TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Invalidates Gov't Order Abolishing Common Entrance Test</h1> <h3>N. Priyadarshini Versus The Secretary to Government, The Secretary</h3> N. Priyadarshini Versus The Secretary to Government, The Secretary - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of G.O.Ms.No. 184 Higher Education (J2) Department, dated 09.06.2005 abolishing the Tamil Nadu Professional Courses Common Entrance Examination 2005.2. Discontinuation of the improvement exam for admission to professional colleges in Tamil Nadu for the academic year 2005-2006.3. Compliance with the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997.4. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.5. Conflict with the statutory regulations of the Medical Council of India, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and Dental Council of India.6. Policy decision and judicial review.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of G.O.Ms.No. 184 Higher Education (J2) Department, dated 09.06.2005:- The Government Order (G.O.) abolished the common entrance test and improvement examination for admissions to professional courses for the academic year 2005-2006.- The petitioners argued that the G.O. was issued after the entrance and improvement exams were conducted, causing significant inconvenience and financial loss to students.- The court held that the G.O. was invalid as it conflicted with the statutory regulations that mandated a common entrance test where multiple examining bodies exist.2. Discontinuation of the Improvement Exam:- The G.O. also discontinued the improvement exam, which allowed students to retake exams to improve their scores.- The court upheld the discontinuation of the improvement exam as a valid policy decision but stated it should apply from the academic year 2006-2007 onwards to avoid unfairness to students who had already taken the improvement exams.3. Compliance with the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997:- The 1997 Regulations mandate a common entrance test in states with multiple examining bodies to ensure uniform evaluation.- The court emphasized that these regulations have statutory force and cannot be overridden by an executive order like the impugned G.O.- The court found that the G.O. violated these regulations by abolishing the common entrance test.4. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution:- Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination.- The court held that abolishing the common entrance test would lead to discrimination among students from different examining boards with varying standards, thus violating Article 14.- The court cited several Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the necessity of a common entrance test to maintain uniform standards and prevent discrimination.5. Conflict with Statutory Regulations:- The court noted that the Medical Council of India, AICTE, and Dental Council regulations mandate a common entrance test where multiple examining bodies exist.- The court held that the G.O., being an executive order, could not override these statutory regulations.- The court reiterated that executive instructions contrary to statutory rules are invalid.6. Policy Decision and Judicial Review:- The court acknowledged that policy decisions are generally not interfered with unless they violate statutory provisions or are shockingly arbitrary.- The court found the abolition of the common entrance test to be illegal and unconstitutional but upheld the abolition of the improvement exam as a valid policy decision, effective from the next academic year.- The court emphasized the importance of judicial restraint and the separation of powers, stating that the judiciary should not encroach upon the domains of the legislature or executive.Conclusion:- The court quashed the G.O. insofar as it abolished the common entrance test, holding it invalid and unconstitutional.- The abolition of the improvement exam was upheld but deferred to the next academic year.- The court directed the respondents to prescribe the necessary procedure for students to apply based on the erstwhile procedure prior to the G.O.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
