Judgment V.S. Kokje, J.- This is a petition filed by a privately run educational institution conducting courses leading to the Degree of Bachelor of Education. The institution is affiliated to Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur. The course leading to Degree of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) is being conducted by the petitioner institution right from the year 1961. In the year 1964, the petitioner institution stated another course by the name of Bachelor of Education (Vacation Course) which is continuously being conducted since then. According to the petitioner, the education imparted in, what is known as B.Ed. (Regular Course) and B.Ed. (Vacation Course), is of the same standard and the only difference is that for the Regular Course, admissions are granted on the basis of the Pre-Teachers Education Test whereas admissions to the Vacation Course are granted by a Committee consisting of the Principal of the Institution and the Distt. Education Officer strictly as per the norms fixed for the purpose. (2). In the year 1993, the Parliament enacted the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (in short ‘the Act’), which was brought into force from 7.1995. (3). According to the petitioner institution, the Regulations u/S. 32 of the Act were framed and enforced on 22.96 and for all practical purposes, the Act effectively came into existence from 22.96 because without the Regulations, the Act could not have been enforced. According to the petitioner, under the mistaken impression that it was necessary for the Institution to apply for recognition under the Act, an application was made to the National Council for Teachers Education (in Short NCTE) established under the Act. On 110.96, the Northern Regional Committee of the NCTE sent a communication to the Principal of the petitioner Institution asking for relevant information to decide upon the grant of recognition. The information sought Included information about short history of the B.Ed. (Vacation Course), number of seats, details of leaching staff , fees charged, details of expenditure, details of the Syllabus, whether the syllabus is different from that of B.Ed. (Regular Course), if so, what was the difference, the duration of the course, method of teaching, method of admission, basis of selection and minimum qualifications etc. On 212.96, the petitioner Institution sent a detailed reply to each and every query. (Regular Course), if so, what was the difference, the duration of the course, method of teaching, method of admission, basis of selection and minimum qualifications etc. On 212.96, the petitioner Institution sent a detailed reply to each and every query. On 33.98, the Northern Regional Committee of the NCTE passed an order u/S. 14 of the Act granting permission to continue the B.Ed. (Vacation Course) till the disposal of its application for grant of recognition fixing the maximum number of seats in the Course to the seats available on 18.95. On4.99, by an order passed by the Northern Regional Committee of the NCTE, the application for recognition of the B.Ed. (Vacation Course) made by the petitioner Institution was rejected and the petitioner Institution was directed not to admit students in B.Ed. (Vacation Course) from the year 1999-2000. It was also declared in the order that if the Institution flouts the direction, no University shall grant it affiliation and if the affiliation has already been granted, that would be cancelled and the degrees obtained in defiance of the direction would not be recognised as valid qualification for employment with the Central Government, Stale Government, University or any educational institution receiving grant from the Central or State Government. (4). Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this petition was filed after some correspondence seeking revocation of the order by the NCTE itself (5). It was contended in the petition that the Act itself was ultra vires the Constitution because of lack of competence in the central legislation, to enact law on the subject. It is contended that determining qualifications for entry into government service is governed by the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, by the appropriate government which, in the State Services, is the State Government. The Parliament cannot make any law governing employment to the State Services. It is further contended that the Universities established under the enactments passed by the State Legislature and even by the Acts of Parliament cannot be made subservient to some other body. They should have requisite autonomy and authority to devise their own course, to have their own Rules of affiliation and standards of education. It is further contended that the Universities established under the enactments passed by the State Legislature and even by the Acts of Parliament cannot be made subservient to some other body. They should have requisite autonomy and authority to devise their own course, to have their own Rules of affiliation and standards of education. It is also contended that the Municipalities and Panchayati Raj Institutions are constitutionally recognised institutions and educational institutions run by the Municipalities and Panchayati Raj Institutions cannot be divested of their power to decide upon the qualification of their prospective employees. (6). It was also contended that the impugned action was violative of the principles of natural justice as the decision was taken without affording an opportunity to the petitioner Institution to show cause. It is also contended that the petitioner was never told as to what were the norms fixed by the NCTE for recognition so that it could either conform to those norms or to challenge them as arbitrary and unreasonable. It was also contended that there was actually no difference between the standards of education imparted in the B.Ed. (Regular Course) and B.Ed. (Vacation Course) and that recognising one course and derecognising the other is discriminatory. It is also contended that when the NCTE recognised the correspondence courses, there could be absolutely no rational basis for not recognising B.Ed. (Vacation Course). On this count also, the action is alleged to be discriminatory. (7). There were several other cases filed by individual employees who were denied opportunity of employment by the State on the ground that the qualifications which they possessed, were not obtained through the institutions recognised by the NCTE. All these cases were heard together as in those cases also, the question of vires of the provisions of the Act was involved. They are not being decided together because the factual situation in other cases is different and the only common point in the vires of the provisions of the Act. (8). In reply to the writ petition, the NCTE, the main contesting party, refuted the allegations made in the writ petition and contended that the Act was a perfectly valid piece of legislation. It