Holding

The State Government order does not encroach upon or conflict with the Central power under Entry 66 and is a valid exercise of the State’s executive authority under Article 162 and Entry 25 of List III.

Summary

The Uttar Pradesh Government issued an order on 15 December 1982 requiring candidates for postgraduate medical degree courses to have at least 55% marks in MBBS and for diploma courses at least 52% before they could be considered for merit‑based admission. Several candidates denied admission challenged the order before the Supreme Court, arguing that it conflicted with the Indian Medical Council (IMC) Regulations made under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and encroached upon the Central Legislature’s power under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. The Court examined the constitutional distribution of powers, noting that the State could exercise executive authority under Article 162 and Entry 25 of the Concurrent List to prescribe additional eligibility criteria, provided it did not contradict central standards. It held that the State’s order merely added an eligibility qualification and did not interfere with the IMC Regulations or the central power to coordinate standards. Consequently, the order was upheld, the High Court’s decision was affirmed, and the appeals and writ petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the Uttar Pradesh Government order prescribing minimum percentage marks for postgraduate medical admission encroaches upon the Central Legislature’s power under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule.
Whether the State order conflicts with the Indian Medical Council Regulations made under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 162, s. Entry 25 List III, s. Entry 66 List I
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956s. 33

Subjects

Medical educationPostgraduate admissionEligibility criteriaMinimum marksIndian Medical Council ActConstitutional lawState executive powerEntry 66 List IEntry 25 List IIICoordination of standards

Judgment

DR .. AMBESH KUMAR ETC. ETC. . ' A
v.
PRINCIPAL, LLRM MEDICAL COLLEGE
MEERUT AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

DECEMBER 19, 1986
B
[A.P, SEN AND B.C.RAY, JJ.]

Education, ' medical-Admission to Post-graduate medical
courses-Indian Medical Council prescribing certain qualifications for
admission-State Government prescribing an additional condition, as
regards the selection according to merit of a minimum of 55% and 52% C
marks in MBBS respectively for admission to Degree and Diploma
+ courses-.Whether the said _order is repugnant to or encroaches upon or
in conflict with the power of the Central legislature to make laws in
respect of matters specified in Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule
to the Constitution-Constitution of India, Article 162 and Entry 25 of
List III and Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule, scope. D

While the Central Government as well as the Parliament bas the
power to make laws nnder Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule for
the purpose of "coordination and determination of standards in institu-
tions for higher education or research and scientific and technical in-
stitutions", the State Government by virtue of the executive powers E
vested under Article 162 of the Constitution bas also the power to make
laws under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List Ill of the Seventh Schedule
in respect of "Education, including technical education, medical educa-
tion and universitie8, silbject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65
and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training oflabour" -
F
In accordance with the provisions of section 33 of the Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956, the Medical Council with the previous sane-.
;,/ tion of the Central Government made the Regulations laying down the
7 , standards of proficiency to be obtained and the practical training to be
- nndertaken in medical institutions for grant of recognised medical quali-
fication. The said R.igulations lay down the criteria for selection of G
candidates for post-graduate training and one such criteria is "students
of post graduate training should be selected strictly on merit judged on
the basis ·of acadamic record in the undergraduate course".

--{ While inviting applications by its notice dated 15.10.82 for admis-
sion to the various post graduate courses in degree and diploma in the H

661
----

662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] l S.C.R.

different spec:ialities the State Government issued an order ·dated
A
15.12.82, para 6 of which was to the effect that "No candidate shall be ~
eligible fot admission to post graduate degree or diploma course, who
has obtained less than 55% and 52% marks respec:tively for the two
courses (Degree and Diploma) in merit calculated in accordance with
para 2 of the said notice."
B
Some of the candidates who were denied admission on the ground -r
that they have obtained less than the prescribed percentage of marks
have approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitu-
tion and some others have come by way of special leave having Jost their
Writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court.
c The only question that arose was the competency of the State +
Government to prescribe the minimum marks obtained in MBBS for
admmion to post graduate courses and whether such an order is in :r-
• conflict with the power of the Central Legislature to make laws in
respec:t of matters spec:ified in Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh
D Schedule.

