Classification between students of State Board and other Boards is discriminatory and unreasonable having no nexus to the object sought to be achieved.

The Honourable Chief Justice:

These writ petitions raise a short but an important question as to the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Admission in Professional Courses Act 2006 (Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 2006), hereinafter for brevity’s sake called the "Act". Since common questions of law and fact are involved, we have heard all the cases together and disposing them of by this judgment.

2. In W.P.No.3951 of 2006, Minor Nishanth Ramesh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (which we are treating as the lead case), the petitioner is a Plus two student of Vidya Mandhir School, affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education (C.B.S.E.), Chennai. The Tamil Nadu State Board, I.S.C. and C.B.S.C. are the three Boards which offer Plus two course in the State of Tamil Nadu.

3. It has been alleged that ever since 1984, the admission to the professional colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu was governed by G.O.Ms.No.657, dated 29.5.1984. The said Government Order prescribed admission to the professional college on the basis of qualifying examination (Plus two) and Common Entrance Test on the basis of the State Board Syllabus for all the Board students. The inter se merit for admission to the professional college on the basis of 200 marks for qualifying exam and 100 marks for Common Entrance Test in total 300 marks, was taken in common for all the Board students. In the year 2005, by G.O.Ms.No.184, the State Government abolished Common Entrance Test for admission to professional colleges. That was successfully challenged by a student N. Priyadharshini. A Division Bench of this Court was pleased to strike down the said G.O. in a reported judgment in Priyadharshini N. vs. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government, Education Department, Chennai (2005 (3) CTC 449).

4. It has been further alleged that the State of Tamil Nadu by Act 2 of 2006 has passed a legislation which on the one hand dispensing with Common Entrance Test to State Board students, introduced Common Entrance Test for the other Board students alone as eligibility test for admission to professional colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Act thus seeks to scrap the Common Entrance Test for State Board students while making it mandatory for students of other Boards. This is a blatant discrimination against the students studying in non-State Board when compared to State Board students. The State Board students are at an advantageous position as they are exempted from writing the Common Entrance Test, whereas the students from other Boards are required to write Common Entrance Test. The provisions of the Act are thus discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

5. It is alleged that in the matters relating to admission, the State cannot follow a procedure which is inconsistent with the procedure prescribed by the Medical Council of India Regulations and the All India Council for Technical Education Regulations. The subject relating to determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions falls under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule and the State legislature has no legislative competence to enact the present law determining the procedure for admission to professional courses. To that extent, the Act is ultra vires the Regulations of MCI and AICTE which have an overriding power under the scheme of the Constitution. It is alleged that the Act in the present form constitutionally violates the MCI and AICTE Regulations and orders of the Supreme Court governing admission to professional courses.

6. In the light of the challenge raised by the petitioners, we may now examine the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 2006. The preamble of the Act states that it has been enacted to regulate admission to professional degree courses such as engineering, medicine, dental, agriculture and other incidental and ancillary courses thereto. Sections 2(b), 2(d), 2