ORDER 1. Writ Petitions No. 16849/2005 and 16851/2005 are filed by the Rashtreeya Sikshana Samithi Trust and the Karnataka Private Post-Graduate Colleges Association and others challenging the provision of R. 5 of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Master of Business Administration and Master of Computer Application as illegal with a further writ of declaration seeking for striking down the impugned Rules, notified under Notification of Education Secretariat dated 21-5-2005 as per Annexure ‘L.’ The petitioner seeks for a declaration declaring that it is incompetent for the State Government to regulate admissions in post-graduate courses of MBA and MCA in the petitioners-institutions. They want the communication, Annexure ‘M’ to be declared as unenforceable in these petitions. 2. Facts in brief are as under : The petitioner-Institutions are unaided and self-financing educational institutions, duly approved by the authorities of AICTE. The admissions are carried on after due advertisement, calling for applications and conduct of an admission test, including interview and group discussions. The State Government has no competence to regulate any part of the ‘admissions’ to the petitioner-institutions. However, the petitioners have agreed to admit students to the balance of 50% of its total intake. Regulations of the AICTE were made in exercise of powers, under a Parliamentary enactment, which having been made under Entry 66 of List I of 7th Schedule. It is an exclusive field of legislation and the State Government or its executive does not get any power/competence or authority to regulate the Parliament expressing intention to occupy the entire field for proper co-ordination and maintenance of uniform standards throughout the country. Regulations that are sought to be enforced, violate their constitutional guarantees and are unenforceable in terms of the laws governing such admissions. The Supreme Court in a reference has heard the matter and the decision is awaited and in view of the need to commence the courses of study on schedule, they have reconciled and opted without prejudice to their rights and they have participated in conduct of a ‘Common Entrance Test’ for selection to MBA course in their Institution, being conducted by the Karnataka Private Post-Graduate College’s Association (for short the ‘Association’). Large number of students have appeared and ranks, based on assessment of academic merit, and a written test is assigned. Classes are to commence from 2nd September, 2005. Large number of students have appeared and ranks, based on assessment of academic merit, and a written test is assigned. Classes are to commence from 2nd September, 2005. The petitioners are entitled to make admission in terms of the instructions of AICTE and or the UGC which regulate and prescribe the standards, has for the current year, decided to admit the students taking note of and from out of merit list prepared under an Association’s Test. 3. All India Council for Technical Education is a Statutory body. A Trust was established under AICTE Act, 1987 as a National Expert body to advise the Central Government, for ensuring the co-ordinated development of Technical Education. The Parliament in exercise of its power under Entry 66 of List I, passed an All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987,’ which came into force on 28-3-1988. In exercise of powers conferred by Cl. (J)(O) of S. 10 read with S. 23, under the provisions of the AICTE Act, 1987, AICTE has notified All India Council for Technical Education (Norms and Guidelines for Fees and Guidelines for admission in profession colleges) Regulations, 1994. Regulation 1994 provides for norms and standards for management education and computer application. The State has enacted Karnataka Educational Institution (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984, in furtherance of its power under Entry 25 of List II. It seeks to prevent the commercialisation in the matter of imparting education. The State attempted to take over the admission process’ in its entirety. They have published the admission Rules for 2002. They were questioned before this Court in various writ petitions. Writ petitions are disposed of by this Court. AICTE has issued certain guidelines in terms of Annexure ‘J’ dated 28th October, 2003. 4. The petitioners follow a transparent selection policy for admission to post-graduate course of MBA and MCA. Most of the selections are based on their academic merits and aptitude, giving preference to local candidates for whose benefit the institutions have been established. The regulating authority of AICTE providing for selection process in particular manner; including the test of aptitude assessed under a group discussion. Group discussion is conducted by the faculty. In group discussion and personal interview a candidate’s presentation skill, communication skill, his general knowledge and the ‘exposure’ to industries is assessed and credit is given based thereon, and the selections are made. Group discussion is conducted by the faculty. In group discussion and personal interview a candidate’s presentation skill, communication