Dismissing the appeals and the petitions, the Court,

HELD: I.I. The State Government order dated 15.12.82 has not
in any way contravened or encroached upon the power of the Central
E Legislature to make laws or the Central Government to make orders in ~
regard to matters provided in Entry 66 of List I of Seventh Schedule to
the Constitution. There is no conftict between the Regulations and also
the order in question. The State Government by laying down the t!ligi-
bility qualification namely the obtaining of certain minimum marks in •
the MBBS emmination 'by the candidates has not in any way encroa-
F ched upon the Regulations made under the Indian Medical Council Act
nor does it infr~e the central_power_provided in the Entry 66 of List I of
the Seventh Scbed..,e to the Constitution. The order merely provides an ·~
additional eligibility, qualification. [672C-F] '

1.2 The State Government can in exercise of Its executive power
G under Article 162 of the Constitution make an order relating to matters
referred to in Entry 25 of the Concurrent List in the absence of any law
made by the State Legislature. The Impugned order made by the State
Government pursuant to its execotive powers laying down the eligibility )...
qualification for the candidates to be considered on merits for achnis-
sion to the post-graduate courses In Medical Colleges in the State, is
H valid and it canmK be as.Wied on the ground that it is beyond the
DR. AMBESH KUMAR•. LLRM MEDICAL COLLEGE 663

competence of the State Government to make such order provided it A
does not encroach upon or infringe the power of the Central Govern-
ment as well as the Parliament provided in Entry 66 of List I. The
impugned order dated 15.{2.82 lays down the criteria or eligibility
qualification i.e. obtaining 55% of marks by candidates seeking admis-
sion in the post graduate degree course and obtaining of 52% marks by
B
candidates seeking admission to post graduate diploma course for being
considered for selection. The order in question merely specifies a
further eligibility qualification for being considered for selection for
admission to the post graduate courses (degree and diploma) in the
medical colleges in the State in accordance with the criteria laid down
by the Indian Medical Gouncil. This does not in any way encroach upon
+ the Regulations that have been framed under the provisions of section
·33 of the Indian Medical Council Ad. On the other band in order to
c
. -,/. promote and further the determination of standards in institutions for
higher education, tbe State Government whO runs these colleges provide an
additional eligibility qualification, under its own right. [669E-G; 6700-H]
D
I.3 In the instant case the number of seats for admission to vari-
ous post-graduate courses both degree and diploma in Medical Colleges
is limited and a latge number of candidates undoubtedly apply for
admission to these _courses of study. In such circumstances the
impugned order laying down the qualification for a candidate to be
eligible for being considered for seledion for admission to the said
E
courses on the basis of the merit as specified by Regulations made under
the Indian Medical Council Act, cannot be said to be in conflict with the
said Regulations or in any way repugnant to the said Regulations. It

- does not in any way encroach upon the standards prescribed by the said
Regulations. On the otber band by laying down a further qualification
of eligibility it promotes and furthers tbe standard in an institution. [671D-E]
F
J State of A.P. & Ors: v. Lavu Narendranath & Ors. etc., (1971] 3
"" SCR 699; R. Chitralekha and Anr. v. State.of Mysore & Ors., [1964] 6
· SCR 368; and Minor P. Rejendran v. State of Madras & Ors., (1%8] 2
SCR 786, referred to.

CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
6016of 1983etc.

--\ From the Judgment and Order dated 3.5.1983 of the Allahabad
High-Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. nil of 1983.
' H
Yogeshwar Prasad, R.K. Garg, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, V.J.
664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] l S.C.R.

A Francis, N .M. Popli and D.K. Garg for the Appellants.

