Judgment :- A.P. Shah, C.J. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed against the State of Tamil Nadu and the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University for the issue of a writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring G.O.Ms.No.83, Law (LS) Department, dated 14. 2007 abolishing Common Entrance Test for admission to Law Degree Course as illegal, void and unconstitutional and to command the respondents to restore the earlier system of entrance examination which has been followed from 1985 till 2006. The Bar Council of India and Tamil Nadu State Bar Council are also impleaded as parties. .2. The petitioners have filed these petitions in public interest on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated aspiring students who are willing to undertake the Law Degree. Out of four writ petitioners, three have passed Degree Course and one has passed Plus Two Examination and the writ petitioners, who have finished the graduation, have applied for 3 Year Law Degree Course whereas the fourth writ petitioner who has passed Plus Two examination has applied for 5 Year Law Degree Course. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Common Entrance Test, which has been successfully followed for the last 21 years, is arbitrarily given up for the current Academic Year and abolished. It is pointed out that even though the Common Entrance Test was abolished by the Act of State Legislature in the Tamil Nadu Admission In Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2006 (the Tamil Nadu Act 3 of 2007 for short) in respect of Medical, Dental, Engineering and Architect Courses, which was upheld by a division bench of this Court, the Law Degree was not specifically included in the said Act abolishing Common Entrance Test nor any notification notifying the Law Degree is issued under Section 2(e) of Tamil Nadu Act 3 of 2007. .3. It is submitted by the petitioners that from 1984 onwards the respondents introduced Common Entrance Test for admission to B.L. Degree Course. The entrance examination was conducted by the respondents in all the three courses, namely, B.L. (Regular Five Years); B.A., B.L. (Hons.)(Five Years); and B.L. (Regular Three Years). The scheme of admission only by entrance examination to Law Degree Course has been successfully followed for the past twenty one years. However, for this Academic Year 2007-2008, by G.O.Ms.No.83. Law (LS) Department dated 14. The scheme of admission only by entrance examination to Law Degree Course has been successfully followed for the past twenty one years. However, for this Academic Year 2007-2008, by G.O.Ms.No.83. Law (LS) Department dated 14. 2007, the entrance examination is abolished for admission to all the three types of Law Degree Course. The said G.O. further states that the criteria for admission is the percentage of marks obtained by the candidate in the qualifying examination in all subjects excluding language. The contention is that as far as 3 Year Law Degree Course is concerned, there are different faculties and different universities which conduct Degree Courses in Arts, Science and Commerce etc. The method of evaluation and the curriculum differ subject to subject, as well as University to University. There is no parity on the marks obtained in core subjects in respect of students applying for Law Degree from different Universities in different subjects, evaluated differently. There is thus inherently an under classification and by equating all degree students who apply for Law Course, who were differently evaluated from different Universities, there is an obvious discrimination in the manner of selection. It is urged that the Supreme Court has stressed the importance of conducting Common Entrance Test ever since Ravindra Kumar Rais case AIR 1998 SC 1227 to P.A. Inamdars case (2005) 6 SCC 537 . It is also contended that Clause 15 of the Information Booklet, which prescribed that in the event of "tie", the candidate will be selected on the priority of (a) date of birth and (b) lot, is also per se arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. The petitioners further contend that the normalisation procedure prescribed in para 11 of the Information Booklet is totally absurd. The normalisation adopted for other professional courses is not compatible for Law Course, as in Law, the entire Plus Two students of various streams and various subjects (Arts, Commerce, Science, Biology and Vocational) can commonly apply for the Law Degree Course. It is submitted that having regard to the fact that the students from different streams and different subjects apply for Law Course, holding of Common Entrance Test is inevitable. .5. On behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu, a counter affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Law Department. It is submitted that having regard to the fact that the students from different streams and different subjects apply for Law Course, holding of Common Entrance Test is inevitable. .5. On behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu, a counter affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Law Department. It is stated that the Government of Tamil Nadu constituted a Committee of Experts under the Chairmanship of Dr. Ananthakrishnan, a leading Educationalist in Tamil Nadu to examine all the questions and issues relating to abolition of Common Entrance Test. The Committee undertook direct interaction with the public in Chennai and Madurai and recommended to the Government to abolish the Common Entrance Test for admission into all Professional Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu. Accepting the recommendations of the Expert Committee, the Government took a policy decision to abolish the Common Entrance Test for admission into Professional Colleges and accordingly enacted the Law, namely, the Tamil Nadu Act 3 of 2007. The said Act does not cover Law Degree Courses, But on the same analogy, as regards admission to 3 Year and 5 Year B.L. Degree courses (including B.A., B.L., (Hons.)), a policy decision has been taken to admit students on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examinations and following the Rule of Reservation of the State from the Academic Year 2007-2008. Accordingly, orders have been issued in G.O. Ms. No. 83, Law (LS) Department, dated 14. 