skill, his general knowledge and the ‘exposure’ to industries is assessed and credit is given based thereon, and the selections are made. The State Government has now issued Selection Rules, 2005. The 5th respondent has issued further communications, directing the institutions to opt for one of the tests, mentioned therein, and further directing/guiding the ‘institutions’ as to how the admissions are to be made. The impugned notification, according to the petitioners defeat the purpose of making a right choice of student, it prohibits calling for applications from all eligible candidates. It prevents any further assessment as to the ‘aptitude of a candidate, by conduct of interviews and group discussions. It directs some kind of a ‘common counselling’ by all institutions offering management courses. These Rules are in conflict with and violate AICTE Regulations of 1994 and, the constitutionally protected rights of petitioners. The petitioners state that the Rules and the subsequent notification runs in the teeth of the right of the Private Managements and equates the institutions to once owned by the Government. The petitioners with these facts want this Court to declare the provisions of R. 5 of Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Master of Business Administration and Master of Computer Application Courses Rules, 2005 and a declaration declaring and striking down the impugned Rules, notified under Notification of Education Secretariat as per Annexure-L and further be pleased to declare that, it is incompetent for the State Government to regulate admissions in post-graduate courses of MBA and MCA in the petitioners-institutions and be pleased to declare that, petitioners are entitled to regulate admissions into their institutions in accordance with AICTE, Regulations, 1994 or such other regulations that may be made. 5. Notice was issued. Respondents have entered appearance. 6. Statement of objection is filed by the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent states that the State Government u/S. 14(1) of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capiation Fee) Act, 1984 has made the impugned Rules. With a view to ensure that admission to the professional courses is based on merits and the process for selection is transparent and fair, R. 5 has been framed. Rule is reasonable. It is in confirmity with the guidelines issued by AICTE and UGC. With a view to ensure that admission to the professional courses is based on merits and the process for selection is transparent and fair, R. 5 has been framed. Rule is reasonable. It is in confirmity with the guidelines issued by AICTE and UGC. It only prescribes the specific procedure to be adopted for selection of the candidates and supplements the general guidelines prescribed by the AICTE/UGC and the same is not in any manner adverse to the standards fixed by the AICTE/UGC. 7. The AICTE has filed a statement of objection. In the statement of objection, it is stated that the Interim Policy Regulations, which were made pursuant to the Supreme Court’s judgment in TMA Pai’s case ( AIR 2003 SC 355 ) and the guidelines for Common Entrance Test for admission to MBA/PGDBM Programs in the country for the academic year 2004-05 dated 28-10-2003 which were made pursuant to the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 14-10-2003 in Islamia Academy’s case ( AIR 2003 SC 3724 ), supersede and prevail over the AICTE (Norms and Guidelines for Fees and Guidelines for Admission in Professional Colleges) Regulations, 1994 which were made pursuant to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Unnikrishnan’s case ( AIR 1993 SC 2178 ). It is stated that the entrance test provided for under the guidelines dated 28-10-2003 will have 2 components viz., written test and group discussion/interview. 8. The State Government has chosen to file a detailed statement of objection. The State Government would say that the State Government in exercise of its power conferred under sub-section (1) of S. 14 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 framed the Admission Rules. Admission Rules are supplementary to the guidelines issued by the AICTE on 28-10-2003. The guidelines issued on 28-10-2003 shall hold good for admission for the academic year 2005-06. As per the guidelines issued by the AICTE the admission shall be made either through State level test or All India test. The admission may be made through any one of the five All India tests. All the institutions admitting students on All India basis will have to opt for any one of these All India tests. As per the guidelines issued by the AICTE the States can conduct their own common entrance tests for admission to the institutions. The admission may be made through any one of the five All India tests. All the institutions admitting students on All India basis will have to opt for any one of these All India tests. As per the guidelines issued by the AICTE the States can conduct their own common entrance tests for admission to the institutions. The State level tests shall be restricted to fill up seats only to the students of their own State. Admission Rules framed by the State Government are in accordance with the guidelines. Rule 4 contemplates ‘admission committee.’ Sub-rule (7) of R. 5 provides for admission being made strictly on the basis of inter se merit based on entrance test. The association of the institutions offering MBA and MCA course has to conduct centralised counseling for allotment of students to various institutions on the basis of the merit determined by the Common Entrance Test conducted by the association of colleges. There is no infirmity or irregularity in R. 5 of the Admission Rules. Rule 5 is in accordance with the guidelines issued by the AICTE and also the law declared by the Supreme Court. Rule 5(6) of the Rules provides that ‘no private institution shall conduct interviews or group discussions to determine merit’. The guidelines of the AICTE did not make any mention of group discussions. Since, both the Supreme Court order as well as the Regulations of AICTE state that merit can be determined only on the basis of a Common Entrance Test, there can be no scope for private institutions to assess the merit on the basis of group discussions. The State Government has the necessary power to fix the qualifications in addition to those prescribed under Entry 66 of List I. This would be consistent with promoting higher standard for admission to the higher educational course. The admission criteria fixed by the State Government does not have any adverse effect on the standard of education in the institutions of higher education. The association of colleges shall conduct the entrance test and select meritorious candidates for the study of professional courses. Unless the procedure prescribed under sub-rule (7) of Rule 5 is followed it is impossible to select meritorious candidates. They want the petition to be dismissed. 9. Matter was reserved for judgment. The association of colleges shall conduct the entrance test and select meritorious candidates for the study of professional courses. Unless the procedure prescribed under sub-rule (7) of Rule 5 is followed it is impossible to select meritorious candidates. They want the petition to be dismissed. 9. Matter was reserved for judgment. In the meanwhile, the Supreme Court pronounces the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5041/2005 (reported in AIR 2005 SC 3226 ) P. A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra explaining TMI Pai’s case. Hence, the parties are further heard in the matter. 10. Heard Sri Madhusudan R. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 11. Learned counsel argues that in the light of 1994 and 1995 Regulations, Rule providing no private interviews/group discussions in terms of R. 5 and centralised counseling in terms of R. 7 requires my interference in these petitions. His argument is that Rr. 5(6) and 5(7) are to be declared as unenforceable since they run counter to the norms fixed by AICTE. He says that the field is already occupied and, therefore, the State Government could not have imposed these two conditions in terms of his submissions. He relies on various judgments in support of his submissions. He refers to me the Regulation 94, in particular R. 8(4) to say that if read carefully, R.8(4) of 1994 Regulation, his arguments has to be accepted. He further says that a right granted to the petitioners in terms of TMA Pai’s case ( AIR 2003 SC 355 ) and Islamia Academy’s case ( AIR 2003 SC 3724 ) is diluted or negatived by these restrictions. According to him, the petitioners are respected and recognised merited institutions and such restrictions would not be in the interest of merit and merited candidates. Course offered by the petitioners, according to him are sophisticated and that therefore, the liberty and power must be available to the petitioners in the matter of providing interviews, negotiations. Centralized Counseling, according to him would not be in the interest of anybody. He says that centralized counseling would be restricting the admission process. He therefore wants to interfere in the case on hand. He further says that there are sufficient safeguards available with regard to admission by way of committee. Therefore, the learned counsel says that this Court has to come to the rescue of the petitioners. He says that centralized counseling would be restricting the admission process. He therefore wants to interfere in the case on hand. He further says that there are sufficient safeguards available with regard to admission by way of committee. Therefore, the learned counsel says that this Court has to come to the rescue of the petitioners. He says that the stand taken by AICTE and the State runs counter to the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Islamia Academy’s case ( AIR 2003 SC 3724 ). 