Anil Dev Singh and Mrs. Shobha Dikshit for the Respondents.

The Jlldgment of the Court was delivered by

B B.C. RAY, J: All these matters involve a common question of
law as to whether the notice dated 15.12.1982 issued by the Govern-
ment of Uttar Pradesh laying down the qualification regarding eligibi-
lity of a candidate to be considered for admission to the post-graduate
degree in M.D., M.S. and diploma course in M.D., M.S. etc. on the
basis of merit in accordance with the Regulations made under the
c Indian Medical Council Act is invalid as it trenches upon Entry 66 of
List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
+
'y
'
Civil Appeal No. 6119 of 1983 is against the judgment and order
dated 22.4.1983 made in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 946 of 1983 by
the High Court of Allahabad dismissing the writ petition holding that
D• it was within the competence of the State Government to issue the
aforesaid notice laying down the qualification of eligibility for being
considered for admission to the post-graduate course by issuing notice
dated 15.12.1982 and that the said notice is not repugnant to or en-
croach upon the field covered by Entry 66 of the List I of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution.
E
Special leave petition No. 7925 of 1983 out of which Civil Appeal
No. 6016 of 1983 arises is also directed against the order dated
3.5.1983 summarily dismissing the writ petition No. Nil raising the
identical question i.e. challenging the aforesaid notice dated
15.12.1982 issued by the State ofUttar Pradesh.
F
The other writ petitions have been filed before this Court c:hal- )I.,..
Ienging also the power of the State of U.P. to such notice dated ,
·1s. 12. 1982 and raising the similar question of law.

The salient facts of all these cases in brief are as follows:-
G
In accordance with the provisions of Section 33 of the Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956, the Medical Council with the previous
sanction of the Central Government made the Regulations laying
down the standards for proficiency to be obtained and the practical
training to be undertaken in medical institutions for grant of recog-
H nised medical qualification. The said Regulations as approved by the
DR. AMBESH KUMAR v. LLRM MEDICAL COLLEGE [RAY, J.] 665

Central Government lay down the criteria for selection of candidates A
for post-graduate training as follows:-

"(a) Students of post-graduate training should be selected
strictly on merit judged on the basis of a.cademic record in
the undergraduate course. All selection for post-graduate
studies should be conducted by the Universities. B

(b) The candidates should have obtained full registration
i.e. they must have completed satisfactorily one year of
compulsory rotating internship after passing the final •
MBBS examination and must have full registration with
State Medical Council. C

(c) .They must subsequently have done one year's house-
manship prior to admission to the post-graduate degree or
diploma course. House-manship should preferably be for
one year in the same subject or at least six months in the D
same department and the remaining six months in an allied
department provided that in departments like Radiology I
Anaesthes; biology/physical medicine and Rehabilition
where suitable candidates who have done housemanship in
Medicine and/or in the surgery may be considered as
sufficient. E

Must have alternatively worked as a Full time post-
graduate student in a manner equivalent to housemanship
requirements, in the department concerned before taking
up the post-graduate courses." F
-ii')
' The post-graduate Committee was of the opinion that in order to
determine the merit of a candidate for admission to post-graduate
medical courses, (i) his performance at the MBBS examination; (ii) his
performance during the course of internship and housemanship for
which a daily assessment chart be maintained and (iii) the report of the G
teachers which is to be submitted periodically may be considered.

Alternatively the authorities concerned may conduct competitive
enterance examination to determine the merit of a candidate for achnis-
sion to post-graduate medical courses.
H
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R.
'
A The period of.training for M.D., M.S. shall be three years after
full registration including one year of house job or equivalent
thereof."