2007, setting out the method to be adopted for admission of students into 3 Year and 5 Year Law Degree Courses (including B.A.B.L., (Hons.) Degree Course). It is contended that the Rules made by the Bar Council of India do not require that admission into Law Degree Courses shall be made only on the basis of Common Entrance Test. Therefore, there is no arbitrariness in the method of selection of students in the Law Degree Courses on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination. Further, for M.B.B.S., and B.E., Degree Courses, students who have studied the relevant subjects alone are eligible, whereas in the case of Law Degree, there are no specialized subjects and students who have studied any subject can apply for Law Course. For that reason, normalisation scheme cannot be applied for admission of students into Law Degree Course. Further, for M.B.B.S., and B.E., Degree Courses, students who have studied the relevant subjects alone are eligible, whereas in the case of Law Degree, there are no specialized subjects and students who have studied any subject can apply for Law Course. For that reason, normalisation scheme cannot be applied for admission of students into Law Degree Course. It is stated that a clarification has been issued by the University that the normalization process will not be applied for the purpose of admission. It is submitted that the pattern of award of marks in various subjects cannot be countenanced as the evaluation is done based on the performance of the candidates in respective subjects. 6. The Tamil Nadu, Dr. Ambedkar Law University has filed an affidavit which is by and large on the same lines of the Government counter affidavit. 7. We have heard Mr. K.M. Vijayan, learned senior counsel and Mr. P.T. Perumal learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Mr. N. Kannadasan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State; Mr. V.M.G. Ramakkannan, learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University and Mr. K. Venkatakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the Bar Council. .8. There are six Government Law Colleges situated in the State of Tamil Nadu. There is one private Law College at Salem. The School of Excellence in law is run by the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University. There are totally eight Law Colleges in Tamil Nadu. The students of all the Government Law Colleges and 50% of the students in the Salem Law College are selected for admission by the University through Entrance Examination for the last 21 years, As per the Rules, the students who have completed Plus Two Examination in State Board, Central Board and ICS Board in any subject are eligible to apply for the B.L. (5 Year Regular Law Course). Those students who have completed any degree with minimum pass marks are eligible to apply for B.L. (3 Year Regular Law Course). The students of various courses like B.A., B.Sc., B.Com., B.C.A., B.B.A., M.B.B.S., and B .E., are eligible for admission to B.L., (3 Year Regular Law Course). The students who have undergone Degree Course through Open University System are also eligible to apply for B.L. (3 Year Law Course). Any person, who has completed 18 years of age can get a degree through Open University System. The students who have undergone Degree Course through Open University System are also eligible to apply for B.L. (3 Year Law Course). Any person, who has completed 18 years of age can get a degree through Open University System. From 1985 onwards, the State of Tamil Nadu introduced Common Entrance Test for admission to B.L. Degree Course. Common Entrance Test is conducted to test General Knowledge and Aptitude for Law. Common Entrance Test has been successfully followed for the past 21 years. The respondents are unable to give any valid reason for discontinuation of the test, except saying that by the Tamil Nadu Act 3 of 2007, the Common Entrance Test in Professional Courses mentioned in Section 2(e) is abolished by the State Government. The Ananthakrishnan Committee has submitted a report in respect of the decision of abolishing the entrance examination for M.B.B.S., and B.E., and there is no reference to the Law Course in the report of the Committee. As stated earlier, a student with any degree can apply for Law Course and, therefore, normalisation scheme is practically out of question. In fact, in the counter it is specifically stated that the normalisation scheme is not going to be applied for the Law Course. Since candidates who are eligible for joining the B.L. course are from various disciplines, holding of Common Entrance Test is mandatory to achieve a uniform evaluation before selecting the candidates for admission. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that instead of holding entrance examination, the Court may direct the State Government to provide separate quotas for Arts and Science students. We fail to appreciate how such separate quotas can be fixed. In any event, the candidates from other streams like Commerce, Computer Science. Medicine, Engineering, etc are also eligible for admission to the Law Degree Course. Therefore, fixing separate quota for any particular stream would be totally impermissible. 9. In Dr. Preen Srivastava v. State of M.P. AIR 1999 SC 2894 : (1999) 7 SCC 120 , the importance of holding Common Entrance Test was stressed by the Constitution Bench in the following words: "A common entrance examination therefore, provides a uniform criterion for judging the merit of all candidates who come from different universities. 