STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. versus LAVU NARENDRANATH & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 699 · Decided: 11-02-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF A~DHRA PRADESH & ORS. 
v. 
LAVU NARENDRANATH & ORS. ETC. 
February 11, 1971 
B 
[S. M. SIKRI, C.J., G. K. MITTER, K. S. HEGDE AND 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
ff 
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
ConsUtution oj India, 1950, Arts. 21 162 and Entry 6G, Ll51 I, 'Sl:h •. 
VII-Executive Power of State-Scope of-Entrance test tiFTnedical col-
leges-If affects personal liberty-Scope of Entry 66-1/ affects Govt.'s 
power to hold rm. 
Andhra University Act (2 of 1926), "· 23 and 33-Government If 
obliged to make selection according to qualifying examination. 
Education-Medical 
Colleges-Admission to according to Entrancir 
/est held by Government-If substitute of addition to qualifyinf? test. 
In the Andhra area of the State of. Andhra Pradesh there are four 
medical collegts run by the State Government. 
In July 1970, the .Go-
vernment prescribed for the first time an Entrance test for admission 
to the colleges and also prescribed the standard of eligibility for the test. 
A large number of candidates. far in excess of the seats available took 
the test. Some of the candidates, who were unsuccessful, filed writ peti· 
tions challenging the validity of the test prescribed and the method of 
selection for admission. They contended that, (I) under the provisions 
of the Andhra University Act, 1926 it was only the Academic Council of 
the Andbra University th;lt was competent to prescribe qualifications 
for admission into all degree courses, includirig the M.B.B.S. course in 
Govt. Colleges; and it was not for the Government to substitute itself for 
the statutory _,Academic oody and test the academic standards of candi-
dates; (2) ,the holding of the Entrance Test and making selections on the 
basis thereof in disregard of the marks obtained at the public exantination 
held by the' University epcroached upon the central subject listed in 
Entry 66 of List I of VU. Schedule to the Constitution; nnd, (3) the test 
interfered with the personal liberty of the candidates violating Art. 21 . ef 
the Constitution. The Hiah Court allowed the petitions. In appeal to thi• 
Court, 
· 
HELD : ( 1) Under Art. 162 of the Constitution the executive power 
of a State extends to the matters with resp.ect to which the Leaislature 
!>f the Stata has power . to make la~. If there is no leaislatlen cover. 
ma the field the State ·qovernment would un.doubtedly be competent to 
prtscribe a test itself IC) screen the best candidates. (703 F·Hl 
. The Andhra. Univers!ty Act, 1926, prescribes the minimum. qualifica-
tion for enfrv mto a higher course of study. 
A candidate bas not an 
unq1:1alified. right .to a seat in a medical college merely because he has 
ob~med his'!P,r marks tha_n another candidate at the qualifying exami-
nation. Secllons 23 and 33 of the Act do not make it incumbent upon 
the Government to make their selection in accordance with the marks 
obtained bv. applicant-candidates at the qualifying examination.. . Since 
all the apphcants could not be admitted, the Government which ran the 
colleges; had a right to make a selection out of the J~rge number of. 
700 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1971] 3 S.C.R 
candidates and for this purpose they could prescribe a test of their own 
which was not against any law and prescribe the minimum number of 
marks at the qualifyini: examination for eligibility tu the Entrance test. 
Merely because the Government supplemented the eligibility rule by a 
writt.11 test in slihjects with which the candidates were already familiar, 
their action cannot be impeached nor was there anything unfair in the 
test prescribed. 
The test was not in 
substitution of 
the University 
Examination but something 11dditional to that; and the mere fact that 
the test was introduced for the first time would be no ground for hold-
ing that the method of selection was invalid [704 D-F; 708 F-G; 709 A-R, Fl 
(2) The test prescribed by the Government in no way militates against 
the power of Parliament under Entry 66 of List I of the Vil Schedule 
to the <:;onstitution The Entry gives Parliament power to make laws for 
layin&. down bow stanards in an institutino for higher education 
are to 
be determined and how they can be co-ordinated. 
It has no relation 
to a teat prescribed by Government or by a universiy for selection of 
a number of students from out of a large number applying for admission 
to a particular course of stllily. [705 B-D] 
(3) The test in no way, affects the personal liberty of the candidates 
$CCUJed under Art. 2

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.