Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.LAKSHMANA RAO, K.BHASKARAN, Y.V.ANJANEYULU
Osmania University Teachers Association - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
W.P.Nos.15582 & 15733/86 etc.
Decided On : 03-24-87
Advocates Appeared :
K.G. Kannabhiran,K. Pratap Reddy
Held : The provisions contained in the State Act, with particular reference to Sec.11 and 16 are not arbitrary conferring uncontrolled power without guidelines on the Commmissionerate and therefore, Art.14 is not violated. The academic freedom and the autonomy of the University are also concepts which are subject to reasonable restrictions, is not violative ofArt.19 (1) (a) of the Constitution or offends Art.21. The State Government has responsibilities to be discharged in the field of education including Universities, and in order to enable the Government to carry out the duties and responsibility, the State Legislature is competent to make laws within the field available to the State Legislature under Entry 25, concurrent List, without transpressing into the field occupied by Or reserved for the Union Parliament. Similarity between the provisions in the Central Act and the State Act does not render the State Act unconstitutional, as long as the operation of the State Act is meant to be restricted to the field not covered by the field reserved for the Union Parliament. On a construction of Sec.11 as a whole as well as clause-by-clause, it is difficult to hold that the avowed purpose of the provisions therein is for usurping the functions of the Central Government or the University-Grants-Commission created under the Central Act or for encroaching upon Entry 66 of the Union List. There is nothing in the Section which expressly or by necessary implication leads to the conclusion that it relates to co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education.
The expression coordination is of the standards and not "in the institutions" and it might not be proper to take a view that any legislation by the States for the co-ordination of the Universities would be invalid for the reason of its transgression into the field covered by Entry 66, Union List. It would appear that in the scheme of the distribution of the functions, as contemplated by the Constitution, determination of standards is to be done by a legislation referable to Entry 66 by Union Parliament; and the maintenance of such standards determined would be the responsibility of those who establish and maintain such institutions by or under the State legislation in that behalf part of the subject of education which concerns with co-ordination and determination of standards in higher education , covered by Entry 66, Union List, alone is the exclusive preserve of the Union Parliament.
W.Ps. Dismissed.
( 1 ) THE constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1986 (Act 26 of 1986), for short the State Act, having been challenged in both the writ petitions, they were heard together, and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioner in W. P. No. 15582/86 is the Osmania University Teachers Association represented by its President, Sri M. Malla Reddy; and the petitioners in W. P. No. 15733/86 are Teachers-Professors, Heads of Departments, Readers and Lecturers working in the Osmania University. In the writ petitions, the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Commissionerate of Higher Education, Ministry of Education, Hyderabad, are respondents 1 and 2 respectively.
( 2 ) WE have heard Sri K. G. Kannabiram for the petitioner in W. P. No. 15582/86, Sri K. Pratap Reddy for the petitioners in W. P. No. 15733/86 and the Advocate General for the respondents Sri P. Durga Prasad, stated to be the Convenor of Students Association for Better Aministration and Accountability in Osmania University, who had filed a petition for permission to intervene, also was heard.
( 3 ) IN February, 1986 the Government of Andhra Pradesh had appointed a five-man Committee consisting of four Vice-Chancellors and the Additional Secretary to the Government, Education Department, to study the higher education system in the State with special reference to curricula and courses of studies. Finance and Management in the higher education system. The Committee in its report submitted to the Government observed, inter alia, that there was no proper co-ordination and academic planning among the various bodies like Universities, the Directorate of Higher Education and the University Grants Commission etc. ; there was no policy perspective in the development of higher education system in the State; and in order to streamline the general working of the higher education system in the State, there was need to constitute a Commission to advise the Government in matters relating to higher education in the State and to oversee its developments with perspective planning and improvement. The Government having examined the recommendations made by the Committee decided to constitute a Commissionerate of Higher Education; and the State Act, which came into force on 7-10-1986, was enacted pursuant to this decision.
( 4 ) THE petitioners filed the writ petitions for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the State Act, more particularly, the provisions of Sections 11 to 19 thereof, to be unconstitutional, beyond legislative competence of the State Legislature; and, therefore, void, illegal and without jurisdiction.
( 5 ) ACCORDING to the preamble, the State 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 perspective planning and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. The constitution of the Commissionerate and the composition thereof are as provided in Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, respectively. Section 11, which is the main target of attack in the writ petitions, deals with the powers and functions of the Commissionerate; and Section 13 confers power on the Commissionerate for conducting inspection of departments of Universities in the manner prescribed. Section 14 enjoins the Commissionerate to forward an annual report of its activities, which is to be laid before the Legislative Assembly of the State by the State Government. Section 15 provides for audit of accounts of the Commissionerate. Section 16, which also is an important target of attack in the writ petitions, provides that in the discharge of its functions the Commissionerate shall be guided by such directions on questions of policy relating to State purposes as may be given to it by the Government; and that in case of dispute between the Government and the Commissionerate, the decision of the Government thereon
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
