to be recognised as equivalent to university
examinations or the further qualifications mentioned in sub-s. (1)
of s. 33 for admission to' the degree courses of the university.
Under s. 33 no student was to be eligible for admission to a
course of study qualifying for admission to a post-matriculation
university examination unless he had passed the examination pres-
.cribed as qualifying for itdlllission to such course or an examination recognised by the Academic Council with the previous sanction of the State Government as equivalent th.ereto and possessed
such further qualifications, if any, as might be prescribed.
Sri
Venkateswara Universityi the only other University functioning in
this area, was constituted under a similar statute and had almost
identical provisions as th0se mentioned above.
'
The above provisions of law do not mak-e it incumbent upon
the Government to make their selection in accordance with the
marks obtained by the applicant-candidates at the qualifying
examination.
Obtaining 50% of t!ie marks at the qualifying
examinations was the fir5t hurdle to be crossed by any candidate
before he could submit an application for admission into a medi ·
cal college.
The Government which ran the colleges had the
right to make a selection out of a large number of candidates and
for this purpose they could prescribe! a test of their own which
was not against any law.
Merely because they tried to supplement the eligibility rule' by a written test in subjects with which
the candidates were already familiar, their action cannot be
impeached nor was there anything unfair in the test prescribed.
The test prescribed by the Gov~rnment must be considered in the
light of a second hurdle' for the purpose of a screening to find out
who of all the candidates applying should be admitted and who
~hould be rejected.
Merely because the University had made
regulations regarding tb'.e admission of students to its
de~ree
courses, it did not mean that any one who had passed the qualifying examination such as the P.U.C. or H.S.C. was ipso facto to
be entitled to admission' to such courses of study. If the number
of candidates applying for such admission far exceeds the ~umber
of seats available the University will have to make its choice out
of the applicants to finli out who should be admitted and . if
instead of judging the ca~didates ~y t~e number ?f m_arks ?blamed by them in the qualjfymg exa1!11i:iat1on the. Un_1vers1ty thmks fit
to prescribe another test for adm1ss10n no ob1ection ·can be taken
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
,.-,
A
A. P. STATE v. NARENDRANATH (Mitter, !.)
705
thereto. What the University can do in the matter of admissions
to the degree courses can certainly be done by the Government in
the matter of admission to the M.B.,B.S. cours-~.
In our view the test prescribed by the Government in no way
militates against the power of Parliamefa under Entry 66 of List
B
I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
The said entry
provides:
D
E
H
"Co-ordination and determination of standards in
institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions."
The aLove entry gives Parliament power to make laws for laying
down how standards in an institution for higher education are to
be determined and how they can be co-ordinated.
It has no relation to a test prescribe,d 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.
Several decisions of this Court were cited at the Bar which
throw some light on the subject.
In R. Chftralakha v. State of
Mysore(') one of the contentions urged before this Court was
that the Government of Mysore had no power to appoint a selection committee for admitting students to colleges on the basis of
higher or different qualifications than those prescribed by the
University.
What the Government had done in that case was to
appoint one common selection committee for settling admissions
to the Engineering Colleges and another such committee for
settling admissions to Medical Colleges.
The Government of
Mysore had sent a letter to the Director of Technical Education
informing him that it had been decided that 25 per cent of the
maximum marks for the examination in the optional subjects
taken into account for making the selection of candidates for
admission to Engineering Colleges shall be fixed
as
interview
marks; it also laid down the criteria for allotting marks in the
interview.
The selection committee conver~~d the total ,of the marks in
the opiional subjects to a maximum of 300 marks and fixed the
minimum marks for interview at 75. On the basis of the marks
obtained by the candidates in the examination and those obtained
at the interview, selectiohs were made for admission to Enuineering. and Medica~ <;olleges.
S~me of the candidates whose" applic.attons for adm1ss10n to the said colle~es were rejected filed petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of
(!) [1964] 6 S.C.R. 368.
,
706
I
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1971]3 S.C.R
Mysore for quashing the orders issued by th~ Government in the
matter of admission to the said colleges and for a direction that
they should be admitted
1 in the Colleges strictly in order of merit
i.e. according to the marks obtained in the qualifying examinations.
The arguments advanced before this Court were similar
to those advanced before us.
Referring to s. 23 of the Mysore
Univer£ity Act which g11-ve the Academic Council the power to
prescribe the conditions for admission of students to the University and in exercise of Which power, the University had prescribed the percentage of marks which a student had to obtain for
getting admission in me\lical or engineering colleges it was observed by this Court :
"The order of the Government does not contravene
the minimum qualifications prescribed by the University; what the Government did was to appoint a selection committee and prescribe rules
for selection of
students who have' the minimum qualifications prescribed by the UniverSity.
