JUDGMENT 1. 1. In the above said special appeals, the Malviya Regional Engineering College (here in-atter called as the College) has challenged the order and judgment dated 19.3.1998 delivered by the learned Single Judge, wherein a direction has been given that even though the candidates appearing the Pre-Engineering Test were below the prescribed age of 17 years on the cut off date, but still they were eligible for admission on the seats which were available in the quota of Regional Engineering College outside the State of Rajasthan in which Engineering colleges, there was no minimum age either prescribed for the course or the minimum age was less than 17 years for the reasons that many candidates lower in merit than the petitioners might have been granted admission on the seats in several Regional Engineering Colleges outside the State of Rajasthan and thus it amounted to a discriminatory treatment to such candidates. 2. Number of writ petitions were filed which were decided by the common order aforesaid. The writ petitioners were the applicants for Pre-Engineering Test (PET for short), who had not attained as yet at the time of applications, the minimum age of 17 years, which was so mentioned in the prospectus of the college. They had applied for entrance examination even though they were not eligible to apply. PET test for the first year engineering degree in the Engineering Colleges in the State of Rajashan is held at number of places such like Jaipur, Kota, Udaipur, Bhilwara and Ajmer including Rajasthan State quota for other 16 Regional Engineering Colleges over the country by the centralised procedure called the PET. The test is held as per the Government instructions and the centralised admission committee is constituted by the Government at Rajasthan which is empowered to recommend rules and regulations and also lay down the required conditions of eligibility for the course. The said committee had specified the minimum conditions of eligibility and laid down the conditions that the candidate should not be less than 17 years of age which condition is said to, have been approved by the State of Rajasthan vide order dated 9.2.1995. The State had subsequently relaxed this age condition, but reintroduced the same in the subsequent year of 1996. The State had subsequently relaxed this age condition, but reintroduced the same in the subsequent year of 1996. As per the conditions laid down and approved by the State of Rajasthan, the college had advertised for holding the PET test with the minimum age of 17 years. There were certain students who were otherwise fulfilling the prescribed educational qualifications, but were short of a Few days or few months of minimum age requirement eligibility and therefore, have filed number of writ petitions challenging the prescribing of minimum age as arbitrary. 3. The Regional Engineering Colleges have been established in other states as well other than Rajasthan. A few percentage of seats are filled up by way of sponsoring by other Regional Engineering Colleges from different states other than the State of Rajasthan. Number of such candidates is fixed up by the central Government on the basis of population of the State. While the candidates are sent from Rajasthan into other Regional Engineering Colleges and by way of reciprocation the State of Rajasthan also allows candidates from other states as well. Examinations are held in different states; there is a different minimum age prescribed in different states. In some of the states, the age prescribed is 16 years whereas some of the states have no minimum prescribed age and the others have 17 years, such as, there is no minimum age prescribed in the State of U.P., Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Himachal Pradesh, Bihar, Punjab and Andhra Pradesh. In the Engineering College of Raorkela in the State of Orissa and Silchar in the State of Assam minimum age fixed is 16 years for taking in the Pre-Engineering Test. It was the contention of the writ petitioners that for the other institutions outside the State of Rajasthan, were the minimum age is not prescribed, the candidates would suffer manifestly if they are not allowed to appear in Rajasthan. The petitioners contended that similarly situated candidates below the age of 17 years are allowed to appear in the other states and are also likely to be sponsored for admission in Rajasthan and no candidate below the age of 17 years can be sponsored to other states from Rajasthan and thus, the rights of those candidates who had not completed 17 years of age would be prejudicially effected. The prescribing of age of 17 years had already been held to not arbitrary by a learned Single Judge of this court in the judgment in Shyam Sunder Agrawal v. State 1997(1) WLC (Raj.) 199 . However, learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment while giving the directions had observed that the question as to what could be the effect in regard to the seats which were to be filled up by way of an exchange programme from the Regional Engineering Colleges situated in other states where minimum age is not prescribed, had not been addressed a in the judgment of this court in Shyam Sunder's case. The contention of the writ petitioners that the prescribing of minimum age was neither warranted nor rational was not accepted by the learned Single Judge in the Judgment's impugned and it was observed that it was not possible for the court to substitute the view of experts in this regard and the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the State of Rajasthan should not have fixed the minimum age for the course was not accepted and the fixation of minimum age by the State of Rajasthan was held to be constitutional and within competence. Learned Single Judge had categorically held that the contention of the writ petitioners that the minimum age for Schallors of Engineering course should be less than 17 years for admission in the course cannot be accepted and the prescription of the condition of age cannot be interfered with. 4. However, on other aspects of the matter, in regard to reciprocal admission from a outside State of Rajasthan where minimum age is either not prescribed or is prescribed less than 17 years, the directions had been given as stated above, resulting that for the purpose of admissions in other states, the candidate less than 17 years are to be allowed to appear in the Pre-entrance examination. This part of the judgment is challenged by the appellants in the special appeals. 