IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 27-04-2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA AND THE HONOURABE MR. JUSTICE J.A.K. SAMPATH KUMAR WRIT PETITION Nos.5396, 5397, 5476, 5526 and 6264 of 2007 and M.P.NOs.1 to 5 in WP.NO.5396/2007 Minor S. Aswin Kumar, Rep. by his father and natural guardian Mr.P.Shanmuga Nathan .. Petitioner in WP.5396/2007 Minor A.S. Prabu Rep. by his father and natural guardian Mr.M. Selvaraj .. Petitioner in WP.5397/2007 K. Marimuthu S/o. Nachimuthu .. Petitioner in WP.5476/2007 Minor S. Kerthi Hanusha Rep. by her father and natural guardian Mr.D. Sudharsanam .. Petitioner in WP.5526/2007 Minor S. Dharani Rep. by her father and natural guardian Mr.T. Sambath Kumar .. Petitioner in WP.6264/2007 Vs. 1. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. .. Respondent No.1 in WPs.5396,5397 &5526/07 and Respondent in WP.Nos.5476 & 6264/07 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Ministry of Law Justice and Company Affair, New Delhi 1. 3. The Medical Council of India, Pocket 14, Sector 8, Dwarka Phaze-1, New Delhi. 4. All India Council for Technical Education, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 5. The Registrar, Council of Architecture, India Habitat Centre, Core 6-A 1st Floor, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. .. Respondents 2 to 5 in WPs.5396,5397 &5526/07 6. B. Kurusadi Xavier 7. M. Sivakumar 8. Minor S. Nisha rep by Father and Natural Guardian R. Sivaprakasam 9. Minor Wajid S. Jafry rep by Father and Natural Guardian A.S. Jafri 10. Minor S. Goutham Ram., rep by Father and Natural Guardian A.Shanmuga Vadivel 11. Minor M. Praveen Kumar rep by Father and Natural Guardian A.Manoharan 12. Minor K.K. Arun Kumar rep by Father and Natural Guardian K. Kandasamy 13. Minor D. Vignesh rep by Father and Natural Guardian M.K. Dhamodaran 14. Minor K. Prabhu rep by Father and Natural Guardian Kannapan 15. Minor V. Sindura rep by Father and Natural Guardian M. Renida Savala https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 16.Minor L. Deepika rep by Father and Natural Guardian S. Loganathan 17. Minor E. Sathyapriya rep by Father and Natural Guardian N. Elango 18. Minor S. Praveen rep by Father and Natural Guardian K.Sankara Namachivayam 19. Minor V. Suriya Prabha rep by mother and Natural Guardian V. Vijayalakshmi 20. Minor B. Vasanth rep by mother and Natural Guardian M.K. Baskaran 21. Minor M.V. Prajeeth rep by mother and Natural Guardian M.K. Venkatesan 22. Minor M.Surendar, rep. By Father and Natural Guardian K.S.Marudhachalam 23. Minor C.S.Shivanantharaj rep. By Father and Natural Guardian Senthivelan 24. Minor V.Agalya rep. By Father and Natural Guardian Mohana 25. Minor T.Vinitha rep. By Father and Natural Guardian N.V.Thiyagarajan 26. Minor S.Preethi rep. By Father and Natural Guardian A.Subramaniam 27. Minor B.Abinaya rep. By Father and Natural Guardian Balasubramaniam 28. Minor S.Nithya, rep. By Father and Natural Guardian A.M.Shanmugham 29. Minor P.J.Cehu Christy Anandhi rep. By Father and Natural Guardian Paul Jayaraj 30. Minor R.Balakumar rep. By Father and Natural Guardian N.Rajaram 31. Minor E.K.Premnath rep. By Father and Natural Guardian R.Kandasamy https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 32. Minor D.Ramya rep. By Father and Natural Guardian K.Dhinakaran 33. Minor S.B.Vimal Anand rep. By Father and Natural Guardian M.Balapuranthavadivel 34. Minor K.P.Mahesh Sunder rep. By Father and Natural Guardian K.M.Pachiappan 35. Minor S.Sugirtha rep. By Father and Natural Guardian T.Vadivu 36. Minor S.Shanmugha Harini rep. By Father and Natural Guardian L.Selvarasu 37. Minor K.H.Gowtham rep. By Father and Natural Guardian .K.G.Hari Marappan 38. Minor S.Vivek Karthic rep. By Father and Natural Guardian V.Senthilmurugan 39. Minor V.Varunkumar rep. By Father and Natural Guardian V.Kumudha 40. Minor A.Vigneswaran rep. By Father and Natural Guardian A.Amsaveni 41. Minor D.J.Pramoth rep. By Father and Natural Guardian Jayaseeli 42. Minor G.R.Dharani rep. By Father and Natural Guardian N.Ramasamy 43. Minor M.Ganesh Karthick rep. By Father and Natural Guardian M.Vijayalakshmi 44. Minor G.Parthiban rep. By Father and Natural Guardian G.Chitra 45. Minor M.Gokul rep. By Father and Natural Guardian K.R.Manoharan 46. Minor AN.Saiprasanna rep. By Father and Natural Guardian VE.Annamalai 47. Minor V.M.Kruthiga