STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. v. ADHIYAMAN EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE AND ORS.

A absence of any valid compelling reasons, it must be given its full effect according to its plain and express intention.

(ii] To the extent that the State legislation is in conflict with the Central legislation 'though the former is purported to have been made under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List but in effect B encroaches upon legislation including subordinate legislation made by the Centre under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List or to give effect to E ....try 66 of the Union List, it would be void and inoperative. - j [iii] If there is a conflict between the two legislations, unless the State ? c legislation is saved by the provisions of the main part of clause [2] of Article 254, the State legislation being repugnant to the Centnl legislation, the same would be inoperative.

[iv] Whether the State law encroaches upon Entry 66 of the Union D List or is repugnant to the law made by the Centre under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, will have to be determined by the examination of the two laws and will depend upon the facts of each case.

[v] When there are more applicants than the available situa- E tions/seats, the State authority is not prevented from laying down higher standards or qualifications than those laid down by the Centre or the Central authority to short-list the applicants. When the State authority does so, it does not encroach upon ~ntry 66 of the Union List or make a law which is repugnant to the Central F law.

[vi] However, when the situations/seats are available and the State authorities deny an applicant the same on the ground that the applicant is not qualified according to its standards or qualifica- ··-T tions, as the case may be, although the applicant satisfies the G standards or qualifications laid down by the Central law, they act unconstitutionally. So also when the State authorities derecognise or disaffiliate an institution for not satisfying the standards or requirement laid down by them, although it satisfied the norms and requirements laid down by the central authority, the State H authorities act illegally.

I SI'ATEOFT.N. v. ADHIYAMANEDNL.ANDRES. INSI'T. (SAWANT,J.) 1115

16Copy pinpoint16. We find nothing in the impugned judgment of the High Court A which is contrary to or inconsistent with the propositions of law laid down above. Hence we dismiss the appeals and the special leave petitions with costs.

As a result, as has been pointed out earlier, the provisions of the Central statute on the one hand and of the State statutes on the other, B being inconsistent and, therefore, repugnant with each other, the Central:, statute will prevail and the derecognition by the State Government or the disaffiliation by the State university on grounds which 'are inconsistent with those enumerated in the Central statute will be inoperative.

v.s.s. Appeals and Petitions dismissed. c