OSMANIA UNIVERSITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 949 · Decided: 13-08-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
. . 'r 
I 
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. 
AUGUST 13, 1987 
[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, M.H. KANIA AND 
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Entry 66 List I and Entry 25 List 
Ill-Seventh Schedule-Education-Whether State competent to legis-
late on subject falling within List I. 
A 
B 
c 
Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 
1986--Validity of-Whether Act within legislative competence of State 
Legislature. 
The Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 
1986 (Act No. 26 of 1986) providing for the constitution of a Commis-
D 
sionerate to advise the Government in matters relating to Higher Educa-
tion in the State and to oversee its development with perspective plan-
ning and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto and to 
perform all functions necessary for the furtherance and maintenance of 
excellence in the standards of higher education in the State was enacted 
on the basis of the recommendations of a high power committee con-
E 
stituted by the State Government to study the Higher Education system in 
the State with special reference to its curricula, courses of study, 
finance and management . 
The validity of the aforesaid Act was challenged in the High Court 
which, while upholding it, held that the Act fell under Entry 25 List F 
III-Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of 
India. 
In the appeals to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the 
appellant that the Act was just a duplicate of the University Grants 
"'1 Commission Act and the State had no legislative power at all to enact it G 
since it squarely fell under Entry 66 List I. On behalf of the State-
respondent it was submitted that the enactment in pith and substance 
fell within Entry 25 of List III and· not under Entry 66 of' List I of the 
Seventh Schedule. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court, 
949 
H 
950 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1 Entry 25 List III relating to education lnclnding tech-
nical education, medical education and Universities had been made 
subject to the power of Parliament to Iegis,Iate under Entries 63 to 66 of 
List I. Entry 66 List I and Entry 25 List III should, therefore, be read 
together. [955F-G] 
B 
1.2 Entry 66 gives power to the Union to see that a required 
standard of higher education in tlie country is maintained. The stan-
dard of Higher Education including scientific and technical should not 
be lowered at the hands of any particular State or States. It is the 
exclusive responsibility of the Central Government to co-ordinate and 
determine the standards for higher education. That power includes the 
power to evaluate, harmonise and secure proper relationship to any 
C project of national importance. It is needless to state, that such a 
coordinate action in higher education with proper standards, i• of 
paramount importance to national progress. It is in this national in-
terest, the legislative field in regard to 'education' has been distributed 
between List I and List III of the Seventh Schedule. [955G-H; 956A-B] 
D 
1.3 Parliament has exclusive power to legislate with respe<:t to 
matters included in List I. The State has no power at all in regard to 
such matters. If the State legislates on the subject falling within List I 
that will be void, inoperative and unenforceable. [956B] 
1.4 The Commissionerate Act bas been drawn by and large in the 
E same terms as that of the U.G.C. Act. Both the enactments deal with the 
co-ordination and determination of excellence in the standards of teach-
ing and examination in the Universities. Here and there, some of the 
words and sentences used in the Commissionerate Act may be different 
from those used in the UGC Act, but nevertheless, they convey the same 
J!leaning. It is just like referring the same person with different descrip-
F lions and names. [966B-D] 
G 
H 
1.5 The High Court has gone on a tangent, and would not have 
fallen into an error if it had perused the UGC Act ·;tS a whole and 
compared it with the Commissionerate Act or vice-versa. [966D] 
1.6 The Commissionerate Act contains sweeping provisions en-
croaching on the autonomy of the Universities. The Commissionerate 
has practically taken over the academic programme and activities of the 
universities. The universities have been rendered irrelevant if not non-
entities, [%SD; 966A-B] 
1. 7 It is unthinkable as to how the State could pass a parall
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.