https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rep. By Father and Natural Guardian V.R.Manohar 48. Minor A.Abinaya rep. By Father and Natural Guardian A.M.ARUNACHALAM 49. Minor S.Hari Prasath, rep. By Father and Natural Guardian S.Sudha 50. Minor N.E.Nandhini rep. By Father and Natural Guardian Rathnamala 51. Minor R.Harish rep. By Father and Natural Guardian V.Bhuvaneswari 52. Minor T.Naveen, rep. By Father and Natural Guardian Tamil Selvi 53. S.Vinoth, S/o. R.Subramanian 54. Minor S.Sharmila, rep. By Mother and Natural Guardian S.Gandhimathi 55. R.Lakshmanan 56. Minor N.Nithin Thilak, rep. By Father and Natural Guardian N.Nallasivam 57. Minor B.Ravi Varman, rep. By Father and Natural Guardian Baskaran 58. Minor T.Shivavishnukarthikeyan, rep. By Mother and Natural Guardian Chinnammal 59. Minor K.H.Goutham rep. By Father and Natural Guardian K.G.Harish 60. Minor. C.Kanagajanani rep. by father and natural guardian Chandrasekaran 61. Kanuvarman 62. Minor M.Mathi rep. by father and natural guardian R.Marappan 63. Minor S.Sharmila rep. by mother and natural guardian S.Gandhimathi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 64. Minor Malavika Chatruvedi rep. by father and natural guardian Raj Chatruveki 65. Minor S. Swathy, rep. by mother and natural guardian S.Mala 66. Minor S.Sudhika, rep. by mother and natural guardian S.Malavizhi 67. Minor S.Suganya rep. by mother and natural guardian S.Chitra 68. Minor R.Dinesh rep. by father and natural guardian M.Rajendran 69. Minor M.K.Karthika rep. by mother and natural guardian M.Muthunagai 70. Minor R.Sathyabama rep. by mother and natural guardian R.Magudeswari 71. Minor P.Kiruthika rep. by mother and natural guardian P.Sagunthala 72. Minor R.Sandhya rep. by father and natural guardian B.Raviraghavan 73. Minor D.Preethi rep. by father and natural guardian P.Duraisamy 74. Minor B.Preethi rep. by father and natural guardian M.Balasubramanian 75. Minor R.Lakshmanan rep. by mother and natural guardian M.Rangammal 76. Minor T.Praveenchendur rep. by mother and natural guardian S.T.Soundrambigai 77. Minor R.Mithun Gowsik rep. by mother and natural guardian R.Visalakshi 78. Minor R.Harish rep. by mother and natural guardian Bhuvaneswari 79. Minor S.Sharmila rep. by father and natural guardian K.M.Sivasamy https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 80. Minor V.Priyadarshini rep. by mother and natural guardian V.Thilagam 81. Minor G.K.Sri Sruthi, rep. by father and natural guardian K.M.Krishnamoorthy 82. Minor S.S.Bharanedharan rep. by mother and natural guardian S.Thilagam 83. Minor B.Sowmya rep. by mother and natural guardian B.Savithri 84. Minor S.K.Harisudan rep. by mother and natural guardian Santhi 85. Minor J.R.Gowtham rep. by father and natural guardian J.Rajarajan 86. Minor M.Manoranjan rep. by Father and natural guardian Manoharan 87. Minor R.B.Bala Niveta rep. by mother and natural guardian S.Chitra 88. Minor K.Raghuraj rep. by mother and natural guardian K.Savithri 89. Minor K.S.Sindhu rep. by mother and natural guardian Chitra Subramaniam 90. Mionor, M.Maju Bhashini rep. by father and natural guardian Murugesan 91. Minor K.Sharmi rep. by mother and natural guardian K.Gandhi 92. S.R.Gokulan 93. Minor G.Yoga Priyanka rep. by mother and natural guardian G.Thenmalar 94. Minor S.Sughirthi rep. by father and natural guardian S.Balu 95. Minor S.Karthikeyan rep. by mother and natural guardian S.Aruna https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 96. Minor S.Agilesh rep. by mother and natural guardian S.Majula 97. Minor K.Kalaivani rep. by mother and natural guardian A.Kannaiyan. 98. Minor I.Amutha, Rep. by mother and natural guardian R.Santhi 99. Minor S.Prasitthaa, Rep. by father and natural guardian S.Sridhar 100. Minor G.Rithu Rep.by father and natural guardian B.Govindaraju 101. Minor B.Pradeep, Rep.by father and natural guardian D.Baskaran 102. Minor A.Dhivya Rep.by father and natural guardian Arumugham 103. Minor S.Jayanth Rep.by mother and natural guardian Kanagamani 104. Minor Vibin Kumar Nair Rep.by mother and natural guardian Latha Kumari 105. Minor C.N.Nishanth Rep.by mother and natural guardian N.Geetha 106. Minor S.Balaji Rep.by mother and natural guardian V.Lakshmi Priya 107. Minor C.Anoopkishore Rep.by mother and natural guardian C.Thenmozhi 108. Minor R.Senthoor Rep.by mother and natural guardian K.Rajeswari 109. Minor