The State Government issued a notice on 15. 10.1982 inviting
applications for admission to the various post-graduate courses in
B degree and diploma in the different specialities of the medical colleges.
In para 4 of the said notice it has been specifically stated that the
minimum eligibility qualification of the applicants would be according
to the recommendations of Medical Council of India. There are other
t~rms and conditions regarding filling up of the seats of the various
disciplines which being not relevant for consideration in these matters,
-
c are not mentioned herein. The terms and conditions of the said notice
clearly stated that the admission will be made as per existing rules and
regulations of the Government and the college and recommendations
of the Medical Council of India. Thereafter a Government Order
dated 15.12.1982 was issued by the Government wherein it has been
provided in para 6 to the following effect:-
D
"No candidate shall be eligible for admission to post-
graduate Degree or Diploma Course, who has obtained
less than 55% and 52% marks respectively, for the two
courses (Degree & Diploma) in merit calculated in accord:
ance with para 2 of the said notice:"
E
Para 2 of this notice lays down the manner of determining the
merit of a candidate for the purpose of considering his admission to the
post-graduate course in State Medical Colleges.

In accordance with the · said Government Order dated
F 15.12.1982, a candidate in order to be eligible for consideration for
admission to the post-graduate course on merit must have secured ~
\
55% marks for admission to post-graduate degree course and 52%
marks for admission to the post-graduate diploma course. Thus a
candidate having not secured the requisite marks in MBBS examina-
tion will be ineligible for consideration on the basis of merit for admis-
G sion to the various post-graduate courses in medical college. The un-
successful candidates who are not eligible for consideration according
to this Government Order have questioned the power of the State
Government in making the aforesaid order on the ground that the
Medical Council by its Regulations has already laid down the requisite
criteria or standards for admission to the post-graduate courses in the
H Medical Colleges in accordance with the merits of the candidates con-
DR. AMBESHKUMAR v. LLRMMEDICALCOLLEGE (RAY,J.] 667
">·
cerned and as such the State Government is not competent to lay down A
further eligibility qualification for the candidates for being considered
for admission in the post-graduate courses-both in the degree and
diploma courses. It has also been contended that the State Govern-
ment is not competent to lay down or prescribe the said qualification
__.._ which, it is alleged, encroaches upon the power of the Central Govern-
.,... ment as provided in Entry 66 of List 1 of the Seventh Schedule. It has B
also been pleaded in the petition that Entry .25 of List III of Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution is subject to the provisions of Entry 66 of
List I and as such the said Government Order being repugnant to the
..J._ Regulations made by the Indian Medical Council and approved by the
l Central Government. pursuant to Section 33 of the Indian Medical
Council Act, is invalid. c
The writ pe!ition was heard and was dismissed on 22nd Apnl,
1983. by the High Court of Allahabad holding that the State Govern-
ment is competent to make the Order under Entry 25 of List III of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution in exercise of its executive power
under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. ,D

It was further held that the said Government Order does not, in
any way, encroach upon or conflict with_. the power of the Central
,). Government to make orders under Entry 66 of List I of Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution, as the screening envisaged on the basis
of the minimum percentage of marks acts in further implementation of E
the Regulations made under the Indian Medical Council Act. It was

- also held that the notification in question is prospective in its terms as
it applies to all candidates who sought admission on or after
15.12.1982,

~1 It is against this judgment and order the Civil Appeal No. 6119 of F
> . 1983 has arisen by special leav~. Similarly Civil Appeal No. 6016 of
1983 has also arisen by special leave against the judgment and order of
High Court of Allahabad dated 3.5.1983 made in writ petition No. nil
of 1983.