5. Number of other writ petitions have also been filed and have been ordered to be attached/connected with the present special appeals for the reason that they involve similar questions of law on the same facts for the same reliefs and, therefore, special appeal aforesaid and the writ petitions involving identical point are being decided together. 6. 5. Number of other writ petitions have also been filed and have been ordered to be attached/connected with the present special appeals for the reason that they involve similar questions of law on the same facts for the same reliefs and, therefore, special appeal aforesaid and the writ petitions involving identical point are being decided together. 6. It has been authoritatively held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore and others, AIR 1964 SC 1823 that in regard to the admissions to the medical and engineering colleges; the order issued by the State Government appointing selection committed for admission to the Medical and Engineering Colleges in the State and directing the committee to add the marks secured by the candidates at PUC examination, the marks awarded to them for the interviews and to prepare a fresh order of merit on the basis of the total marks so arrived at, does neither encroach on the field covered by Entry 66 of List I nor contravene the provisions of the Mysore University Act and it was further held that the State Government has power to prescribe a machinery and also the criteria for admission of qualified students to Medical and Engineering colleges run by the Government and with the consent of the management of the Government aided colleges, to the said colleges as well. The Supreme Court further observed that it was only where the law makes it impossible or difficult for Parliament to exercise the legislative power under Entry 66 that the State lay would be bad but the validity of the State law would depend upon whether prejudicially affects the co-ordination and determination of standards and if it does so, that is enough to invalidate the legislation, and to determine whether the State law is in conflict with the powers of the Parliament, regard must be had to the pith and substance of the law. The Supreme Court had observed as thus : "This and similar other passages indicate that if the law made by the State by virtue of entry 11 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution makes impossible or difficult the exercise of the legislative power of the Parliament under the entry "Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technicals institutions". reserved to the Union, the State law may be had. This cannot obviously be decided on speculative and hypothetical reasoning. If the impact of the State law providing for such standards on entry of List I is so heavy or is devastating as to wipe out or appreciably abridge the Central field, it may be struck down. But that is a question of fact to be ascertained in each ease. It is riot possible to hold that if a State legislature made a law prescribing a higher percentage of marks for extra-curricular activities in the matter of admission to colleges, it would be directly encroaching on the field covered by entry of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. If so, it is not disputed that the State Government would be within its rights to prescribed qualifications for admission to colleges so long as its action does not contravene any other law. It is then said that the Mysore University Act conferred power to prescribe rules for admission to colleges on the University and the Government cannot exercise that power. It is true that under S. 23 of the Mysore University Act, 1956, the Academic Council shall have the power to prescribe the conditions for admission of students to the University and, in exercise of its power, it has prescribed the percentage of marks which a student shall obtain for getting admission in medical or engineering colleges. The orders of the Government do not contravene the minimum qualifications prescribed by the University; what the Government did was to appoint a selection committee and prescribe rules for selection of students who have the minimum qualifications prescribed by the University. The Government runs most of the medical and engineering colleges. Excluding the State aided colleges for a moment, the position is as follows : The colleges run by the Government, having regard to financial commitments and other relevant considerations can only admit a specific number of students to the said Colleges. They cannot obviously admit all the applicants who have secured the marks prescribed by the University. It has necessarily to screen the applicants on some reasonable basis. The aforesaid orders of the Government only prescribed criteria for making admissions to Colleges from among students who secured the minimum qualifying marks prescribed by the University. They cannot obviously admit all the applicants who have secured the marks prescribed by the University. It has necessarily to screen the applicants on some reasonable basis. The aforesaid orders of the Government only prescribed criteria for making admissions to Colleges from among students who secured the minimum qualifying marks prescribed by the University. Once it is conceded, and it is not disputed before us, that the State Government can run medical and engineering Colleges, it cannot be denied the power to admit such qualified students as pass the reasonable tests laid down by it. This is a power which every private owner of a College will have, and the Government which runs its own Colleges cannot be denied that power." 