12. Insofar as Inamdar’s case ( AIR 2005 SC 3226 ) is concerned, Sri Naik, learned counsel invites my attention once again to the observations of the Supreme Court with regard to no interference in the day to day administration insofar as minority unaided educational institution by the Government. He also says that the State cannot insist on private educational institutions which receive no aid from the State to implement State’s policy on reservation for granting admission on lesser percentage of marks, i.e., on any criterion except merit. He says that the Supreme Court has reiterated the supremacy of private institutions, in the light of no aid. Insofar as admission proceedings is concerned, the learned counsel says that the Supreme Court has accepted the entrance test being held or one group of institutions imparting same or similar education. He says that the latest judgment also supports his contention. 13. Sri Bhat, learned counsel invites my attention to say that the Inamdar’s judgment is applicable to the subsequent academic year in terms of its findings in the concluding paragraphs. Even otherwise, he would say that this Court can notice that the Supreme Court has factually accepted the centralised counseling in the said judgment. 14. Learned counsel further says that 2003 guidelines of AICTE Regulation of 1994 made prior to TMA Pai’s case ( AIR 2003 SC 355 ) and that therefore, they cannot be looked into by this Court for the purpose of decision in these cases. He says that despite 2003 guidelines, 1994 or 1999 Regulation has to be taken note of by this Court for the purpose of granting prayers. 15. He says that despite 2003 guidelines, 1994 or 1999 Regulation has to be taken note of by this Court for the purpose of granting prayers. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for AICTE would say that AICTE has re-done the Regulation in the case of TMA Pai’s case and this 1999 Regulation would supercede and prevail over the AICTE (Norms and Guidelines for Fees and Guidelines for Admission in Professional Colleges) Regulations, 1994 which were made pursuant to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Unnikrishnan’s case ( AIR 1993 SC 2178 ). He further says that the entrance test provided for under the guidelines of 2003 will have 2 components viz., written test and group discussion/interview. 16. Per contra, Sri Manohar, learned Government Advocate says that there is no conflict as such in this case. He says that AICTE has fixed a minimum standard and the State Government in its wisdom has chosen to provide some additional Regulations which would be supplementing the standard fixed by AICTE either extension or improvement in the matter. 17. Sri Bhat, learned counsel argues that 1994 Regulation cannot be looked into in terms of 2003 guidelines. 18. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material on record. 19. The petitioner is before me challenging Rule 5 of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Master of Business Administration and Master of Computer Application. The petitioner in particular is challenging R. 5(6) and R. 5(7) with regard to no private interviews/group discussion and centralised counseling in these petitions. The Rules in the case on hand is framed in exercise of powers conferred by S. 14 of the Karnataka Education Institution Capitation of Fee Act of 1994. The said Rules provides for various definitions and in addition to academic eligibility in the matter. Admission Committee is provided under R. 4 of the Rules. Rule 5 provides for allocation of Rules. There are two categories of seats namely the Government seat and management seat. Rule 5(2) says that all Government seats are reserved for Karnataka students only and seats are allotted on the basis of inter se merits as determined by the State Level Common Entrance Test to be conducted. Management seats are filled up by the Common Entrance Test specified in sub-rule (5) and sub-rule (6). Rule 5(2) says that all Government seats are reserved for Karnataka students only and seats are allotted on the basis of inter se merits as determined by the State Level Common Entrance Test to be conducted. Management seats are filled up by the Common Entrance Test specified in sub-rule (5) and sub-rule (6). Option of filling management seats is available to the institutions before issue of prospectus and intimation to the Committee and State Government. 20. Rule 5(4) provides for option for any one of the following entrance test 1) All India Entrance test 2) State Level Entrance Test 3) Common Test conducted by the association. The college has an option either to opt for State level Entrance Test or common test conducted by the association. Rule 6 specifically prohibits any private institution and any private interviews or group discussion to determine merit. 21. Rule 7 provides for common centralised counseling in the matter of allotment of students. The petitioner says that the denial of private institutions and interviews and the common centralised counseling would come in the way of right given to the petitioner-management. 22. Let me see as to whether the arguments of the petitioners is available to the petitioners in the given circumstances and in terms of the case laws as referred to by the parties. 