Case: State of Andhra Pradesh &amp; Others Vs. Lavu Narendranath &amp; Others

persons for whom it is essential to provide facilities for medical education. If the sources are properly classified whether on territorial, geographical or other reasonable basis it is not for the courts to interfere with the manner and method of making the classification." The above case is not directly in point but it at least shows that a candidate has not an unqualified right to a seat in a medical college merely because he has obtained higher marks than another candidate at the qualifying examination.14. Mr. Choudhury the learned advocate for the respondents put before us his contentions with regard to the above in three propositions, namely, (1) The State has no power to trench upon the powers given to the University. The test prescribed contravenes S. 23 of the Act. (2) Even if the matter is not covered by the Universities Act the executive cannot be allowed to usurp a law-making power in prescribing a test. (3) The rule affects prejudicially the right conferred on candidates by the University Regulations.15.In our view there is no substance in any of the contentions is will be apparent from our conclusions noted above and the decisions of this Court bearing on this point. The University Act, as pointed out, merely prescribed a minimum qualification for entry into the higher courses of study. There was no regulation to the effect that admission to higher course of study was guaranteed by the securing of eligibility. The Executive have a power to make any regulation which would have the effect of a law so long as it does not contravene any legislation already covering the field and the Government order in this case in no way affected the rights of candidates with regard to eligibility for admission: the test prescribed was a further hurdle by way of competition when mere eligibility could not be made the determining factor.16. Mr. Choudhury faintly tried to urge other points which may be briefly noted. One of the grounds was that some of the questions were not covered by the curricula by the P. U. C. or the S.S.L.C. examination. This was not a ground which has any merit. If some of the questions were outside the syllabi all the candidates were at an equal disadvantage. Alternatively the questions might have been put to find out whether the candidates knowledge was limited to the syllabus or whether he was sufficiently interested in the subjects so as to acquire knowledge beyond the prescribed curriculum.17. The next ground urged was that the written test was in substitution of the University examination and was altogether a novel experiment no such test having been held before. In our view there is no substance in this contention either. The written test was not in substitution of the University examination but it was something additional to that and the mere fact that a written test had been introduced in the year 1970 would be no ground for holding that the method of selection was invalid. Further no complaint can be made that the notice of examination was all too short or that it was never published in the Gazette. If it was short it affected everybody equally adversely and the figures showing how many candidates had taken the test demonstrates very clearly that everybody who had cared to sit for the examination had an opportunity of doing so. Publication of the notification in the Gazette was not called for by any law.18. Lastly it was urged that such test affected the personal liberty of the candidates secured under Article 21 of the Constitution.We fail to see how refusal of an application to enter a medical college can be said to affect ones personal liberty guaranteed under that Article. Everybody, subject to the eligibility prescribed by the University, was at liberty to apply for admission to the Medical College. The number of seats being limited compared to the number of applicants every candidate could not expect to be admitted. Once it is held that the test is not invalid the deprivation of personal liberty, if any, in the matter of admission to a medical College was according to procedure established by law.Our attention was drawn to the case of Spottswood v. Sharpe, (1953) 98 L- Ed. 884 in which it was held that due process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the American Constitution prohibited racial segregation in the District of Columbia. Incidentally the Court made a remark (at p. 887):"Although the Court has not assumed to define "liberty" with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full rouge of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective. Segregation in public education is not reasonably related to any proper governmental objective, and thus it imposes on Negro children of the District of Columbia a burden that constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of their liberty in violation of the Due Process Clause."The problem before us is altogether different. In this case everybody subject to the minimum qualification prescribed was at liberty to apply for admission. The Government objective in selecting a number of them was certainly not improper in the circumstances of the case.19. Learned counsel also referred us to an observation of this Court in Satwant Singh v. Passport Officer, (1967) 3 SCR 525 at P. 540 = (AIR 1967 SC 1836 at p. 1844) that:" liberty in our Constitution bears the same comprehensive meaning as is given to the expression "liberty" by the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U. S. Constitution and the expression "personal liberty" in Article 21 only excludes the ingredients of "liberty" enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution."We do not find it necessary to dilate on this point in view of our conclusion that even if personal liberty extends to such conduct there has not been any deprivation thereof in violation of any procedure established by law.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]11. With respect, it seems to us that the observations above quoted are equally applicable to the case before us, the only difference being that whereas in the Mysore case marks were awarded on the basis of the impression created at the interview and added in a certain manner to the marks obtained at the University examination in the case before us the marks obtained at the University only make candidates eligible to appear at the written test and it is the last test which is the determining factor as to who should be admitted and who should beabove case is not directly in point but it at least shows that a candidate has not an unqualified right to a seat in a medical college merely because he has obtained higher marks than another candidate at the qualifyingour view there is no substance in any of the contentions is will be apparent from our conclusions noted above and the decisions of this Court bearing on this point. The University Act, as pointed out, merely prescribed a minimum qualification for entry into the higher courses of study. There was no regulation to the effect that admission to higher course of study was guaranteed by the securing of eligibility. The Executive have a power to make any regulation which would have the effect of a law so long as it does not contravene any legislation already covering the field and the Government order in this case in no way affected the rights of candidates with regard to eligibility for admission: the test prescribed was a further hurdle by way of competition when mere eligibility could not be made the determiningour view there is no substance in this contention either. The written test was not in substitution of the University examination but it was something additional to that and the mere fact that a written test had been introduced in the year 1970 would be no ground for holding that the method of selection was invalid. Further no complaint can be made that the notice of examination was all too short or that it was never published in the Gazette. If it was short it affected everybody equally adversely and the figures showing how many candidates had taken the test demonstrates very clearly that everybody who had cared to sit for the examination had an opportunity of doing so. Publication of the notification in the Gazette was not called for by anyfail to see how refusal of an application to enter a medical college can be said to affect ones personal liberty guaranteed under that Article. Everybody, subject to the eligibility prescribed by the University, was at liberty to apply for admission to the Medical College. The number of seats being limited compared to the number of applicants every candidate could not expect to be admitted. Once it is held that the test is not invalid the deprivation of personal liberty, if any, in the matter of admission to a medical College was according to procedure established bydo not find it necessary to dilate on this point in view of our conclusion that even if personal liberty extends to such conduct there has not been any deprivation thereof in violation of any procedure established by law.