http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: AMRIT CHAND TRIPATHI AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT02/09/1986

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) DUTT, M.M. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR   57            1986 SCR  (3) 687  1986 SCC  (4) 176        JT 1986   307  1986 SCALE  (2)371

ACT:      Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, ss. 13, 28, 52 &  67-Admission to  Degree Courses  in  Arts,  Science  & Commerce of  Allahabad University  Resolution of  Admissions Committee to  hold Entrance Test for such admission-Validity of.

HEADNOTE:      The Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act was enacted in 1973.  Section   19  designates   the  authorities   of  the University  among   whom  are  the  Executive  Council,  the Academic Council & the Admissions Committee. By s. 28(3) the Admissions Committee  is required to lay down the principles or norms  governing the  policy  of  admissions  to  various courses of  studies in  the University. Section 13(6) of the Act enables  the Vice-Chancellor  to take  such action as he may deem  fit if any matter is of an urgent nature requiring immediate action and the same cannot easily be dealt with by an officer  or authority  or other  Body of  the  University empowered by or under the Act to deal with it.      For some  time after the enactment of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities  Act most  of the  University Bodies were not constituted  though an Administrative Committee had been appointed by  the Government.  As  there  was  no  Executive Council and  since it  was not possible to call a meeting of the Administrative  Committee, the  Vice- Chancellor  in the year 1973  proceeded to  act under  s. 13(6)  of the  Act to constitute an  Admissions Committee  consisting of the Vice- Chancellor, all  the Heads  of the  Departments,  the  Dean, students welfare, the University Proctor and the Registrar.      The Admissions  Committee at its meeting held on May 6, 1986 resolved to introduce an Entrance Test for admission to the Degree courses in Arts, Science and Commerce and adopted a  detailed   scheme  for  that  purpose.  Pursyant  to  the Resolution of the Admissions Committee, an entrance test was held and  the results  were tabulated but not yet published. Meanwhile the respondents-students filed a writ petition 688 in the  High  Court  challenging  the  introduction  of  the Entrance Test  on the  ground that  the aforesaid Resolution had no  authority  in  law.  l  he  High  Court  upheld  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

contention of the respondents and quashed the Resolution.      Allowing the appeal by the appellant-University, ^      HELD: 1.1  The resolution  of the  Admissions Committee dated May  6, 1986  is not  tainted by  any illegality.  The resolution was  that of  the Admissions  Committee,  whether properly constituted  or not,  and not  that  of  the  Vice- Chancellor and  there was,  therefore, no  question  of  the Vice-Chancellor taking  recourse to  the  provisions  of  s. 13(6) of  the Act. Therefore, the judgment of the High Court is set  aside and  the University  is directed  to forthwith announce the  names of the candidates selected for admission to the  various courses. However, it is open to the Academic Council to take such action as it may think fit in regard to the future years. [696F-G]      1.2  The   very  order   constituting  the   Admissions Committee re  cites that  it bad  become necessary  for  the Vice-Chancellor to  have re course to section 13(6) as there was no  Executive Council  in existence  and as  It was  not possible to  call the  Administrative Committee.  Those were good enough  reasons for  the action  of the Vice-Chancellor and no  one can be permitted to question the constitution of the Admissions  Committee at  this stage after the Committee as constituted in 1973 had been functioning for over a dozen years. Since  notice of  the meeting  was given  to all  the members and if some of them, for their own reasons refrained from attending  the meeting,  their failure  to  attend  the meeting  cannot   invalidate  the   deliberations   of   the Committee. [693G-H;694A;F]      2.1  Section   28(4)  of  the  Act  which  enables  the Admissions Committee  to  issue  directions  to  constituent colleges, affiliated or associated colleges in the matter of criteria or  methods of  admission also  indicates that  the principles or  norms governing  the policy  of admission  to various  courses   of  studies   in  the   University   must necessarily include  the criteria  or methods  of admission. The expression "the principles or norms governing the policy of admission to various courses of studies in the Universty" in s. 28(3) should not be interpreted in so narrow a fashion as  to  exclude  the  prescription  of  an  Enterance  Test. Therefore, it  empowers the  Admissions Committee to provide for an enterance test for admission to the University degree courses. [695B-B]      2.2 There  is no  conflict between  section 28  and the other sections nor 689 are there  dual authorities  under the  Act. Sections 45, 51 and 52  of the A Act have to be construed harmoniously so as to  eliminate   any  conflict   and  without  rendering  any provision of  the Act  or any  authority created by the Act, superfluous. The  scheme of  the Act in regard to admissions to the  degree courses of the University, therefore, appears to be  like this;  the Admissions  Committee prescribes  the principles or norms governing the policy of admission to the various  courses   of  study.   This  is   subject  to   the superintendance  of   the  Academic  Council.  The  Academic Council may  exercise its  powers of  superintendence, among other ways,  by proposing  an ordinance  which may  have the effect  of   reversing  or   modifying  the  action  of  the Admissions Committee.  Thereafter the  Executive Council may make an  ordinance if it so thinks fit. Once an ordinance is made, it will not naturally be open to any of the University bodies, including  the Admissions  Committee to act contrary to it. This appears to be the scheme of the Act in so far as it relates  to admissions.  It follows  that the  Admissions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

