Nyaya Vidya Parishad Law College, Visakhapatnam vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others

The petitioner is a Law College. It is recognised by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and affiliated to Andhra University. They filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the respondents, namely, Slate of Andhra Pradesh, the A.P. State Council for Higher Education and Andhra University, Visakhapatnam to consider their representations dated 1 -7-1999 and 14-10-1999 and to dispense with the entrance test in Law course of study commonly known as LAWCET and permit to admit those students who did not appear or quality in the LAWCET examination.

The writ affidavit filed along with the writ petition refers to Section 3 of the A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Captation Fee) Act, 1993 (hereafter called the Act) and the A.P. Institutions of Law (Regulation of Admission into courses in Law through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 1989 (hereafter called the LAWCET Rules). It is their contention that though the purport of these provisions is that no candidate who is not qualified in LAWCET is eligible for admission to I year LLB course, in view of the changed circumstances, insisting on a qualification in LAWCET is unreasonable at this point of time. It is their submission that though 16546 candidates have appeared for the entrance test and 12813 of them qualified for 3 years'' LLB course, most of them are preferring Government/University colleges and not seeking admission in the private colleges like the petitioner. This has resulted in the strength of the law students each year coming down. The petitioner has also produced statistics in the affidavit to show that though the petitioner college has a sanctioned strength of 240 (3 Sections of 80 each) for 3 year LLB course, one Section of 80 for 5 year course and two sections of evening course with intake of 160 students, from the academic year 1997-98 the strength has come below 50%. The petitioner, therefore, submits that a reasonable Legislation may become unreasonable after lapse of time. As there are number of scats going a begging in law colleges, insisting on qualification in LAWCET is unreasonable. For this general principle, they relied on Motor General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1984 SC 121, and Rattan Arya and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, .

The LAWCET Rules arc statutory rules. To curb the practice of collection of capitation fee and regulate the admissions into Educational Institutions, the Act was made by A.P. State Legislature. This Court has upheld the validity of this Act. As per Section 3 of the Act, admission into all educational institutions shall be made either on the basis of the marks obtained the qualifying examination or on the basis of the ranking assigned in the entrance test conducted by the prescribed authority. LAWCET Rules are made in exercise of the powers u/s 3 read with Section 15 of the Act. By virtue of Section 12 of the Act the provisions of the Act as well as the LAWCET Rules have over-riding effect. Be that as it may, the validity of the rules was upheld by this Court in P. Venkateswara Rao v. Osmania University 1990 (2) ALT 140. Again in Panineeya Law College and Others Vs. The Secretary to Government, Education Dept.,Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, , the question of validity of LAWCET Rules was raised. A Division Bench of this Court considered all the questions raised in this writ petition and held that the law college has a statutory obligation to accord admission only to those who come out successful in the entrance examination and, therefore, the private Managements cannot Act in violation of that requirement. Further it was observed as follows:

"By allowing students who did not pass LAWCET, to secure admission in law colleges, a situation forbidden by the statutory rules, the necessary consequence will be flooding of law colleges with students whose capacities to pursue a course of study in law, to say the least, is doubtful. Only those who have come out successful in the LAWCET, the statutory rules enjoin, are eligible for admission to law colleges. The object in prescribing entrance examination is to enable the meritorious students to seek admission and the process of selection must necessarily be gone through having regard to the undisputed fact that the seats available in the law colleges are limited and the aspirants are more."

The contention raised in this case that though large number of candidates qualified in the LAWCET, they are not preferring the colleges like the petitioners and arc preferring Government/University colleges, was also adhered to by this Court and in that context it was held as follows:

"... It is clearly stated in the said counter-affidavits that in all the law colleges including the colleges to whom permission was granted subsequent to holding of LAWCET in July, 1991 for the academic year 1991-92, the total number of seats is 9900 whereas the number of candidates passed in the LAWCET held in July, 1991 is 11426. Therefore, it cannot be said that seals are more and the candidates are less. May be the qualified candidates are not willing to join the private colleges. Here it is significant to note that there is no complaint from the law colleges run by the universities that seats in their colleges are vacant. Even otherwise, it is for the State to consider all these aspects and take appropriate action. Suffice it to say that it is not for this Court to declare that LAWCET is unnecessary."

In view of the judgment of the Division Bench, there is no merit in the various contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition.

In the result, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.