Both these Civil Appeals as well as the writ petitions concern the G
admission of students in the post-graduate courses in the Medical Col-
--~ leges for the session commencing on 1st April, 1983 and ending on 31st
of March, 1984, in case of diploma course or ending on 31st March,
1985 in case of Degree course. Undoubtedly, this session has. long
expired and as such the applicants in the writ petitions or the appel-
lants in the said appeals wiff not be benefitted even if the decision is H
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 1 S.C.R.

rendered in their favour. However, we deem it fit and proper to dwell ~
A
upon the only Contention raised before this Court regarding the valid-
ity of the Government order dated 15.12.1982 whereby the Govern-
ment of Uttar Pradesh have specifically laid down in para 6 of the
Order the eligibility qualification i.e: obtaining of 55% marks or 52%
marks for being eligible for consideration for admission in the post- -1..-
B graduate degree or diploma courses respectively in accordance with .....-
the Regulations made by the Indian Medical Council for consideration
strictly or merit for admission to the said post-graduate courses both
degree and diploma. It has been urged with some vehemence that it is
within the province of Medical Council to make recommendations
under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act prescribing the t
standards or criteria for selection of. candidates for post-graduate
c training and the Central Government accepted them by framing y
Regulations. The State Government by its order dated 15.12.1982
prescribed a further criteria or standard of eligibility for the candidates
to be considered for admission to post-graduate degree or diploma
course and this is in conflict with the Regulations and as such it is
D invalid as it encroaches upon the power of the Central Government
provided in Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution.

_In ordherRto cons!der andddebtermhineI tdh.is qMuesdti_on itCis rel':'~antdto --4..
Ioo k· mto t e egu1attons ma e y t e n tan e tea1 ounet, un er
E Section 33 of the said Act. The Regulations have been enumerated at
pages -4-5. These Regulations thus provide that the students of post-
graduate training ar" to be selected strictly on merit judged on the
basis of academic record in the under-graduate course and that all
selections for post-graduate studies are to be conducted by the
Universities besides looking to the other criteria regarding rotating
F internship, housemanship etc.· The Government of Uttar Pradesh ""-
issued a notice on 15.10.1982 _inviting applications in prescribed form ~
for admission to the post-graduate degree and diploma Courses for the '
different Medical Colleges of the province. In para 4 of the said notice
it has been specifically provided that the minimum eligibility qualifica-
tion of the applicants would be according to the recommendations of
G the Medical Council of India. On 15.12.1982, the Government issued
another order laying down the policy anti procedure to be followed
with regard to the admission of candidates to the post-graduate >-
courses (both degree and diploma) in State Medical Colleges. In this
order in para 6 it has been specifically provided that "no candidate_
shall be eligible for admission for post-graduate degree or diploma
H course who has obtained less than 55% and 52% marks respectively
DR. AMBESH KUMAR v. LLRM MEDICAL COLLEGE (RAY, J.) 669
)"
for the two courses (degree and diploma) on merit to be calculated in A
accordance with para 2 of the said order." It is this eligibility criteria
laid down in the said Government order which is the subject matter of
challenge in these appeals and writ petitions before this Court.

_,.. The said order modifies to a certain extent the ·earlier notifica·
tion issued on 15. 10.1982 inviting applications for admission to the B
post-graduate courses as per notification dated 3.12.1980. In the notifi-·
cation dated 3.12.1980, the criteria for admission to the post-graduate·
courses was on the basis of merit only. In para 2 of the said order the
- cf manner how the merit is to be determined has been laid down. In that
order there was no such criteria laid down as mentioned in the
Government order dated 15. 12.1982. Two questions arise for our c
consideration which are firstly whether the State Government is
~ competent to make .the aforesaid order in question in exercise ·of its
executive powers under Article 162 of the Constitution. This Article
specifically provides that the executive powers of the State shall extend
to matters with respect to which the legislature of the State has power
to make laws. Entry 25 of the Concurrent List i.e. List III of the D
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution provides as follows:-

"Education, including techniwl education, medical educa-
_),.
lion and universities, subject to the provisions of Entries
63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training
oflabour." E

The .Stale Government can in exercise of its executive power
.... make an order relating to matters referred to in Entry .25 of the Con-
current List in the absence of any law made by the State Legislature.
The impugned order made by the State Government pursuant to its
executive powers laying down the eligibility qualification for the candi- F
..,-r dates to be considered on merits for admisskm to the post-graduate
' courses in Medical Colleges in the State, is valid and it cannot be
assailed on the ground that it is beyond the competence of the State
Government to make such order provided it does not ~ncroach upon
or infringe the power of the Central Government as well as the Parlia-
ment provided in Entry 66 of List I. Entry 66 of List I is in .the follow- G
ing terms:- '
~
'To-ordination and determination of standards in institu-
lions for higher education or research and scientific and
technical institutions."
H
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] l S.C.R.