K.P.ArunKumaran Rep.by mother and natural guardian P.Thamarai 110. Minor V.Harish Rep.by father and natural guardian K.Vijayakumar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 111. Minor Vivek S.Adit Rep.by father and natural guardian S.Suresh 112. Minor S.Pradeep Sakthi Rep.by father and natural guardian R.Srinivasan 113. Minor T.Vinitha Rep.by mother and natural guardian Latha Thiyagarajan 114. Minor S.Swathi Rep.by father and natural guardian P.P.Sadasivam 115. Minor S.Karthikeyan, Rep.by father and natural guardian R.Senthilnayagam 116. Minor.S.Sughirthi, Rep.by mother and natural guardian S.Baby 117. Minor B.Revathi, Rep.by mother and natural guardian B.Vasantha 118. Minor R.Ramapriya Rep.by mother and natural guardian Viyalakshmi 119. Minor R.Jayakarthika Rep.by father and natural guardian N.Ramasamy 120. Minor G.Premalatha, Rep.by mother and natural guardian 121. Minor K.K.Arunkumar, Rep.by father and natural guardian K.Kandaswami 122. Minor R.A.Kannan, Rep.by father and natural guardian RY.Ramanathan 123. Minor R.T.Dinesh, Rep.by father and natural guardian R.Thiyagarajan 124. Minor V.Sainath Rep.by father and natural guardian M.Varatharajan 125. Minor G.Veerakeshwaran Rep.by father and natural guardian M.Gopalakrishnan Petitioners 1 and 2 working as Teacher Petitioners 3 to 120 are students of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Bharathi Vidya Bhavan, Thindal, Erode-9. Respondents 6 to 125 in WP Nos.5396/07 (impleaded as per Order of this Court dated 4.4.07 in MP.3/2007 in WP.5396 of 2007) 126. K. VEERAMANI 2nd Respondent in WP NOS. 5476/07 and 127th respondent in WP NO. 5396 & 6th Respondent in 5526/07 (Implead as per order of Court dated 27.04.2007 in MP NOS. 1/07 in WP NO. 5476/07 5/07 in WP NO. 5396/07 and 3/07 in WP NO. 5526/07) Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) Students represented by the State Secretary K.Saravanan Arakkonam .. 126th Respondent in WP NO. 5396/07 (Implead as per order of Court dated 27.04.2007 in MP NO. 4/07 in WP NO. 5396/07 WP.No.5396/07 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from abolishing the Common Entrance Test in respect of admission to Professional Colleges in State of Tamilnadu for the academic year 2007-2008 pursuant to the Tamilnadu Admission in Professional Educational Institution Act, 2006 and consequently forbearing the 2nd respondent from granting assent to the Tamilnadu Professional Educational Institution Act 2006 in violation of the power of the Central Government under Entry 63 to 66, List I of the VII Schedule of the Constitution of India. WP.No.5397/07 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Declaration declaring the Tamilnadu Admission in Professional Educational Institution Act, 2006, Act 39 of 2006 published in the Gazette on 6.12.2006 as ultra vires to the Legislative Competence of the State of Tamil Nadu in enacting laws regulating the professional courses like Medical, Dental, Engineering and Architecture and contrary to the exclusive Legislative Competence of the Central Government under List I of the VII Schedule and set aside the same, consequently directing the 1st respondent to conduct examinations essentially with common entrance test as provided in the respective Central Legislation regulating the various professional courses. W.P.No.5476 of 2006 has been filed under Article 226 of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Constitution of India for issuance of Declaration declaring the Executive Policy propounded by the respondent, banning the abolition of the Common Entrance Test, and the instrument employed to execute the said policy, namely, the Tamil Nadu Admission in Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2006, banning the common entrance test, as both being illegal, devoid of legislative competence, and ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India, besides being violative of the judgments of the Supreme Court and this High Court holding that the Common Entrance Test cannot be dispensed with, and consequently direct the respondent to notify the CET for admissions to Professional Courses for the year 2007-2008. WP.No.5526/07 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Declaration declaring the Tamilnadu Admission in Professional Educational Institution Act, 2006, L.A.Bill No. 39 of 2006 published in the Gazette on 6.12.2006 as ultra vires