JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J. The Constitutional question arising for consideration is if the Rules framed by the State Government for admission to the Bachelor of Homoeo-pathy Medicine and Surgery Course (hereinafter referred to as BHMS Course) under Entry 25 of List III to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, prescribing a maximum age limit of 25 years is ultra vires the Regulations framed by the Central Council for Homeopathy fixing a minimum age only of 17 years for admission to the BHMS Course under Entry 66, List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. 2. The Homoeopathy (Degree Course) Regulations, 1983 (hereinafter called the Regulations) have been framed with the previous sanction of the Central Government under Sections 20 and 33 of the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Central Act) under Entry 66, List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Regulation 4(b) only prescribes a maximum age of 17 years on or before 31st December of the year for which the admission is sought to the first year of the BHMS Course. 3. The State Government framed the Aayush Graduate Course Entrance Examination Rules, 2011 (hereinafter called the 'Rules) in exercise of powers under Entry 25, List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Rule 3(C) prescribed a minimum age limit of 17 years only for admission to the BHMS Course. Rule 3(C) was amended by the State Government on 11-4-2013 retaining the prescription of minimum age for admission but prescribing a maximum age of 25 years also for admission. 4. Entry 66 of List-I to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution deals with co-ordination and determination of standard in institution for higher education or research and scientific and technical institution. Entry 25 of List III to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution deals with Education, including technical education, medical education, and Universities, subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List-I. A higher secondary qualification precedes admission to the BHMS Course. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Central Act provides for the constitution of Central Council of Homoeopathy and maintenance of Central Register of Homoeopathy and for matters connected therewith. Section 20 of the Central Act empowers the Central Council to prescribe the minimum standards of education in Homoeopathy, required for granting recognized medical qualifications by the Universities, Boards or Medical Institutions. Section 20 of the Central Act empowers the Central Council to prescribe the minimum standards of education in Homoeopathy, required for granting recognized medical qualifications by the Universities, Boards or Medical Institutions. The Regulations are approved after taking into consideration the comments of any State Government. Section 33 provides for framing of Regulations by the Central Council. Regulation 33(i) deals with the courses and period of study of practical training to be undertaken, the subjects of the examination and the standards of proficiency therein to be obtained. Sub-clause (k) deals with the conduct of professional examinations, qualifications of examiners and the conditions of admissions to such examinations. The Central Act has been framed in exercise of powers under Entry 66 of List III to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. 6. Any law framed by the State Government under Entry 25 of List-III to the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution regarding admission to the BHMS Course is subject to any law in this regard under Entry 66 of List-I to the Seventh Schedule. In the event of repugnancy the Central law shall prevail subject to concurrence of the President under Article 254 of the Constitution. In support of the submission that the State legislation was ultra vires the Central Act reliance was placed on a Division Bench decision of the Orissa High Court in W. A. No. 555 of 2011 (Ashok Kumar Mishra v. State of Orissa and Ors.) decided on 14-3-2012 : ( AIR 2012 Ori 153 ) (V. Gopala Gowda, C. J. and B. N. Mahapatra, J.). 7. It was further submitted that the field with regard to age for admission to the BHMS Course is covered by Regulation 4(b) which prescribes a minimum age of 17 years only. No law can be framed under Entry 25 of List III which is in conflict with the age requirement under the Regulations. It was next submitted that the Regulations framed under the Act though a subordinate legislation has the power of a Statute as it draws its source for enactment from Section 33 of the Act. Reliance was placed on (2011) 11 SCC 702 : ( AIR 2011 SC 1974 ) (Pepsu RTC v. Mangal Singh). 8. It was next submitted that the Regulations framed under the Act though a subordinate legislation has the power of a Statute as it draws its source for enactment from Section 33 of the Act. Reliance was placed on (2011) 11 SCC 702 : ( AIR 2011 SC 1974 ) (Pepsu RTC v. Mangal Singh). 8. Reliance was further placed on the counter-affidavit of the Central Council of Homoeopathy supporting the writ petition to contend that if the Central Council has not put any restriction of maximum age for admission the State Government in the garb of Entry 25 of List-III of Seventh Schedule has no jurisdiction to further regulate the age for admission. If the Central Council has put a bar on entry below 17 only, the State Government cannot put another bar as the age of 25 as the field stands occupied. 