The Government runs most of
the medical and engineering colleges. . . . The colleges
run by the Goverqment, having regard to financial commitments ahd other relevant considerations, can only
admit a specific number of students to the said colleges.
They cannot obviously admit all the applicants who
have secured the
1 marks prescribed by the University.
It has neeessarily
1 to screen the applicants on some
reasonable basis.
The aforesaid orders of the Government only prescribed criteria for making admissions to
colleges from among s,udents who secured the minimum qualifying marks prescribed by the Universit'IJ.
Once it is conceded, and it is not disputed before us,
that the State Government can run medical and engineering colleges, it cannot be denied the power to admit
such qualified students as pass the reasonable tests laid
down by it.
This is a power which every private
owner of a college will have,
and the Government
which run its own colleges cannot be denied that power."
Referring to Entry 66 in List I it was said :
·~1£ the impa~t 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 abr!dgt~ th~ c.entral
field, it may be ~truck down. But that 1~ a questJol! of
fact to be ascertained in each case.
It 1s not possible
to hold that if a State legislature made a law prescribin.g
a higher percentage of marks for extra-cumcular actiA
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
E
F
G
•
H
A. P, STATE V, NARENDRANATH (Mitter, J.)
vities in the matter of admission to colleges, it wo11Jd be
d1~ectly encroaching on the field covered by Entry 66 of
List) .of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. If
so, zt. zs. n?t d!sputed that the State Government would
b.e wJthm its rights to prescribe qualifications for admission to colleges so long as its action does not contravene any other law."
707
With regard to the scheme of selection in that case it was said :
. "SI? lo_ng as the order lays down a rele~ant objective ~ntena and entrusts the business of selection to
qual~fied persons, this Coiirt cannot obviously have any
say m the matter.
In this case the criteria laid down
by the G?vernment are certafoly relevant in the matter
of awardmg marks at the interview."
With respect, it seems to us that the observations above quoted are equally applicable to the case before us, the only difference being that whereas in the Mysore case marks were awarded
011 the basis of the impression created at the interview and added
in -'11 certain manner •to the marks obtained at the university
examination in the case before us the marks obtained at the University only make candidates eligible to appear at the written test
and it is the last test which is the determining factor as to who
should be admitted and who should be 'rejected.
In Rajendran v. State of Madras(') the petitioners challenged
an order of the State Government by which rules were promulgated for selection of candidates for
admission to a medical
course.
These rules inter alia provided for selection and classification of candidates including one for awarding a maximum of
75 marks for extra-curricular activities which had been.specified
uader five heads.
Turning down the contention that there was
no objective test laid down in the rules for the interview it was
said : (p. 795)
"So far as admission is concerned, it has to be made
by those who are in control of the Colleges,-in this
case the Government, because the medical colleges are
Government colleges affiliated to the Univetsity.
In
these circumstances, the Government was entitled to
frame rules for admission to medical colleges controlled
by it subject to the rules of the university as to eligibility
and qualifications.
This was what was done in these
cases and therefore the selection cannot be challenged
on the ground that it was not inaccordance with the
University Act and the Rules framed thereunder."
(I) [1968] 2 S.C.R. 786.
708
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 3 S.C.R.
In Chitra Ghosh & another v. Union of India and C!fhers(')
the appellants who had passed the pre-medical examination of
the Delhi University obtaining over 62 % marks were refused
admission to the first year M.B.,B.S. course at the Maulana Azad
Medical College which was a constituent of the University of
Delhi and was established by the Government of India.
The
college prospectus contained certain rules relating to the admission of students which made reservations of places in the college
in favour of various ca1egories of students and provided for nominations to be mad·~ by the Central Government to fill some of the
reservrd places.
The appellants challenged primarily the power
of the Central Government to make the nominations and contended that nine students n,ominated by the
Government had
obtained lower marks than ·theirs in the pre-medical examination
so that if they were to be excluded, the appellants would become
entitled to be admitted in the college.
Rejecting this contention
it was said :
"It is the Cen1ral Government which
bears
th~
financial burden of running the medical colleges. It is
for it to lay down the criteria for eligibility.
From the
very nature of things it is not possible to throw the
admission open to students from all over the country.
The Government cannot be denied the right to decide
from what sources the admissions will be made.
That
essentially is a question of policy and depends i~ter alia
on an overall assessment and survey of the requirements
of residents of particular territories and other categories of persons for whom it is essential to· provide fa~i
Jities for medical education. If the sources are properly classified whether on territorial, geographical or ·
other reasonable basis it is not for the courts to interfere with the manner and method of making the classification."