23. In TMA Pai’s case ( AIR 2003 SC 355 ), the Supreme Court has noticed the right of a private educational institution in the matter of professional education. The petitioner has referred to me the various paragraphs. It is unnecessary to refer to all the paragraphs except to refer to certain relevant passages from the said judgment. In para 36, the Supreme Court has noticed that the private unaided educational institutions impart education, and that cannot be the reason to take away their notice in matters, inter alia, of selection of students and fixation of fees. The private institutions are right in submitting that it is not open to the Court to insist that statutory authorities should impose in terms of the scheme as a condition for grant of affiliation or recognition. This completely destroys the institutional autonomy and the very objective of establishment of the institution. 24. The private institutions are right in submitting that it is not open to the Court to insist that statutory authorities should impose in terms of the scheme as a condition for grant of affiliation or recognition. This completely destroys the institutional autonomy and the very objective of establishment of the institution. 24. In para 39, it is noticed that private educational institutions are a necessity becomes evident from the fact that the number of Government-maintained professional colleges has more or less remained stationary, while more private institutions have been established. Any system of student selection would be unreasonable if it deprives the private unaided institution of the right of rational selection, which it devised for itself, subject to the minimum qualification that may be prescribed and to some system of computing the equivalence between different kinds of qualifications, like a common entrance test. 25. The Supreme Court further noticed in paragraph 50 with regard to the right to establish and administer the education. 26. In para 58, the Supreme Court ruled that for admission to any private institution, merit must play an important role. The same is further explained by the Supreme Court in subsequent paragraphs. 27. In para 68, the Supreme Court has ruled as under : It would be unfair to apply the same rules and regulations regulating admission to both aided and unaided professional institutions. It must be borne in mind that unaided professional institutions are entitled to autonomy in their administration while, at at the same time, they do not forego or discard the principle of merit. It would, therefore, be permissible for the University or the Government, at the time of granting recognition, to require a private unaided institution to provide for merit-based selection while, at the same time, giving the management sufficient discretion in admitting students. This can be done through various methods. For instance, a certain percentage of the seats can be reserved for admission by the management out of those students who have passed the common entrance test held by itself or by the State/University and have applied to the college concerned for admission, while the rest of the seats may be filled up on the basis of counseling by the State agency. This will incidentally take care of poorer and backward sections of the society. This will incidentally take care of poorer and backward sections of the society. The prescription of percentage for this purpose has to be done by the Government according to the local needs and different percentages can be fixed for minority unaided and non-minority unaided and professional colleges. The same principles may be applied to other non-professional but unaided educational institutions viz., graduation and post-graduation non-professional colleges or institutes. 28. Islamic case ( AIR 2003 SC 3724 ) subsequently explain the TMA Pai’s case ( AIR 2003 SC 355 ). In para 7, the Court has considered the question as to whether the educational institutions are entitled to fix their own fee structure. Therefore, from paras 13 to 16, the Court has considered this question in detail and ultimately, in para 16, the Court holds that the management could select students of their quota, either on the basis of the common entrance test conducted by the State or on the basis of a common entrance test to be conducted by an association of all colleges of a particular type in that State e.g. medical, engineering or technical etc. 29. In Inamdar’s case, the Supreme Court has ruled that while considering question No. 1 that the Supreme Court did not approve the scheme evolved in Islamic Academy, to an extent it allows State to fix quota for seat sharing between management and the States on the basis of local needs of each State, in the unaided private educational institutions of both minority and non-minority categories. That part of the judgment in Islamic Academy, does not lay down the correct law. The Supreme Court has further ruled in the said judgment that merely because the resources of the State in providing professional education are limited, private educational institutions, which intend to provide better professional education, cannot be forced by the State to make admissions available on the basis of reservation policy to less meritorious candidate. Ultimately, the Supreme Court has ruled that the law as laid down in the judgment shall be given effect to from the academic year commencing after the pronouncement of this judgment. 