Committee has  the power  to prescribe an Entrance Test. The Academic Council  has the power to over-rule the decision of the  Admissions  Committee  in  exercise  of  its  power  of superintendance. The  Executive Council as such has no power to over-  rule the  decision  of  the  Admissions  Committee except by  making an  ordinance on  a proposal  made by  the Academic Council. [695D-H: 696A-D]      3. There  is no  statutory requirement  that any action taken by  the Admissions  Committee under s. 28 is not to be effected until  the Academic  Council is  provided  with  an opportunity to  exercise its  power of superintendance is up to  the   Academic  Council   to  exercise   its  power   of superintendanee. If  as is  clauied the Vice-Chancellor does not take  the initiative  to call  a meeting of the Academic Council, the  members of  the Academic  Council desiring  to call a  meeting of  the Academic  Council are  free to  take recourse to  the provisions  of the  Act, the ordinances and the statutes to requisition a meeting. [696E-F] F

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2987 of 1986      From the  Judgment and  order dated  31.7.1986  of  the Allahabad High  Court in  C. Misc.  Writ Petn.  No. 83 l0 of 1986. G      Shanti Bhushan.  S.P. Gupta.  H.K. Puri and Sunil Gupta for the Appellants.      B.D. Agarwala,  M. Mudgal  and Sunil  Ambwani  for  the Respondents. H 690      V.M. Tarkundeand R.B. Mehrotraforthe Intervencr.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. Special Leave granted.      This appeal  by special  leave is  directed  against  a judgment of  the Allahabad  High Court quashing a resolution dated May  6, 1986  by which  it was  proposed  to  hold  an Entrance Test  for admission  to the Degree Courses in Arts, Science and  Commerce of  the Allahabad University, while at the same  time recording  a finding  that ’the entrance test for admission  to Degree  Courses of  Arts, Science and Com- merce  of   the  University   cannot  be   characterised  as arbitrary, illegal orirrational in view of the fact that the standard of  students passing  Intermediate  Examination  or equivalent  examinations  thereto  is  deteriorating  now-a- days.’ The  principal ground  on which the High Court struck down the  resolution was  that there  was  no  emergency  to justify  the   Vice-Chancellor  having   recourse   to   the provisions  of   s.13(6)  of   the   Uttar   Pradesh   State Universities Act for the action taken by him; the legitimate thing to  do was  to constitute  an Admissions  Committee as contemplated by  s. 28 of the Act to consider the matter and to give an opportunity to the Academic Council to approve or disapprove the  new policy.  It is  now practically conceded that the  resolution dated  May 6,  1986  was  that  of  the Admissions Committee,  whether properly  constituted or not, and  not   that  of  the  Vice  -Chancellor  and  there  was therefore,  no   question  of   the  Vice-Chancellor  taking recourse to  the provisions  of s. 13(6) of the Act. However Shri Srivastava,  learned Counsel for the Student Federation of India  and Shri Tarkunde, learned Counsel for some of the members of  the Academic Council supported the conclusion of the High.Court  on several  grounds which we shall presently consider.  Shri  Shanti  Bhushan  and  Shri  Gupta,  learned