The above case is not directly in point but it at least shows that
a candidate has not an unqualif..~d right to seat in a medical
college merely because he has obtained higher marks· than another
candidate at the qualifying examinMion.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
Mr. Choudhury the learned advoc,ate for the respondents put
before us his contentions with regard to the above in three propositions, namely,. ( l) The State has no power to trench upon
the powers given to the University.
The test prescribed contravenes s. 23 of the Act. (2) Even if the matter is not covered by
the Universities Act the executive cannot be allowed to usurp a
Jaw-making power in prescribing a test"
( 3) The rule . aff~ts
·prejudicially the right conferred on candidates by the Umvers1ty
Regulations.
H
(1) [1970] I S.C.R. 413.
A
B
c
D
E
F
A. P. STATE v. NARENDRANATH (Mitter, !.)
709
. In our view there is no substance in any of the contentions as
will be apparent from our conclusions noted above and the decisions of this Court bearing on this point.
The University Act,
as pointed out, merely prescribed a minimum qualification for
entry into the higher courses of study.
There was no regulation
to the effect that admission to higher course of study was guaranteed by the securing of eligibility.
The Executive have a power
to make any regulation which would have the effect of a law so
long as it does not contravene any legislation already covering
the field and the Government order in this case in no way affected
the rights of candidates with regard to eligibility for admission :
the test prescribed was a further hurdle by way of competition
when mere eligibility could not be made the determining factor.
Mr. Choudhury faintly tried to urge other points which may
be briefly noted.
One of the grounds was that some of the questions were not covered b} the curricula by the P.U.C. or the
S.S.L.C. examinatisms.
This was not a ground which has any
merit. If some of the questions were outside the syllabi all the
candidates were at an eqnal disadvantage.
Alternatively the
questions might have been put to find out whether the candidate's
knowledge was limited to the syllabus or whether he was sufficiently interested in the subjects so as
to acquire knowledge
beyond the prescribed curriculum.
The next ground urged was that the written test was in substitution of the University examination and was altogether a novel
experiment, no such test having been held before.
In our view
there is no substance in this contention either.
The written test
was not in substitution of the University examination but it was
something additional to that and the mere fact that a written test
had been introduced in the year 1970 would be no ground for
holding that the method of selection was invalid.
Further no
complaint can be made that the notice of examination was all too
short or that it was never published in the Gazette. If it was
short it affected everybody equally adversely and the figures showing how many candidates had taken the test demonstrat~ v7ry
G.
clearly that everybody who had cared t.o s!t for the exan_i.ma~on
had an opportunity of doing so.
Pubhcahon of the notification
in the Gazette was not called for by any law.
H
Lastly it was urged that such test affected the pe~son.al liberty
of the candidates secured under Art. 21 of the Conshtuhon. We
fail to see how refusal of an application to enter a medical college
can be said to affect one's personal liberty guaranteed under that
article.
Everybody, subject to the eligibili!Y _prescribed by .the
University was at liberty to apply for adm1ss10n to the medical
college. The number of seats being limited compared to
the
'7 10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971 J3 S.C.R.
number of applicants every candidate could not except to be
ad1!1itted.
Once it is held that the test is not invalid the deprivation of personal, liberty, if any, in the matter of admission to a'
medical college was according to procedure established by law.
9ur 8:tten.tio,n was drawn to the case of Spottswood v. Sharpe('1)
m which It was held that due process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the American Constitution prohibited racial segregation
in the District of Columbia.
Incidentally the court
made
a
remark (at p. 887) :-
"Although the Court has not assumed
to
define
'liberty' with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere ·freedom from bodily restraint.
Liberty
under law extends to the full range of conduct which
the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for· a proper govermnental objective.
Segregation in public education is not reasonably related to any proper governmental objective, and thus. it
imposes on Negro children of the District of Columbia
a burden that constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of
!heir liberty in violation of the Due Process Clause."
The problem before us is altogether different.
In this case everybody subject to the minimum qualification prescribed was
at
liberty to apply for admission. The Government objective in
selecting a. number of them was certainly not improper in the
circumstances of the case.
Learned counsel also referred us to an observation of this
Court in Satwant Singh v. Passport Officer(') that :
" 'liberty' in our Constitution bears the same comprehensive meaning as is given to the expression 'liberty'
by the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the expression 'personal liberty' in Art. 21
only excludes the ingredients of 'liberty' enshrined in
Art. 19 of the Constitution."
A
B
c
D
E
F
We do not find it necessary to dilate on this point in view of our
conclusion that even if personal liberty extends to such conduct
G
there has not been any deprivation thereof in violation of any
procedure established by law.
In the resuit the appeals are allowed, but in the circumstances
we leave the parties to bear their own costs.
V.P.S.
. . Appeals allowed.
(!) 98 L.Ed. 884.
(2) [1967] 3 S.C.R. ,125 at 540.
918 Sup.C.I.171-20/6/72--GIPF.