was also contended that there was difference between the B.Ed. (Regular Course) and B.Ed. (Vacation Course) and therefore, there was nothing wrong in one course being recognised and the other not being recognised. It was also contended that there was difference between the B.Ed. (Regular Course) and B.Ed. (Vacation Course) and therefore, there was nothing wrong in one course being recognised and the other not being recognised. It was also contended that the body which decided the grant of recognition or otherwise, is a body of technical experts and they are the best Judges of the standard of education to be maintained in a recognised institution. The question of recognition is an academic question which has to be left to the academicians. (9). For examining the vires of the Act, it is necessary to first set out the relevant provisions of the Act. The Act has been enacted to provide for the establishment of the National Council for Teachers Education with a view to achieve planned and coordinated development of the teachers education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teachers education system and for matters connected therewith. Sec. 12 of the Act provides for the functions of the NCTE, which reads as under: - “12. Sec. 12 of the Act provides for the functions of the NCTE, which reads as under: - “12. It shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and co-ordinated development of teachers education and for the determination and maintenance of standards for teachers education and for the purposes of performing its functions under this Act, the Council may- (a) undertake surveys and studies relating to various aspects of teachers education and publish the result thereof (b) make recommendations to the Central and State Government, Universities, University Grants Commission and recognised institutions in the matter of preparation of suitable plans and programmes in the field of teachers education; (c) co-ordinate and monitor teachers education and its development in the country; (d) lay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher in schools or in recognised institutions; (e) lay down norms for any specified category of courses or trainings in teachers education, including the minimum eligibility criteria for admission thereof , and the method of selection of candidates, duration of the course, course contents and mode of curriculum; (f) lay down guidelines for compliance by recognised institutions, for starting new courses or training, and for providing physical and instructional facilities, staffing pattern and, staff qualification; (g) lay down standards in respect of examinations leading to teachers education qualifications, criteria for admission to such examinations and schemes of courses or training; (h) lay down guidelines regarding tuition fees and other fees chargeable by recognised institutions; (i) promote and conduct innovation and research in various areas of teachers education and disseminate the results thereof (j) examine and review periodically the implementation of the norms, guidelines and standards laid down by the Council, and to suitably advise the recognised institutions; (k) evolve suitable performance appraisal system, norms and mechanisms for enforcing accountability on recognised institutions; (1) formulate schemes for various levels of teachers education and identify recognised institutions and set up new Institutions for teachers development programmes; (m) take all necessary steps to prevent commercialisation of teachers education; and (n) perform such other functions as may be entrusted to it by the Central Government.” (10). Sec. 13 of the Act provides for inspection of recognised Institutions and communication of the Councils views in regard to the results of any such inspection. Sec. 13 of the Act provides for inspection of recognised Institutions and communication of the Councils views in regard to the results of any such inspection. The Council is also empowered to make recommendations to the Institution regarding action to be taken as a result of such inspection after ascertaining the opinion of the Institution. (11). Chapter IV of the Act relates to recognition of teachers education institutions. Sec. 14 of the Act reads as under: 1. Every institution offering or intending to offer a course of training in teachers education on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of recognition under the Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by Regulations; Provided that an institution offering a course or training in teachers education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition within the said period and until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee. 2. The fee to be paid along with the application under sub. sec. (1) shall be such as may be prescribed. 3. On receipt of an application by the Regional Committee from any institution u/Sub-Sec.(1) and after obtaining from the institution concerned such other particulars as it may consider necessary, it shall- .(a) If it is satisfied that such Institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff , laboratory and that It fulfils such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a course or training in teachers education, as may be determined by regulations, pass an order granting recognition to such institution, subject to such conditions as may be determined by regulations; or .(b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfil the requirements laid down in sub clause (a), pass an order refusing recognition to such institution to such institution for reasons to be recorded in writing; Provided that before passing an order under sub clause (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the concerned institution for making a written representation. 4. 4. Every order granting or refusing recognition to an institution for a course or training in teachers education under sub section (3) shall be published in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such institution and to the concerned examining body, the local authority or the State Government and the Central Government. 5. Every institution, in respect of which recognition has been refused shall discontinue the course or training in teachers education from the end of he academic session next following the date of receipt of the order refusing recognition passed u/clause (b) of sub-sec. (3). 6. Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order u/sub- sec. (4),- .(a) grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition has been granted, or .(b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition has been refused.” (12). Sec. 15 deals with the commencement of new course or training in teachers education by a recognised institution. (13). Sec. 16 of the Act provides as under: “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no examining body shall, on or after the appointed day.- .