1992 Supreme(AP) 510

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : D.REDDAPPA REDDY, M.N.RAO
Panineeya Law College, President D.N.Sastry, Hyderabad - Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government, Education Dept., Government Of A.P., Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 09-29-92

Headnote:

The Andhra Pradesh Institutions of Law (Regulation of Admissions into Courses in Law through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 1989, framed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 read with Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983, were challenged on the grounds that they were unconstitutional, invalid and inoperative. The petitioners contended that the Rules were contrary to the provisions of Section 7 (l) (h) and (i) and Section 49 (1) (af) and (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961, enacted by the Parliament under Entries 66, 77 and 78 of List I of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India and as such they were invalid and unenforceable. It was also contended that the Rules were repugnant to the rules made under the Bar Council of India and therefore, they were void. The petitioners further contended that the right to run the colleges was frustrated for the reason that the Convenor failed to allot sufficient number of candidates to each college, and that the Rules had become superfluous at the present stage when the seats were more and the candidates were less.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, law colleges and candidates who claim to have joined the first year law course without passing LAWCET and without obtaining any interim directions from this Court, challenged the constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Institutions of Law (Regulation of Admissions into Courses in Law through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 1989, framed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 read with Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Rules were not unconstitutional, invalid and inoperative. The Court further held that the Rules were not contrary to the provisions of Section 7 (l) (h) and (i) and Section 49 (1) (af) and (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961, enacted by the Parliament under Entries 66, 77 and 78 of List I of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India and as such they were not invalid and unenforceable. The Court also held that the Rules were not repugnant to the rules made under the Bar Council of India and therefore, they were not void. The Court further held that the right to run the colleges was not frustrated for the reason that the Convenor failed to allot sufficient number of candidates to each college, and that the Rules had not become superfluous at the present stage when the seats were more and the candidates were less.

Issues: 1. Whether the Andhra Pradesh Institutions of Law (Regulation of Admissions into Courses in Law through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 1989, were unconstitutional, invalid and inoperative? 2. Whether the Rules were contrary to the provisions of Section 7 (l) (h) and (i) and Section 49 (1) (af) and (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961, enacted by the Parliament under Entries 66, 77 and 78 of List I of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India? 3. Whether the Rules were repugnant to the rules made under the Bar Council of India? 4. Whether the right to run the colleges was frustrated for the reason that the Convenor failed to allot sufficient number of candidates to each college? 5. Whether the Rules had become superfluous at the present stage when the seats were more and the candidates were less?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power of the State Legislature to make laws under Entries 25 and 26 of list III is not totally ousted even in respect of the subjects mentioned in Entry 66 in List I of Seventh Schedule. The only restriction is that such laws should not have devastating effect of wiping out the laws made by Parliament. 2. The LAWCET Rules do not contemplate a situation leading to any conflict with what is envisaged by s. 12-A. On the other hand, they seek to add strength to S. 12-A by insisting upon adherence to the principle of merit in the matter of admissions. 3. The rules made by the Bar Council of India prior to its Resolution No. 35 / 1988 dated 11 / 12th July, 1988, prescribe minimum percentage of marks in the qualifying examination for seeking admission to law course. The LAWCET Rules prescribe a pass in the lawcet as a condition precedent for seeking admission to first year law course. 4. It is not possible to hold that there is any repugnancy between the two. It could be said that the doctrine of repugnancy comes into play only in a situation where the State Government prescribes rules laying down lower standards than what are prescribed by the Bar Council of India. 5. The Rules have not become superfluous at the present stage when the seats are more and the candidates are less.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed.