Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. Once we take this view on the plain reading of the scheme, it would be necessary for us to take stock of the subsequent arguments of Mr. Rao regarding Entry 66 in List I vis-a-vis Entry 25 in List III. In our opinion, the communications, even if they could be WP-2093-2011 group heightened to the pedestal of a legislation, or as the case may be, a policy decision under Article 73 of the Constitution, they would have to be read as they appear and a plain reading is good enough to show that the Central Government or as the case may be UGC also did not introduce the element of compulsion vis-a-vis the State Government and the universities. We, therefore, do not find any justification in going to the entries and in examining as to whether the scheme was binding, particularly when the specific words of the scheme did not suggest it to be binding and specifically suggest it to be voluntary."