(a) grant affiliation, whether provisional or otherwise, to any institution; or .(b) hold examination, whether provisional or otherwise, for a course or training conducted by a recognised institution; unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee concerned, under Sec. 14 or permission for a course or training u/Sec. 15. (14). Sec. 17 of the Act deals with the contravention of provisions of the Act and consequences thereof It reads as under: “17(1) Where the Regional Committee is, on its own motion of on any representation received from any person, satisfied that a recognised institution has contravened any of the provisions of this Act, or the Rules, Regulations, Orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under Sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 14 or permission under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 15 was granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognised institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that no such order against the recognised institution shall be passed unless a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the proposed order has been given to such recognised institution: Provided further that the order withdrawing or refusing recognition passed by the Regional Committee shall come into force only with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of such order. 2. A copy of every order passed by the Regional Committee under sub-sec.(1)- .(a) shallbe communicated to the recognised institution concerned and a copy thereof shall also be forwarded simultaneously to the University or the examining body to which such institution was affiliated for cancelling affiliation; and .(b) shall be published in the Official Gazette for general information. 3. Oncethe recognition of a recognised institution is withdrawn under sub sec. (1), such institution shall discontinue the course or training in teachers education, and the concerned University or the examining body shall cancel affiliation of the institution in accordance with the order passed under Sub-Sec. (1), with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of the said order. 4. If an institution offers any course or training in teachers education after the coming into force of the order withdrawing recognition under Sub-sec. (1) or where an institution offering a course or training in teachers education immediately before the appointed day fails or neglects to obtain recognition or permission under this Act, the qualification in teachers education obtained pursuant to such course or training or after Undertaking a course or training in such institution, shall not be treated as a valid qualification for purposes of employment under the Central Government, any State Government or University, or in any school, college or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any State Government.” (15). The first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Parliament lacks legislative competence to enact a law on the subject on which the Act has been enacted. Three Entries of the three Lists of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India are necessary to be considered on this point. Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule reads as under:- “66. Three Entries of the three Lists of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India are necessary to be considered on this point. Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule reads as under:- “66. Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institution.” (16), Entry 32 of List II of the Seventh Schedule reads as under: -“32. Incorporation, regulation and winding up of corporation, other than those specified in List I, and universities; unincorporated trading, literacy, scientific, religious and other societies and associations; co-operative societies.” (17). Entry 25 of List III of Seventh Schedule reads as under: -“25. Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List 1; vocational and technical training or labour.” (18). Chapter-1 of Part XI of the Constitution containing Article 245 to 255, provides for legislative relations between the Union and the States. These Articles provide for distribution of legislative powers. Art. 246 of the Constitution of India reads as under: -“246. Subject-matter of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States.-(1) Notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3), Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the Union List). (2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (3), Parliament, and, subject to clause (1) the Legislature of any State also, have power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III in the Seventh Schedule (In this Constitution referred to as the Concurrent List’). 3. Subject to clauses (1) and (2), the Legislature of any State has exclusive power to make laws for such State or any part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List 11 in the Seventh Schedule On this Constitution referred to as the State List). 4. Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter for any part of the territory of India not included in a State notwithstanding that such mailer is a matter enumerated in the State List.” (19). 4. Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter for any part of the territory of India not included in a State notwithstanding that such mailer is a matter enumerated in the State List.” (19). The contention of the petitioner is that Entry 66 of Union List of the Seventh Schedule does not empower the Parliament to prescribe the qualifications for entry into the State Services or for de-recognition of degrees and diplomas awarded by Universities. According to the learned Counsel, the Entry only permits the legislation on co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions. In the garb of co- ordination and determination of standards in institutions, the degrees and diplomas obtained from such Universities established under valid legislation, cannot be declared to be void. It is further contended that Entry 66 of the Union List of the Seventh Schedule cannot over-ride the Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and cannot compel the State Government not to employ persons having degrees and diplomas from institutions not recognised by the NCTE. (20). On behalf of the respondents, apart from Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule, reliance is placed on Entry 25 of the Concurrent List also which relates to education including technical education, medical education and universities subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of Union List. It is contended that the Parliament will have legislative competence on the basis of Entry 66 of the Union List and Entry 25 of the Concurrent List. The respondents’ contention is that Entry 32 of the Stale List only relates to incorporation, regulation and winding up of Universities and does not relate to education or standards