9. There is no Government Homoeopathy College in the State of Chhattisgarh. There are three private colleges only. 50% of the seats are filled up by the State Government pursuant to an examination common for Homoeopathy, Ayurved and Unani System of Medicine referred to as 'Aayush'. The rest of 50% seats belonging to the management quota are filled by examination conducted by the Union of Private Colleges Association but under the supervision of State Government. The left over and vacant seats are then filled up on the basis of marks obtained by the candidate at 10+2 level in the manner as may be prescribed by the State Government or administrative instructions issued. 10. Reliance was further placed on (1995) 1 SCC 732 : ( AIR 1995 SC 691 ) (Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice v. Bar Council of India) to submit that prohibition of admission after the age of 25 years affects the fundamental right of a citizen to pursue a profession in Homoeopathy under Art.19 (1)(g) of the Constitution and amounts to an unreasonable restriction. Reliance was also placed on a Division Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 20966 of 2010 (Rajan Sharma v. The Bar Council of India) decided on 20-10-2011 (Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Reliance was also placed on a Division Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 20966 of 2010 (Rajan Sharma v. The Bar Council of India) decided on 20-10-2011 (Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina) to submit that fixing a maximum and minimum age for admission was creating two different classes violating Article 14 of the Constitution as the classification is irrational having no nexus with any object to be achieved. 11. It was lastly submitted that the contention of the State that a maximum age has been prescribed to facilitate short listing of candidates to make more seats available to those with lesser age is factually incorrect and a non est ground. Petitioner No. 1 has admitted 67 students and 29 students have been barred from admission on the prescription of maximum age of 25 years. Likewise 6 students have been debarred on the same ground in the Petitioner No. 2-Institution. The seats will remain vacant to the benefit of none as there are no other takers. No other State has prescribed maximum age of admission to the BHMS Course. 12. Learned Counsel for the Central Council of Homoeopathy and Union of India supported the contention of the Petitioners. 13. Learned counsel for the State raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ application. He submits that the petitioner-Institutions are not an aggrieved person. It is only a student who may have been denied admission on ground of age who shall have locus to challenge the Rules. Reliance was placed on (1977) 2 SCC 148 : ( AIR 1977 SC 876 ) (D. Nagaraj and others v. State of Karnataka and others), (2013) 4 SCC 465 : ( AIR 2013 SC 58 ) (Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.) Under Entry 25 of List-III to the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution the State has the jurisdiction to regulate and frame additional qualifications inter alia for medical education so long as there is no repugnancy with any law framed by the Central Government under Entry 66 of List-I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The Regulations framed by the Central Government and by the State operate in different fields with regard to maximum and minimum age. There is no repugnancy between the two. The Regulations framed by the Central Government and by the State operate in different fields with regard to maximum and minimum age. There is no repugnancy between the two. Reliance was placed on (1979) 3 SCC 431 : ( AIR 1979 SC 898 ) (M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India) and 1986 Suppl SCC 543 : ( AIR 1987 SC 400 ) (Dr. Ambesh Kumar v. Principal, LLRM Medical College, Meerut). Only if the State had reduced the minimum age for admission to 16 it would have been a case of direct conflict making the State amendment unconstitutional. Entry 25 of List-III to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution permits regulation of admissions. The State Government has only regulated admission by putting a cap on the maximum age. The ceiling of upper age limit is neither arbitrary nor irrational as a person who comes for admission for the course so late, much time having passed after he completed higher secondary has obliviously been vacillating regarding his career and it will be more useful for the society and the candidate to provide such seat to a young person fresh out of higher secondary with commitment and dedication to the Course. 14. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and given our anxious consideration to the issues raised. 15. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Central Act states that need for it was felt for proper growth and development of Homoeopathy Medicine as the Indian concept of medicine i.e. Ayurveda, Sidha and Unani were fundamentally different. The minimum standard for admission, duration of course of training, details of curricula and syllabi of studies of Homoeopathy and the title of the degree or diploma vary from State to State and even from institution to institution in the same State. The Homoeopathy Advisory Committee was appointed by the Government of India to recommend maintenance of uniformity. A statutory Central Council on the lines of Medical Council of India was the pre-requisite for proper growth and development of Homoeopathy. The Act was envisioned keeping in mind growth in colleges and to prevent commercialisation of education. Unregulated colleges would lead to decline in standards of education. This legislation was framed under Entry 66 of List-I of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution which provides for co-ordination and determination of standards in institution of higher education or research and scientific and technical institution. Unregulated colleges would lead to decline in standards of education. This legislation was framed under Entry 66 of List-I of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution which provides for co-ordination and determination of standards in institution of higher education or research and scientific and technical institution. The eligibility to the admission for the Homoeopathy Course is a higher secondary qualification. The BHMS Course falls in the category of higher education involving research and science. The Parliament is therefore competent to legislate on the subject. Section 12-A provides for establishment of new medical institution, new course of study etc. Section 16 of the Central Act reads as follows : '16. Power to require information as to courses of study and examinations. Every University, Board or medical institution in India which grants a recognised medical qualification shall furnish such information as the Central Council may, from time to time, require as to the courses of study and examinations to be undergone in order to obtain such qualification, as to the ages at which such courses of study and examinations are required to be undergone and such qualification is conferred and generally as to the requisites for obtaining such qualification.' (Emphasis added by us) Section 16 vests power in the Central Council to prescribe the age at which such course of study and examination is required to be undergone. It shall take within its ambit the maximum and minimum age both. The field for age prescription therefore stands fully covered. Section 19 provides for withdrawal of recognition. Section 20 of the Act vests powers in the Central Council to prescribe the minimum standards of education for granting recognized medical qualifications by Universities, Boards or Medical Institutions. It further provides that the Regulations prescribed in this regard shall take into consideration the comments of any State Government. Section 21 provides for a Central Register of Homoeopathy. Section 33 of the Act provides for framing of Regulations to carry out the purposes of the Central Act inter alia with regard to conditions of admission, the course and period of study etc. 16. The aforesaid statutory provisions makes it manifest that the Central Act and the Regulations are a complete Code by themselves for regulating all aspects of the Homoeopathy course so as to maintain uniformity at the national level. 16. The aforesaid statutory provisions makes it manifest that the Central Act and the Regulations are a complete Code by themselves for regulating all aspects of the Homoeopathy course so as to maintain uniformity at the national level. The authority for prescription of age for admission to the BHMS Course vests in the Central Council and has been prescribed in Regulation 4(b) as minimum age of 17 years only. The Regulations contain no other restriction regarding age and which thus stands covered under the field with regard to age requirement. This would include both minimum and maximum age. If the Council has prescribed the minimum age for entry and has not prescribed any maximum age, no other authority can impose restriction of another manner with regard to age for admission by putting ceiling which the Central Council has not. Any such law contrary to the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder would be in conflict to the extent that the age becomes relevant factor for admission or to deny admission. The Rules framed by the State Government in effect seek to do indirectly what cannot be done directly. Repugnancy is therefore apparent and it is not the case of the State of any subsequent Presidential assent under Article 254 of the Constitution. 