30. From these two judgments, what is clear to this Court is that a right is given to these colleges in the matter of admission of the students to the professional course. Their right is recognised. 31. 30. From these two judgments, what is clear to this Court is that a right is given to these colleges in the matter of admission of the students to the professional course. Their right is recognised. 31. In AIR 1963 SC 703 (Gujarath University v. Sri Krishna), the Supreme Court has considered the power to legislate with respect to medium of instructions. It has also considered the extent of powers of State Legislature and Unions. 32. In 1995 (4) SCC 104 : (1995 AIR SCW 2179) (State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Edn.) the Court has considered and ruled that the matter covered by Entry 66 of List I always remain within the sphere of Parliament. The State legislation falling under Entry 25 of List III to the extent it is in conflict with Central legislation or subordinate legislation under the same entry of List III or under Entry 66 of List I, would be void. 33. In 1996 (3) SCC 15 : ( AIR 1996 SC 2384 ) (Tirumurga Kirupananda Medical Edn. v. State of T.N.), the Supreme Court has considered the repugnancy between State and Central Acts legislating on a concurrent subject. The test to determine the repugnancy is whether the Central Act expressly or impliedly intends to cover the entire field. In the event of coverage, the Central Act would prevail over the State Act. 34. In (2000) 5 SCC 231 : ( AIR 2000 SC 1614 ) (Jaya Gokul Education Trust v. Commissioner and Secretary to Government Higher Education, Department, Thiruv-anathapuram, Kerala State and others), the Supreme Court has ruled that provisions of any enactment conferring powers on State Government or University inconsistent with AICTE Act would be void. 35. In AIR 1998 SC 2423 (Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka and others), the Supreme Court has considered the admission capacity in Medical Colleges. The Court ruled that the State Government and the University cannot increase admission capacity in the light of Medical Council’s objections. 36. In the light of these judgments, what is clear to that Court is that the norm fixed by AICTE has a prime place as against the norms fixed by the State Government. It is also well settled that any norm fixed in terms of the Central legislation would prevail over the State norms in terms of the law declared by the Courts. 37. It is also well settled that any norm fixed in terms of the Central legislation would prevail over the State norms in terms of the law declared by the Courts. 37. In the case on hand, let me see as to whether the State is justified in providing no interviews by colleges and collective conciliation in terms of the Rules. The entire argument is that the AICTE has provided a group discussion/interview in terms of 1994 Regulation and that there is inconsistency in the matter. Therefore, the Rule providing no interviews and providing a common conciliation has to be reconsidered by this Court. To consider this question, this Court has to notice the submission of AICTE. AICTE has filed an affidavit in the case on hand. AICTE has stated that the subsequent Regulation of 2003 would supercede and prevail over AICTE norms and guidelines for fees and guidelines for admission in professional colleges of 1994. It is also stated that 1994 Regulations were made in the light of Unnikrishnan’s case ( AIR 1993 SC 2178 ). Subsequently, in the light of the order passed in Ambedkar Memorial Society, the AICTE has amended the Regulation. Therefore, 2003 Regulations has to prevail over earlier Regulation. In the light of a categorical stand by AICTE, the argument of Sri Naik, does not appeal to me. Sri Naik, learned counsel however says that even if 1994 Regulation is not applicable, even then, according to him 1999 Regulation would be applicable and if 1999 Regulation is taken into consideration, the learned counsel says that the denial of interviews and the denial of counciling is hit in this case. In the light of the arguments of the learned counsel, I have carefully perused the writ averments. The entire writ, in my view is based on the applicability of 1994 Regulation. There is not even iota of reference to any other Regulations. There is no specific pleading as such with regard to applicability or otherwise of 1999 Regulation. Even otherwise, 1999 Regulation would not in any way improve the situation. Learned counsel would invite my attention to entry qualification in terms of Regulation 4 and the admission process and procedure to PGPM selection process in terms of the admission process is divided into two parts, namely, written test and group discussion. 3(1) and 3(2) of admission process would read as under : 3.1. Learned counsel would invite my attention to entry qualification in terms of Regulation 4 and the admission process and procedure to PGPM selection process in terms of the admission process is divided into two parts, namely, written test and group discussion. 