9. In Dr. Preen Srivastava v. State of M.P. AIR 1999 SC 2894 : (1999) 7 SCC 120 , the importance of holding Common Entrance Test was stressed by the Constitution Bench in the following words: "A common entrance examination therefore, provides a uniform criterion for judging the merit of all candidates who come from different universities. Obviously as soon as one concedes that there can be differing standards of teaching and evaluation in different universities, one cannot rule out the possibility that the candidates who have passed the M.B.B.S. examination from a university which is liberal in evaluating its students, would not, necessarily, have passed, had they appeared in an examination where a more strict evaluation is made. Similarly, candidates who have obtained very high marks in the M.B.B.S. Examination where evaluation is liberal, would have got lesser marks had they appeared for the examination of a university where stricter standards were applied. Therefore, the purpose of such a common entrance examination is not merely to grade candidates for selection. The purpose is also to evaluate all candidates by a common yardstick. One must, therefore, also take into account the possibility that some of the candidates who may have passed the M.B.B.S. Examination from more generous universities may not qualify at the entrance examination where a better and uniform standard for judging all the candidates from different universities is applied. In the interest of selecting suitable candidates for specialized education, it is necessary that the common entrance examination is of a certain standard and qualifying marks are prescribed for passing that examination. This alone will balance the competing equities of having competent students for specialized education and the need to provide for some room for the backward even at the stage of specialized postgraduate education which is one step below the super specialities." 10. In Ravindra Kumar Rai v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1998 SC 1227 : (1998) 3 SCC 183 , the Supreme Court observed at para 6 as follows: "We may at the outset point out that inasmuch as there are three Boards in Maharashtra State which conduct the qualifying examination and inasmuch as there are several universities, the State of Maharashtra would clearly fall under sub-clause (2) of Regulation 5 made by the Medical Council and not under sub-clause (3). The contention for the State that candidates from CBSE Board are small in number does not appeal to us. Inasmuch as there is no dispute that more than one Board conducts the qualifying examination and the Universities are more than one in number. Sub-clause (3) of regulation 5, in our view, is not attracted. It is also not possible for the State to say that conducting a common entrance examination will delay the admission process or that it will be extremely difficult to conduct the examination. In fact the statement in the counter affidavit to the effect that the State has been conducting a common examination for 1,80,000 students at the 10 + 2 level in the 7 divisional boards would itself show that the State is capable of conducting a Common Entrance Examination for admission to medical colleges, even if the number of students is large. We may also say that in several States, Common Entrance Examination is being conducted even before 1997 when these Regulations made by the Medical Council came into force. In fact in some States, entrance examination is conducted jointly for Engineering and Medical students also. We fail to see why the State of Maharashtra should say that it will be an arduous task." 11. Earlier in Shri Chander Chinar Bada Akhara Udasin Society v. State of J & K AIR 1997 SC 399 : (1996) 5 SCC 732 , the Supreme Court observed as follows: "It need not be pointed out that the percentage of marks secured by different applicants at different type of examinations at the higher secondary stage cannot be treated as uniform. Some of such examinations are conducted at the State level, others at the national level including the Indian School Certificate Examination. The percentage secured at different examinations is bound to vary according to standard applied by such examination bodies, which is well known. As such a common entrance examination has to be held." Admittedly, the candidates eligible for admission to B.L. Degree Course are from different disciplines and have passed courses of different nature. A student who has got 60% marks in Science stream cannot be held at par with the student who has got 60% in Arts faculty. The syllabus is totally different. The examination pattern is different. The question papers and examination models are different. The students who take Science oriented subjects have practical marks. A student who has got 60% marks in Science stream cannot be held at par with the student who has got 60% in Arts faculty. The syllabus is totally different. The examination pattern is different. The question papers and examination models are different. The students who take Science oriented subjects have practical marks. But mostly Arts oriented subjects do not carry practical marks. Likewise, performance in the respective examinations is not comparable. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the decision of the respondents to abolish the Common Entrance Test is wholly arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 12. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The G.O.Ms.No.83, Law (LS) Department, dated 14. 2007 is quashed and set aside. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, i.e., the Government and the University are directed to hold the Common Entrance Test for all the three types of Law Degree Course, as was done earlier, within a period of six weeks and make admission on the basis of the results in such Common Entrance Test. Learned counsel appearing for Dr. Ambedkar Law University submitted that the University can conduct entrance examination and complete the admission process within time. He submitted that the University will issue notification for entrance examination within a period of two weeks from today and the entire admission process will be completed within four weeks thereafter. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Writ petitions allowed.