Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The aforesaid clarificatory order has its own significance, for it undeniably excludes the applicability of the domicile test stated in Pradeep Jain [Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654] in respect of the State of Andhra Pradesh.

20. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to C. Surekha [C. Surekha v. Union of India, (1988) 4 SCC 526]. The said case arose from Osmania University in Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner therein had passed from the said University and he intended to take the All India Entrance Examination for admission to PG medical course in 1988. He had challenged the constitutional validity of Articles 371- D(2)(b)(iii) and (c)(ii) of the Constitution as well as the Presidential Order as a consequence of which the students of Andhra Pradesh have been excluded for competing in the aforesaid examination. The two- Judge Bench referred to the decisions in Pradeep Jain [Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654] and Reita Nirankari [Reita Nirankari v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 706] and noted the stand of the Union of India and Andhra Pradesh in their respective counter-affidavits that had asserted that institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh were kept out from the purview of the scheme in view of the decision rendered in Pradeep Jain [Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654] . The Court also took note of the fact that the issue was kept open in Reita Nirankari [Reita Nirankari v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 706] , and referred to the pronouncements in P. Sambamurthy v. State of A.P. [P. Sambamurthy v. State of A.P., (1987) 1 SCC 362 : (1987) 2 ATC 502] , Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India [Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625] , S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India [S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, (1985) 4 SCC 458 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 986] and reiterated the principle that Article 371-D(3) was valid because clause (10) of Article 371- D provides as follows: (C. Surekha case [C. Surekha v. Union of India, (1988) 4 SCC 526] , SCC p. 531, para 4) "4. ...'371-D. (3) The provisions of this Article and of any order made by the President thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of this Constitution or in any other law for the time being in force.'"

55. Thereafter, in paragraphs 36 and 37, it was held as under:

36. We have referred to the aforesaid judgments in extenso as the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have laid immense emphasis that there cannot be reservation of any kind in respect of postgraduate or super speciality courses regard being had to the law laid down by many a judgment of this Court. It is urged that the State of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana cannot apply the domicile test only to admit its own students and that too also in respect of 15% quota meant for non-local candidates. We have already analysed the factual score and the legal position. The undivided State of Andhra Pradesh enjoys a special privilege granted to it under Article 371-D of the Constitution and the Presidential Order.

(a) Does the provision empower the Governor to make a new law?

(b) Does the power extend to subordinate legislation?

(c) Can the exercise of the power conferred therein override fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III?

(d) Does the exercise of such power override any parallel exercise of power by the President under Article 371-D?

(2) Whether 100% reservation is permissible under the Constitution?