VERY IMPORTANT POINT
The State of Andhra Pradesh has the legislative competence to enact Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education Act, 1988. It does not encroach upon legislation enacted by the Parliament and the same is a valid piece of legislation.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III of VII Schedule- 66. Coordination and determination of standards in institutions, for higher education or research and scientific and technical education"- 25. Education, including technical education, Medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training of labour -Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education Act, 1988- Whether State of A.P. has the requisite Legislative competence to enact the 1988 Act-High Court holding "No" relying on 1987(4) SCC 671-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether High Court was correct? (No)-Appeal allowed.
       Held : Once it is held that the duties and functions of the Councils are comparmentalised and they have to act in accordance with the guidelines issued by the UGC from time to time, it is preposterous to suggest that the Council acts on its own and/or at the instance of the Government in the field of cooperation and determination of standards in institutions of higher education as an independent body. Keeping in view the fact that the Commission itself on the request of the Central Government constituted a committee and laid down the parameters within which the Council can function and subjected themselves to the restriction of working within the guidelines issued by the UGC, we fail to understand as to how it can be contended that both the Commissionerate Act as also the Council Act provide for same powers and functions. The modifications made in the 1988 Act vis-a-vis the Commissionerate Act cannot be said to be so slight as has been opined by the High Court so as to arrive at a conclusion that the 1988 Act still suffers from the same vices. Having regard to the provisions of the 1988 Act and particularly Section 11 thereof we have no doubt in our mind that the purpose of the said Act, and the powers and functions thereof vis-a-vis the Commissionerate Act are absolutely distinct and different. In no way the 1988 Act can be said to have an upper hand over the UGC Act. It is not a case where the State Council of Higher Education were to act independently irrespective of the standard of education set forth by the University Grants Commission. Its powers and functions, as indicated hereinbefore, are absolutely different from that of 1986 Act. (Paras 23 & 24)
       If the UGC has an overall control over the State Council, the Central field is not entrenched upon. In a situation of this nature the doctrine of pith and substance must also be held to be applicable. (Para 26)
       The provisions of the impugned Act would clearly show that the State Act is in aid of the Parliamentary Act and it does not in any manner whatsoever entrench thereupon. (Para 27)
       Held further : Thus, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that only to the extent of conflict, the State law has to be struck down and not otherwise. Before parting with this case, it is relevant to notice that the respondent herein is merely a teacher of a university. It is true that he was one of the petitioners in the earlier writ petition also questioning the validity of the Commissionerate Act. Both the Central Government as well as the University Grants Commission in no uncertain terms stated before us that the Act is intra vires, presumably, because they do not find any conflict between the University Grants Commission Act and the 1988 Act. At one point of time a question arose as to whether having regard to the observations made by the Division Bench, the matter should be referred to a Constitution Bench. We do not think so to do inasmuch as the question which falls for consideration is not as to whether the decision of this Court in Osmania University is correct or not but really is as to whether the impugned Act in its present form is in any way in conflict with the Central Act having regard to the changes effected therein pursuant to the recommendations of the Committee constituted by the UGC at the instance of the Central Government. (Paras 33, 34 & 35)
       Held also : We are further of the view that the High Court committed a manifest error in striking down the entire Act without bestowing its consideration to the fact that the State Act deals with not only higher education but also intermediate education which in no manner deals with the subject matter of Entry 66 of List I of VII Schedule of the Constitution of India. We are of the view that the impugned enactment does not encroach upon the legislation enacted by the Parliament and the same is a valid piece of legislation. (Para 36)
       Held finally : For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. These appeals are allowed. In the facts and circumstances of this case, however, there shall be no order as to costs. (Para 37)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.- Whether the State of Andhra Pradesh had the legislative competence to enact Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education Act, 1988 (Act 16 of 1988) (hereinafter called as "the 1988 Act") is the core question involved in these appeals which arise out of a judgment and order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 17222 of 1988.

2. The fact leading to filing of the Writ Petition by the respondent herein questioning the vires of the 1988 Act arose in the following circumstances:

The Central Government evolved a National Education Policy in the year 1986 pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof, recommendations were made for creating a State Level Planning for coordination of the Higher Education through Councils of Higher Education. Such Councils were proposed to be set up as statutory bodies having regard to the fact that there did not exist any effective machinery for planning and coordination of higher education at the State level vis-a-vis implementation of the programmes made by the University Grants Commission (UGC). With a view to give effect to the said policy, UGC constituted a committee to go into the said matter and make recommendations regarding setting up of the said Councils of higher education and programme of action to be taken in that behalf. The pressing need for constituting effective machinery for promotion and coordination of higher education at the State level and coordination of State level programmes with those of the UGC was felt and pursuant thereto and in furtherance thereof, UGC formulated guidelines for setting up of such Councils as recommended by the Committee.

3. In the year 1986 the State of Andhra Pradesh passed an Act known as the Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as the Commissionerate Act ). The Commissionerate Act was enacted purported to be pursuant to or in furtherance of the recommendations of the Vice-Chancellors Committee on higher education in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The constitutionality of the said Act inter alia was questioned on the ground of lack of legislative competence having regard to the parliamentary Act known as University Grants Commission Act enacted in terms of Entry 66, List I of the VII Schedule of the Constitution of India. The said writ petitions were filed by the respondent herein and four others as also the Osmania University Teachers Association. The said writ petitions were dismissed by a Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court by a judgment dated 24-03-1987. However, on an appeal thereagainst this Court in Osmania University Teachers Association v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another [(1987) 4 SCC 671] held that the State Legislature had no legislative competence therefor.

4. As a necessary fallout of the said decision, guidelines were sought to be reviewed wherefor request was made by the Government of India to the Commission.

5. In the light of the judgment, the Department of Education, Government of India requested the Commission to review the guidelines. Accordingly, the guidelines were reviewed with the help of the law panel of the Commission. The relevant extracts of the revised guidelines as approved by the Commission in January, 1988 are as under:

"2.0 Setting up of the Council.

In order to achieve the objectives set out above, the Central Government may advise State Governments for enacting legislation for setting up of State Councils of Higher Education in the States. In an Indian state where the number of universities are too few, an advisory body may be set up to fulfil the above objectives.

8.0 Powers and Functions of the Council

The Council shall function for coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institution in accordance with the guidelines issued by the UGC from time to time.

8.1. Planning and Coordination

(i) To prepare consolidated programmes in th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 983

VERY IMPORTANT POINTThe State of Andhra Pradesh has the legislative competence to enact Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education Act, 1988. It does not encroach upon legislation enacted by the Parliament and the same is a valid piece of legislation.

Cases Referred (11)

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
The State of Andhra Pradesh has the legislative competence to enact Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education Act, 1988. It does not encroach upon legislation enacted by the Parliament and the same is a valid piece of legislation.