3(1) and 3(2) of admission process would read as under : 3.1. Written test in general should measure career aptitude, language, mastery and business awareness of the applicants. A written test should be conducted with utmost care and the whole process must be documented by a management school. All the schools should subscribe to All India Tests such as MAT (Management Aptitude Test) being conducted by Indian Institutes of Management etc. 3.2 Candidates who have been screened through the written test should be called for interview and group discussions. The purpose of the interview, in general should be to measure aptitude, subject knowledge, business awareness, communication and problem solving ability. However, these aspects are only suggestive. Interview should be made as objective as possible. There should be two to three interviewers in an interview board. 38. Learned counsel therefore says that the present Rule has to pave way for S. 3(1) and 3(2) since 3(1) and 3(2) takes birth from the Central legislation as against the State legislation. In the light of the arguments, I have carefully perused 3(1). 3(1) says that written test in general should measure career aptitude and business averments. A written test is provided in terms of S. 3(1). Insofar as S. 3(2) is concerned, it would provide for written test an interview and group discussions. In the case on hand, AICTE has clarified that in terms of 2003 Regulation, entrance test is provided and it contains written test and group discussions. Therefore, even 2002 Regulation has taken care of group discussions. 39. Let me next see as to whether Regulation 5(6) are in any way runs counter to 1999 Regulation. Regulation 5(6) provides for a restriction for a private institution in conducting interviews and group discussions to determine merit. It does not prevent from having interviews and group discussions by the association. That has to be done by the association. That would take care of the AICTE Regulation. All that 5(6) provides is that no private institution shall conduct group discussions and interviews and determine merit. It does not prevent the association from having interviews or group discussions. 40. It does not prevent from having interviews and group discussions by the association. That has to be done by the association. That would take care of the AICTE Regulation. All that 5(6) provides is that no private institution shall conduct group discussions and interviews and determine merit. It does not prevent the association from having interviews or group discussions. 40. Sri Naik, learned counsel further argues that this being a professional course, the college must have an interview or group discussion. So long as 5(6) does not run counter to Regulation, this Court cannot strike down the same as sought to be argued by Sri Naik, learned counsel. In fact, the Government in its affidavit states that Rule 5 is in consonance with the law declared by TMA Pai’s case. Therefore, the Government says that there need not be any private interview in the light of a written test conducted by the Board. This in my view would satisfy the requirement of AICTE. If the association to which the petitioner is the member, the association is at liberty to have group discussions which unnecessarily would increase the workload of all concerned. I do not find any conflict between the Karnataka Rules and AICTE Regulation. 41. Insofar as centralised counseling is concerned, it is seen that centralised counseling is not taken away as such. It provides for a centralised counseling by the association. I am unable to understand as to why the centralised counseling is opposed by the petitioner. In fact, centralised counseling is conducted by the association of petitioners and they cannot have any objection, whatsoever. They do not attribute any motive to the association. It may be that individual counseling may also be possible but so long the Rule does not in any way affect the AICTE norms, the centralised counseling cannot be objected to by the petitioner. Law is also well settled that the State Government is not powerless in such matters. The Supreme Court has ruled that the State Government can improve the standard fixed by the Central agencies. It is nothing but an improvement in the standard with a view to avoid unnecessary expenses and unnecessary wastage of time of all concern. Centralised counseling is accepted in other professional colleges. The Supreme Court has ruled that the State Government can improve the standard fixed by the Central agencies. It is nothing but an improvement in the standard with a view to avoid unnecessary expenses and unnecessary wastage of time of all concern. Centralised counseling is accepted in other professional colleges. Even though the Inamdar’s judgment would come into force in the next academic year but still this Court can notice that the Supreme Court has virtually accepted of, holding of common entrance test followed by centralised counseling does not cast any dent in the light of minority unaided educational institution to admit the students of their choice. The Supreme Court, in fact approved centralised counseling. Taking an over all view of the matter, I do not think that a case is made out for my interference in this case by the petitioners. 42. Petitions stand rejected. 43. Petition dismissed.