17. In (2013) 2 SCC 617 (Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of U.P.) on conflict of the Central and State laws it was observed as follows : '66........... Of course, there has to be a direct conflict between the laws. The direct conflict is not necessarily to be restricted to the obedience of one resulting in disobedience of the other but even where the result of one would be in conflict with the other. It is difficult to state any one principle that would uniformly be applicable to all cases of repugnancy. It will have to be seen in the facts of each case while keeping in mind the laws which are in conflict with each other. Where the field is occupied by the Centre, subject to the exceptions stated in Article 254, the State law would be void.' 18. It is for this reason that the State Government rightly in the 2011 Rules prescribed the minimum age for admission at 17 years and did not prescribe any maximum age. Where the field is occupied by the Centre, subject to the exceptions stated in Article 254, the State law would be void.' 18. It is for this reason that the State Government rightly in the 2011 Rules prescribed the minimum age for admission at 17 years and did not prescribe any maximum age. The 213 amendment of the Rules is therefore ultra vires the powers of the State under Entry 25 of List-III of Seventh Schedule to that extent. The power of the State to legislate under Entry 25 of List-III to the Seventh Schedule contained an inherent limitation making it subservient to any law on the subject made by Central Government under Entry 66 of List-I of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. 19. The submission that prescription of a maximum age is only to regulate admissions by short-listing of candidates not interfering with the powers of the Central Council on prescription of age cannot be accepted. What the Central Council has not prohibited under Sections 16 and 20 read with the Regulations is expressly prohibited by the State amendment. Repugnancy is therefore obvious as the field regarding age prescription stands covered by the Central Act and Regulations framed under it. The submission that the prescriptions for minimum and maximum age are separate categories must be rejected. All persons seeking admission subject to eligibility form a class. There can be no sub-classification. There is no nexus with the object to be achieved by the limitation in academic matters. The same prescription for employment would be an entirely different matter. 20. The contention on behalf of the State Government that the prescription of a maximum age was designed to short-list candidates making more seats available to persons with a younger age does not meet approval of the Court. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to the life. It does not mean a simple day-to-day existence in one manner or the other. It shall take within its ambit access to education irrespective of age for enhancement of the quality of life permitting a person to achieve his or her full potential in life. Education is a continuous process for a human being and continues until the end of his life. A human being who stops to educate himself stagnates and which directly affects his right to life. Education is a continuous process for a human being and continues until the end of his life. A human being who stops to educate himself stagnates and which directly affects his right to life. To debar a person from pursuing academics on grounds of age amounts to telling him that his brain is saturated and has reached its optimum utility, he has no worth for the society and does not have the competence to grow and that enhancement by him of his quality of life by education is not the concern of the society. In other words he has become a burden on the society. Such interpretation shall be complete anathema to the ethos of the Indian Constitution. Any such action on part of the State shall also fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution as arbitrary and irrational. Education enhances the quality of life and also provides opportunities for employment and enhancement of income. Article 41 guarantees the right to education making it obligatory for the State to make effective provisions to prevent unemployment and other forms of undeserved want. Article 43 of the Constitution requires the State to endeavor a decent standard of life for its citizens. Article 47 of the Constitution requires the State to raise the standard of living of its citizens as a primary duty. In W.P. (C) No. 4686/2013 and CM No. 10715/2013 (Sunita Rani v. The Vice-Chancellor, Jamia Millia Islamia) decided on 14-8-2013, the Delhi High Court considering a challenge to denial of admission to the B.Ed. course in English on grounds of being over 40 years of age held as follows : '6. The importance of education in the life of a person hardly needs any emphasis. The education comes next only to freedom and justice, and in fact is a pre-requisite to maintain both, freedom as well as justice in its true sense. It is also said to be a great equalizer, which enables the lowly and downtrodden to come up in life and complete with those who are already well placed in life. In a course such as B.Ed. apart from benefiting a person seeking admission to the course is also likely to benefit others to whom education is imported by him/her. The attempt of the University, therefore, should be to encourage and not discourage admissions to such a course.' 21. In a course such as B.Ed. apart from benefiting a person seeking admission to the course is also likely to benefit others to whom education is imported by him/her. The attempt of the University, therefore, should be to encourage and not discourage admissions to such a course.' 21. The right to admission in an educational institution leading to a qualification which allows one to practice a vocation or profession after successful completion of the course cannot be curtailed without authority of law in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution subject to the law of reasonableness and arbitrariness. 