7. Learned Single Bench of this court in the case of Ram Lal and etc. v. University of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1996 Raj. 235 , while dealing the admission to the medical colleges had upheld the fixation of minimum age of 17 years for admission to Pre-Medical Test. It also was so held in the case of Shyam Sunder Agrawal v. State of Rajasthan & Others, 1997(1) WLC (Raj.) 199 . 8. In the case of State of Tamil Nadu and another v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institution and others (1995) 4 SCC 104 , it was held that in the case of repugnancy between legislation made by Parliament and that made by State legislature on a subject covered by List III, former shall to prevail and to that extent the later shall be void unless it is saved by Art. 254(2) of the Constitution of India. It was further provided that the State Acts cannot lay down standards and requirements higher than those prescribed by the Central Act for technical institutions and cannot deny situations/seats to applicants on the ground that they do not fulfil such higher standards/requirements. The facts and the law laid down in the present case are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy in the case in hand for the reasons that it is admitted fact that the technical council has not laid down any uniform conditions of prescribing the minimum or maximum age. 9. The facts and the law laid down in the present case are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy in the case in hand for the reasons that it is admitted fact that the technical council has not laid down any uniform conditions of prescribing the minimum or maximum age. 9. As argued and also as has been held by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, there cannot be any dispute or conflict that in the absence of any uniform age of admission for the purpose of eligibility for appearing in the entrance test prescribed by the technical council, the State Government was competent to prescribe the minimum age of 17 years and, therefore, challenging the prescribing of such an age by the writ petitioners in various writ petitions had no merit. It has been vehemently argued by the counsel for the appellants in special appeals that the directions given in the judgment impugned to the extent that the candidates below the age of 17 years are eligible for the purpose of allocating the seats of engineering colleges in various other states are not in accordance with the law and that this direction will lead to anamolous situation and the very prescription of 17 years of minimum age even though held to be valid is impliedly being modified by such directions. 10. It has been further stated by the counsel for the appellant that in the State of Rajasthan only those candidates are admitted in the first year even on reciprocal basis from other engineering colleges who fulfil the condition of minimum age of 17 years on the appointed date and in no case any candidate from the other state is eligible for admission or had ever been admitted if he had not been fulfilling the admissible criteria of minimum age of 17 years. It is stated that the State of Rajasthan and the colleges situated in the State of Rajasthan are simply adhering to the qualifications of prescribing the age limit of 17 years in either of the situations i.e. for the candidate of the Rajasthan as well as for the candidates coming out of Rajasthan. It is so stated by Mr. It is stated that the State of Rajasthan and the colleges situated in the State of Rajasthan are simply adhering to the qualifications of prescribing the age limit of 17 years in either of the situations i.e. for the candidate of the Rajasthan as well as for the candidates coming out of Rajasthan. It is so stated by Mr. Maloo, counsel for the appellants that the said decision arrived at in the meeting of the Principals in Regional Engineering Colleges as held, copy of which has been attached as Annexure R-4/4 in Civil Writ Petition No. 2877/98 in D.B. Special Appeal No. 672/98 wherein under distribution of seats in various Regional Engineering Colleges, it had been decided that where a candidate is willing to be considered for admission in other Regional so Engineering Colleges, the minimum requirements/qualifications of the processing college as also of the Regional Engineering college concerned where admission is desired should be adhered to. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, we find merit in the submission of the counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that no such directions as given by the learned Single Judge for allowing the candidates below the age of 17 years to appear in the examinations for Pre-Engineering Test can be sustained as that would amount to contravening and violating the criteria of age prescription as prescribed by the State in the State of Rajasthan, which criteria, the State of Rajasthan was competent to prescribe validly. Once. it is held that the State is competent to prescribe the minimum or maximum age, it shall be not proper for the courts to add any proviso to the criteria laid down for admission by the State and as such the part of the judgment wherein directions have been given in the impugned judgment which are subject, matter of the special appeals cannot be sustained and the writ petitions out of which the above special appeals are arising are to be dismissed by accepting this special appeals. For the reasons mentioned above, all other connected writ petitions are also dismissed. No other point has been argued. 12. For the reasons mentioned above, all other connected writ petitions are also dismissed. No other point has been argued. 12. However, before parting with the judgment, we consider it appropriate to say that Technical Council of India may examine the desirability of prescribing a uniform eligibility criteria of age in regard to admission to Pre-entarance test in the Regional Engineering Colleges so as to avoid difficulties.Special Appeals allowed-Writ Petitions dismissed. *******