A The only question to be considered is whether the impugned
order is repugnant to or encroaches upon or is in conflict with the
power of the Central Legislature to niake Jaws i!1 respect of matters
specified in Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitu-
tion. The Indian Medical Council pursuant to Section 33 of the Indian
Medical Council Act had made certain recommendations which have
B been embodied in the Regulations made by the Central Government
laying down the criteria or standards for admitting the candidates to
various post-graduate disciplines in the Medical Colleges of the State.
These Regulations, as has been quoted hereinbefore, clearly prescribe
that the candidates should be selected strictly on merit judged on the
basis of academic record in the undergraduate courses i.e. MBBS
c Course and this selection should be conducted by the University.
There are also other eligibility qualifications provided in the said
Regulations namely the candidates must have obtained full registra-
tion i.e. they must have completed satisfactorily one year of compul-
sory rotating internship after passing the final MBBS examination and
also they must have done one year's housemanship prior to admission
D to the post-graduate degree or diploma course.

The impugned Government order dated 15. 12. 1982 Jays down
the criteria or eligibility qualification i.e. obtaining of 55% marks by
candidates seeking admission in the post-graduate degree course and
obtaining of 52% marks by candidates seeking admission to post-
E graduate diploma course for being considered for selection. Entry 25
conforms on the State Government as well as the State Legislature the
power to make orders in respect of matters meniioned in Entry 25 of
List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution i.e. with regard to
medical education the only limitation being that such order of the
State legislature will be subject to the provisions of Entry 66 of List I
-
F i.e. Co-ordination and determination. of standards in institutions for
higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions.
The order in question merely specifies a further eligibility qualification
for being considered for selection for adll)ission to the post-graduate
courses (degree and diploma) in the Medical Colleges in the State in
accordance with the criteria laid down by Indian Medical Council. This
G does not in any way encroach upon the Regulations that have been
framed under the provisions of Section 33 of the Indian Medical
Council Act. On the other hand in order to promote and further the
determination of standards in institutions for higher education, the
State Government who runs these colleges provide an additional eligi-.
H bility qualification. A similar question crept up in the case of State of
A.P. & Ors., v. Lavu Narendranath &.Ors. etc., [1971] 3 SCR 699. In
DR. AMBESH KUMAR v. LLRM MEDICAL COLLEGE. IRA Y, J.] 671
)r·
that case the Government of Andhra Pradesh prescribed for the first A
time in July, 1970 an entrance test for admission to the Medical Col-
leges and also prescribed the standard for eligibility for the test. The
validity of this order prescribing the entrance test was challenged by
some unsuccessful candidates on the ground that it encroaches upon

-.. the central subject listed in Entry 66 of List I of Seventh Schedule to
the Constitution. It was held by the Court that this test prescribed by B
the Government in no way militated with the powers of the Parliament
under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. It
was also held that the Entry conferred power on the Parliament to
make laws for laying down how standards fo an institution for higher
~ education are to be determined and how they can be co-ordinated. It
had no relation to a test prescribed by Goveroment or by a university c
for selection of a number of students from out of a large number
~
applying for admission to a particular course of study.