of education at all. It is submitted that all the State legislation on Universities is enacted on the basis of Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and therefore, it has to be subject to Entry 66 of Union List as well as subject to any other law made by the Parliament in the field. (21). Several cases were cited in support of rival contentions. (22). In Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia & Ors. etc. vs. Union of India & Ors. (21). Several cases were cited in support of rival contentions. (22). In Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia & Ors. etc. vs. Union of India & Ors. ( AIR 1970 SC 1453 ), the Constitution Bench or the Supreme Court observed that the entries in the three lists are only legislative heads or fields of legislation; they demarcate the area over which the appropriate legislatures can operate. II is well established that the widest amplitude should be given to the language of the entries, the reason being that the allocation of subjects is not by way of scientific or logical definition but is a mere enumeration of broad and comprehensive categories. But some of the entries in the different lists or in same list may overlap or may appear to be in direct conflict with each other. It is then the duty of Court to reconcile the entries and bring about a harmonious construction. An endeavour must be made to solve the conflict by having recourse to the context and scheme of the Act, and a reconciliation attempted between two apparently conflicting jurisdictions by reading the two entries together and by interpreting and, where necessary, modifying, the language of the one by that of the other. It is a well recognised canon of construction that a general power should not be so interprejed as, to nullify a particular power conferred by the same instrument. (23). In Para 24 of this Judgment , the doctrine of severability has been explained. It is observed that the real test as to whether the whole statute has to be struck down is whether what remains on the statute is so inextricably bound up with the invalid part that what remains cannot independently survive or as it is sometime put whether on a fair review of the whole mater it can be assumed that the legislature would have enacted at all that which survives without enacting the part that is ultra vires. (24). In the Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. ( AIR 1962 SC 1044 ) it was held that the entries in the three Legislative Lists are only legislative heads or fields of legislation that demarcate the area over which the appropriate legislature operates and it is well settled that the language of the entries should be widely construed. ( AIR 1962 SC 1044 ) it was held that the entries in the three Legislative Lists are only legislative heads or fields of legislation that demarcate the area over which the appropriate legislature operates and it is well settled that the language of the entries should be widely construed. It any entries overlap or are in direct conflict with each other, every attempt should be made to harmonise them, whether the entries belong to the same List or different Lists, so that no entry may be robbed of its entire content and made nugatory. (25). In State of Bombay vs. Narottamdas ( AIR 1951 SC 69 ), the doctrine of pith and substance was held to postulate, for its application, that the impugned law is substantially within the legislative competence of the particular Legislature that made it, but only incidentally encroached upon the legislative field of another Legislature. The doctrine saves this incidental encroachment if only the law is in pith and substance within the legislative filed of the particular Legislature which made it. (26). In Dr. Ram Pal Chaturvedi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ( 1970(1) SCC 75 ) it was held that the Collegiate Branch Rules having been made pursuant to the power conferred 6y Article 309 of the Constitution, they must be given full effect subject to the provisions of any Act made by the appropriate legislature regulating recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch). Such Act need not specifically deal with aforesaid Medical Services but it must be an Act as contemplated by Article 309 by or under which provision made regulating the recruitment and conditions of service (aking within its fold the said Medical Services. (27). In Ch. Tika Ramji & Ors. etc. vs. The State of U.P. & Ors. ( AIR 1956 SC 676 ) it was held that the repugnancy arises when the law made by the Parliament and the law made by the State Legislature occupy the same field; if both these pieces of legislation deal with separate and distinct mailers though of a cognate and allied character, repugnancy does not arise. (28). ( AIR 1956 SC 676 ) it was held that the repugnancy arises when the law made by the Parliament and the law made by the State Legislature occupy the same field; if both these pieces of legislation deal with separate and distinct mailers though of a cognate and allied character, repugnancy does not arise. (28). In Motiram vs. N.E. Frontier Railway ( AIR 1964 SC 600 ) it was observed that the general rule of interpretation which is common to statutory provisions as well as to constitutional provisions is to find out the expressed intention of the makers of the said provisions from the words of the provisions themselves. It is also equally well settled that, without doing violence to the language used, a constitutional provision shall receive a fair, liberal and progressive construction, so that its true objects might be promoted. (29). It Automobile Transport (Raj.) Ltd. vs. The State of Rajasthan (1957 RLW 456) It was observed in Para 21 that the legislative power conferred on the Parliament as well as State Legislature is subject to the provisions of the Constitution. Article 301 is one such provision and whether other parts of the Constitution are subject to Art, 301 or not, legislative power is certainly made subject to it by the opening words of Article 245. To say therefore that the State Legislature had the power to pass the legislation under Entry 56 of List II does not mean that the State Legislature can pass any law under that entry ignoring the other provisions of the Constitution. The Act cannot, therefore, be valid merely because it was within the competence of the State Legislature. Us validity will still have to be judged with respect to the other provisions of the Constitution for the legislative power conferred under Article 245 is subject to the provisions of the Constitution and is not an unfettered power which can ride roughshod over the other provisions of the Constitution. (30). In the light of the above case law, let us now examine the constitutionality of the Act and its various provisions. The Parliament had power to legislate on Entry 66 of the Union List, is not disputed. It is only the scope of Entry 66 of the Union List which is in dispute. On behalf of the Uni