to the Legislative Competence of the State of Tamil Nadu in enacting laws regulating the professional courses like Medical, Dental, Engineering and Architecture and contrary to the exclusive Legislative Competence of the Central Government under List I of the VII Schedule and set aside the same, consequently directing the 1st respondent to conduct examinations essentially with common entrance test as provided in the respective Central Legislation regulating the various professional courses. WP.No.6264/07 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent State to conduct Common Entrance Test for admission to Professional Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu for the academic year 2007-2008 as per the law that applied till the academic year 2006-2007 dehors the Tamilnadu LA.Bill No.39/2006 published in Gazette dated 6.12.2006 The Tamilnadu Admission in Professional Educational Institution Act, 2006, which has not come into force. For Petitioner : Mr.K.M. Vijayan in WP.Nos.5396, Senior Counsel for 5397, 5526 & 6264/07 M/s. La Law For Petitioner in WP.No.5476/07 : Mr. Manikandan Vathan Chettiar For Respondent : Mr.V.T. Gopalan Union of India Addl. Solicitor General Assisted by Mr.P. Wilson Asst. Solicitor General For Respondent-1 in WP.Nos.5396,5397 : Mr.R. Viduthalai of 2007 Advocate General Assisted by Mr.M. Sekar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Special Govt. Pleader For Respondent-1 in WP.Nos.5476, 5526: Mr.N. Kannadasan and 6264 of 2007 Addl. Advocate General Assisted by Mr.M. Sekar Special Govt. Pleader For Respondent-3 Medical Council of India : Mr.R. Singaravelan For Respondent-4 A.I.C.T.E. : Mr.N. Muralikumar, ACGSC For Respondent-5 Council of Architecutre : M/s. Naveen R. Nath For Intervener in : Mr.R. Gandhi MP.No.3 of 2007 Senior Counsel for in WP.No.5396/07 Mr.R.G. Narendhiran For Intervener in : Mr. Ravivarma Kumar M.P.No.4 of 2007 Senior Counsel for in WP.5396/07 Mr.M. Gnanasekar For Intervener in Mr. Thyagarajan S.C for M.P.No.5 of 2007 : Mr.D. Veerasekaran in WP.5396/07 - - - COMMON JUDGMENT P.K. MISRA, J The writ petitions have been filed challenging the abolition of Common Entrance Test for admission to professional courses in the State of Tamil Nadu. All such writ petitions were filed at a stage when Tamil Nadu Admission in Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2006 (Bill 39/2006) was passed, but yet to be enforced as it was reserved for the assent of the President. Subsequently, such Act received the assent of the President of India and has come into force with effect from 7.3.2007, during pednency of all such writ petitions. To hold or not to hold a Common Entrance Test for admission to Professional Courses in Tamil Nadu is the question. In the language of the petitioners it is an instance of “twice bitten, thrice impertinence” whereas https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ according to the State, the main contesting respondent, it is symbolic of “third time lucky”. 2. The brief facts as culled out from the averments made in several writ petitions indicate that admission to various professional colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu was being regulated by a selection process which included the conduct of a Common Entrance Test. Such procedure is being followed since 1984-85. While the matter stood thus, during the academic year 2005-2006, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.184 dated 9.6.2005 abolishing the Common Entrance Test and directing that admission to such professional colleges leading to grant of degrees such as Medicine, Engineering, Architecture would be based on the marks obtained in the qualifying examination i.e., +2 (Higher Secondary) Examination. A Division Bench of the High Court in the decision reported in 2005(3) CTC 449 (N. PRIYADARSHINI AND OTHERS v. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI 9 AND ANOTHER) quashed such Government Order. It is not in dispute that the said decision of the High Court has been challenged before the Supreme Court and appeal is pending but no interim order has been passed. Subsequently, during the year 2006, the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Admission in Professional Courses Act (II of 2006) was enacted dispensing with the holding of Common Entrance Test so far as the students who had passed +2 (Higher Secondary) Examination held by the State Board and making it obligatory for the students who had passed +2/Higher Secondary Course in the examination held by any Board other than the State Board. In the decision reported in (2006) 2 M.L.J 382 (MINOR NISHANTH RAMESH, REP. BY MOTHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN AND OTHERS v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS) a Division Bench of this Court declared such Tamil Nadu Act II of 2006 as void and inoperative. It is also not in dispute that the said decision of the Division Bench has been challenged in appeal and the matter is pending before the Supreme Court without there being any interim order. While the matter stood thus, the Tamil Nadu Admission in Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2006 was enacted and the present writ petitions have been filed seeking for a direction to the Government not to abolish the Common Entrance Test. It is not in dispute that in the meantime such Act after having received the assent of the President has come into force with effect from 7.3.2007. 3. The Tamil Nadu Admission in Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2006 (Act 3 of 2007) is an Act to provide for admission to professional degree courses such as Engineering, Medicine, Dental, Agriculture and other allied courses on the basis of marks in the qualifying examination. The statement of objects and reasons indicates that the Government decided to accept the recommendation of the Committee which recommended for elimination of the Common Entrance Test. As per Section 2 (c) of the Act, "Government seats" mean,- (i) all the seats in Government colleges, University colleges and University constituent colleges (ii)such number of seats in aided professional educational https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ institutions as may be notified by the Government; and (iii)65% of seats in each branch in non-minority unaided professional educational institutions and 50% of the seats in each branch in minority unaided professional educational institutions, in accordance with the consensus arrived at between such professional educational institutions and the Government. As per Section 2(e) "professional educational courses" mean,- (1) in Medical and Dental institution, the first year of (i) Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery and (ii)Bachelor of Dental Surgery. (2) in Engineering institution, the first year of, (i)Bachelor of Engineering; (ii)Bachelor of Technology; and (iii)Bachelor of Architecture. and includes any other professional educational courses at undergraduate and postgraduate level, as may be notified by the Government in this behalf; As per Section 3, admission to every Government seat in every professional institution shall be made on the basis of the marks obtained by a student in the relevant subjects, in the qualifying examination. Section 4 contemplates that admission to seats in all unaided professional educational institutions shall be made by the consortium of unaided professional educational institutions on the basis of the marks obtained by a student in the relevant subjects, in the qualifying examination. Section 5 being relevant, is extracted hereunder :- "5.(1)The marks obtained by the students in the relevant subjects in the qualifying examination conducted by various Boards or Authority shall be equated with the marks obtained by the students in the same subjects in the qualifying examination conducted by the State Board, by adopting the method of normalization. Explanation:- Under the method of normalization, the highest mark obtained by the students of various Boards in each subject shall be equated to the highest mart obtained by the students of State Board in that subject and the relative marks obtained by other students in that subject shall be determined accordingly. Illustration:- If the highest marks secured by the student of State Board in Physics is 100 and the highest mark secured by a student of any other Board in the same subject is 90, both the highest marks will be considered to be equal to 100. If a student of the other Board secures 60 marks in Physics when the first mark in Physics in the same Board is 90, the 60 marks will be considered to be equal to 66.66 marks as arrived at below:- 100 X 60 = 66.66% 90 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (2)After normalization of marks in the relevant subjects in the qualifying examination conducted by different Boards, the qualified students of different Boards shall be merged into a common merit list. (3)In cases where more than one student have got the same marks in the common merit list, the inter-se merit among such students shall be determined in such manner as may prescribed. (4)The appropriate authority and the consortium of unaided professional educational institution shall prepare the rank lists for admission of students to the seats referred in section 3 and section 4, respectively and allot students through centralised counselling." 