HC reserves order on abolition of CET

Chennai, Apr 11 (UNI) The Madras High Court today reserved orders on a batch of petitions, challenging the Tamil Nadu Admission in Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2006, which abolished the Common Entrance Test (CET).

A division bench comprising Justices P K Misra and J A K Sampathkumar reserved orders after hearing elaborate arguments from both sides, on a batch of petitions submitted by one Ashwin Kumar and others.

When the case came up for hearing, Additional Solicitor General V T Gopalan, appearing for the Centre, furnished a note file of the Ministry of Home Affairs and said there were certain principles governing the President Assent.

Before forwarding to the President, clearance from various Ministries and departments should be obtained. In this case, all the departments concerned including Ministry of Legal Affairs accorded clearance to the Act.

Normalisation was a time tested formula. There may be some other principle, better than this formula. But it was not for the courts to judge as to which was the better method. It would off set the effect of abolition of the CET. It would however, also take care of different boards. Once this was done, the question of discrimination does not arise, he added.

He submitted that the CET was a torture for students. Though it was abolished, the object of CET still remains. Normalisation was a policy and an alternative substitute. This Act does not counter to Central Legislation. Merely because there was a central legislation, a state Act cannot be said to run in contravention to a Central Act.

If the object of CET was satisfied then it does not run counter to Central Legislation. The state Act does not dilute the standard prescribed by the Central Law, he added.

Mr R Singaravelan, appearing for MCI submitted that MCI regulation prescribes for the CET not with a view to judge merits of the candidates but to wipe out discrimination.

Mr Muralikrishnan, appearing for AICTE submitted that AICTE Act never prescribes for the CET. Selections need not necessarily be through the CET.

Replying to the submissions, Senior Counsel K M Vijayan submitted that Presidential assent cannot create a source of power either to the Parliament or to a state Assembly when there was repugnance between the laws created by the Parliament and Assembly.

UNI