In the instant case the number of seats for admission to various
post-graduate courses both degree and diploma in Medical Colleges is
limited and a large number of candidates undoubtedly apply for admis- D
sion to these courses of study. In such circumstances the impugned
order laying down the qualification for a candidate to be eligible for
being considered for selection for admission to the said courses on the
basis of the merit as specified by Regulations made under the Indian
).
Medical Council Act, cannot be said to be in conflict with the said
Regulations or in any way repugnant to the said Regulations. It does E
not in any way encroach upon the standards prescribed by the said
Regulations. On the other h,and by laying down a further qualification
"""" of eligibility it promotes and furthers the standard in an institution.

The Government who runs these colleges has the right to
prescribe a test of eligibility as has been held by this Court in the case F
;< referred to above.

Similar question came up for consideration before this Court in
the case of R. Chitralekha and Anr. v. State of Mysore & Ors., [1964]
6 SCR 368. In that case the Government of Mysore appointed one
Selection Committee for settling the admissions to the Engineering G
Colleges and anotlfer such committee for settling admissions to Medi-
cal Colleges. By a letter the Government of Mysore intimated the
Director of Technical Education that 25% of the maximum marks for
the examination in the optional subjects shall be fixed as interview
marks for making selection of candidates for admission to the
Engineering Colleges. The Selection Committee fixed the minimum H
;

•
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] l S.C.R.
~
marks for interview at 75. On the basis of the· marks obtained by the
A
candidate in examination as well as in interview, selections were made.
This was challenged as infringing upon the power of the Parliament to
make laws under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution. It had been held that if the State Legislature prescribed a
higher percentage of marks for extra-curricular activities in the matter
B of admission to colleges, it could not be held that such an order ~
directly encroached upon the field covered by Entry 66 of List I of
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The State Government was held
to be within its rights for prescribing qualifications for admission to
colleges so long as its action did not contravene any other law.

Similar observation has been made also by this Court in the case
1--
-
c of Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madras & Ors., [ 1968] 2 SCR 786. y
On a consideration of the aforesaid decisions we are unable to
hold that the impugned order dated 15. 12.1982 has in any way con-
!ravened or encroached upon the power of the Central Legislature to
D make laws or the Central Government to make orders in regard to
matters provided in Entry 66 of List I of Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution. There is no conflict between the Regulations and also
the order in question. The State Government by laying down the eligi-
bility qualification qamely the obtaining of certain minimum marks in
~
the MBBS examination by the candidates has not in any way
E encroached upon the Regulations made under the Indian Medical
Council Act nor does it infringe the central power provided in the
Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The
order merely provides an additional eligibility, qualification. We are in ....
full agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of the High Court in
this respect. This contention therefore, in our considered opinion, is
F without any merit. It is pertinent to mention in this connection that the .)\
number of seats allotted to each of the prescribed courses is on the
basis of two seats per professor and there is a crying necessity in the
State for more experts in various disciplines in Medicine and Surgery
etc. It is incumbent on the State Government.to see that all these seats
earmarked for each of these disciplines or courses are filled up. It
G appears from Annexure D to the petition in C.A. No. 6ll9 of 1983
that quite a considerable number of seats in various disciplines were
kept vacant as the applicants did not fulfil the eligibility qualification .'>-
framed by the State Government by its aforesaid order and as a result
several Professors and Assistant Professors who are meant for impart-
ing teaching in these disciplines were kept idle though a considerable
H fund had to be expended for meeting their emoluments. It is for the
DR. AMBESH KUMAR v. LLRMMEDICAL COLLEGE (RAY, J.] 673

State to consider and to see that the seats are filled up in all the A
disciplines and they are not left vacant in spite of a large number of
applicants applying for admission in the various disciplines and the
State Government has to evolve such criteria of eligibility .that all the
seats in different M.D. ,'M.S. degree and diploma courses are filled up.
B
For the reasons aforesaid, the judgments and orders made by the
High Court of Allahabad on April 22, 1983 and May 3, !983 are
confirmed and both the Civil Appeals as w<:ll as all these writ petitions
are dismissed. There will however, be no order as to costs.

- S.R . Appeals & Petitions dismissed.
..(

-

'.