4. The basic question raised in all these writ petitions is regarding the validity of the provisions contained in such Act. The grounds of attack are as follows:- (1) Since the matters relating to admission to professional courses like Medical, Dental, Engineering and Architecture, etc., are governed by the Central Acts, such as All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, The Architects Act, 1972, Dentists Act, 1948, The Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 and The Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 enacted under Entry No.66 in the Union List, the State has no legislative competence to enact such provisions. (2) The provisions contained in such Act are arbitrary and opposed to the principle of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu. In such counter affidavit, a preliminary question relating to maintainability of the writ petitions has been raised on the ground that after filing of the writ petitions, Act III of 2007 has been notified after obtaining the assent of the President of India on 3.3.2007 and in the absence of specific challenge or even amendment of the original prayer, the writ petitions should be dismissed. It is further indicated that in view of Entry 25 in List III of Seventh Schedule, the State has legislative competence to enact the statute and in the State of Tamil Nadu such provision would be operative by virtue of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India as the assent of the President has been obtained. It is stated in the counter affidavit that after the efforts made earlier to abolish the Common Entrance Test proved futile on account of the decisions rendered by the Madras High Court, the State Government constituted a Committee of Educational experts to recommend suitable measures for abolition of Common Entrance Test from the academic year 2007-2008. The Committee conducted extensive study and invited public opinion from various districts, both rural and urban areas, on the matter relating to abolition of Common Entrance Test for admission to professional courses and after examining all the relevant factors submitted its report dated 13.11.2006. The said report has been accepted by the State on principle and thereafter a draft statute was placed in the Assembly as Bill No.39 of 2006 dated 6.12.2006 known as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tamil Nadu Admission in Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2006, which was passed by the Assembly and signed by the Governor and thereafter it was sent for assent to the President has been obtained. It has been further indicated that the two earlier decisions of this Court, former reported in 2005(3) CTC 449 (cited supra), and the latter reported in (2006) 2 M.L.J. 382 are no longer applicable as in the former case, the G.O. was found to be illegal and in the latter case the Tamil Nadu Act II of 2006 was found to be invalid mainly on account of the fact that it offended the principles of Article 14 as Common Entrance Test was abolished only in respect of the students passing the State Board examination, which continued in respect of other students. It has been therefore highlighted that at present all the students have been treated equally by adopting the method of normalization and the Common Entrance Test has been abolished in respect of all the students and not in respect of any particular group of students. 6. The stand of the Union of India, Respondent No.2, appears to be similar as that of the State Government. The Medical Council of India and All India Council for Technical Education, arrayed as Respondents 3 and 4, have appeared. It is submitted by the counsels that in view of the legislation, which has