22. The observations in Bar Council of India (supra) to that extent would be relevant. Rajan Sharma (supra) is relevant to the extent that it holds that the age prescription for admission was an irrational classification. 23. The question was similar to the present in Ashok Kumar Mishra, ( AIR 2012 Ori 153 ) (supra) in the context of admission to the MBBS Course. Relying on a minimum age for admission fixed under MCI Regulations it was held that the Medical Council of India was an expert body to control the minimum standard of medical education and its observance. A similar upper age limit of 25 years to appear at the entrance examination for the MBBS Course was struck down for lack of competence to do so in view of the minimum age 17 only prescribed by the Medical Council of India in exercise of power under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act by framing Regulations to that effect under Entry 66 of List-I of Seventh Schedule. The quotation from (1987) 4 SCC 671 : ( AIR 1987 SC 2034 ) (Osmania University Teachers Association v. State of A.P.) therein is aptly reproduced as follows : '14. Entry 25, List III relating to education including technical education, medical education and Universities has been made subject to the power of Parliament to legislate under Entries 63 to 66 of List-I. Entry 66 List-I and Entry 25 List-III should, therefore, be read together. Entry 66 gives power to Union to see that the required standard of higher education in the country is maintained. The standard of higher education including scientific and technical should not be ignored at the hands of any particular State or States. Entry 66 gives power to Union to see that the required standard of higher education in the country is maintained. The standard of higher education including scientific and technical should not be ignored at the hands of any particular State or States. Secondly, it is the exclusive responsibility of the Central Government to co-ordinate and determine the standards for higher education. That power includes the power to evaulate, harmonize and secure proper relationship to any project of national importance. It is needless to state that such a co-ordinate action in the higher education with proper standards, is of paramount importance to national progress. It is in this national interest, the legislative field in regard to education has been distributed between List I and List III of the Seventh Schedule.' 24. M. Karunanidhi ( AIR 1979 SC 898 ) (supra) relied upon by the State supports our conclusion that any prescription with regard to age for admission stands covered by the Central Act. In Dr. Ambesh Kumar ( AIR 1987 SC 400 ) (supra) the Indian Medical Council by Regulations framed under Section 33 of the Medical Council Act prescribed criteria for selection of candidate for post-graduate training on basis of merit to be judged on basis of academic record in under-graduate course. This was done under Entry 66 of List-I of Seventh Schedule. The State Government prescribed an eligibility qualification of 55 marks or 52 marks to be eligible for consideration for admission in the post-graduate degree or diploma course respectively. It was held that the State promulgation under Entry 25 of List-III of Seventh Schedule was not in conflict as it merely specified a further eligibility qualification in order to promote and further the determination of standards in institution for higher education and the State Government had only provided an additional eligibility qualification. There was no conflict or repugnancy. 25. D. Nagaraj ( AIR 1977 SC 876 ) (supra) relied upon to question the locus of the petitioners to maintain the writ application has no relevance as it related to a writ petition filed by ineligible perons for the post in question. There was no conflict or repugnancy. 25. D. Nagaraj ( AIR 1977 SC 876 ) (supra) relied upon to question the locus of the petitioners to maintain the writ application has no relevance as it related to a writ petition filed by ineligible perons for the post in question. The educational institution having been set up by petitioners after heavy investment and having obtained statutory approvals, it cannot be contended that they have no locus and must continue to maintain empty class room unable to utilize their faculty who will sit idle and be paid, and the laboratories wither away for lack of activity. Having established the institution meeting the statutory requirement they have a right, interest and duty to further the cause of Homoeopathy education. For like reasons Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan ( AIR 2013 SC 58 ) (supra) has no application as the caste certificate of the appellant therein as belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category had been questioned by respondent No. 5 who did not himself belong to that category. It again has no application to the facts of the case. 26. Rules 3(C) as amended in 2013 is therefore struck down to the extent that it fixes maximum age limit of 25 years for admission to the Homoeopathy Course, it being in excess of powers of the State Government under Entry 25 of List-III of Seventh Schedule being repugnant to the Central Act and the Regulations framed under Entry 66 of List-I to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. 27. The writ application is allowed. Petition allowed.