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

Counsel for the University assailed the judgment of the High Court.      We may  now state  a  few  relevant  facts.  The  Uttar Pradesh State  Universities Act was enacted in 1973. Section 12 of  the Act  prescribes the  mode of  appointment and the conditions of  service  of  the  ViceChancellor  and  s.  13 prescribes his  powers and  duties.  In  particular  s.13(6) enables the  Vice-Chancellor to  take such  action as he may deem fit  if any  matter is  of an  urgent nature  requiring immediate action  and the  same cannot  immediately be dealt with by  any officer  or authority  or  other  body  of  the University empowered by or under the Act to deal                           MANOHAR 691 with  it.  The  Vice-Chancellor,  however,  is  required  to forthwith report A the action taken by him to the Chancellor and also  to the  officer, authority or other body who would have dealt  with the  matter in the ordinary course, Section 19 designates  the authorities  of the University among whom are the  Executive Council,  the Academic  Council  and  the Admissions  Committee.   Section   20   provides   for   the constitution  of   the  Executive  Council  and  section  21 prescribes the  powers and  duties of the Executive Council. Section 21(1)(iii)  enables the  Executive Council  to make, amend or repeal Statutes and ordinances. Section 25 provides for the  constitution and  the  powers  and  duties  of  the Academic Council,  who is  to be the principal academic body of the  University. It  is expressly  provided that it shall have  the   control  and   general  regulation  of,  and  be responsible for  the maintenance of standard of instruction, education  and  research  carried  on  or  imparted  in  the University and  that it  may advise the Executive Council on all  academic   matters  including   matters   relating   to examinations  conducted   by  the   University.  Section  28 provides for  the constitution  of the  Admissions Committee and  its   powers  and   duties.  The  Constitution  of  the Admissions Committee is to be such as may be provided for in the  ordinances.  Subject  to  the  Superintendence  of  the Academic Council, the Admissions Committee is required by s. 28(3) "to  lay down  the principles  or norms  governing the policy of  admission to  various courses  of studies  in the University". Section  28(4) also  enables the  Committee  to issue  directions   "as  respects  criteria  or  methods  of admission (including  the number of students to be admitted) to constituent  colleges maintained  by the State Government and affiliated  or associated  colleges" and prescribes that such directions  shall be  binding on such colleges. Sec. 45 deals with ’admission of students’ and prescribes           "No students  shall be  eligible for  admission to           the course of study for a degree unless-           (a) he has passed-                (i) the Intermediate Examination of the Board                of High  School and  Intermediate  Education,                Uttar Pradesh,  or of any University or Board                incorporated by any law for the time being in                force; or                (ii) any examination, or any degree conferred                by any other University, being an examination                or degree rec- 692                ognized by  the University  as equivalent  to                the Inter  mediate Examination or to a degree                of the University; and           (b) he  possesses such  further qualifications, if           any, as may R be specified in the ordinances:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

              Provided that the University may prescribe by                ordinance  any   lower   qualifications   for                admission to a degree in Fine Arts." Section 51(2)  stipulates that  an ordinance  shall  provide for, among  other things,  ’the admission of students of the University and  their enrolment  and continuance  as  such’. Section 52  enables the Executive Council to make, from time to time, ’new or additional ordinances’ or ’amend or repeal’ the first ordinances of existing Universities. Proviso(a) to sec. 52(2) prescribes that no ordinance shall be made.           "affecting   the   admission   of   students,   or           prescribing  examinations   to  be  recognized  as           equivalent to  the University  examinations or the           further qualifications mentioned in sub-section(1)           of section  45 for admission to the degree courses           of the  University, unless a draft of the same has           been proposed by the Academic Council." Section 72(1)  requires the  authorities of the Universities to be  constituted as  soon as may be after the commencement of the  Act and  prescribes that every person holding office as  member   of  such   authority  immediately   before  the commencement of the Act shall cease to be such member on the commencement of  the Act.  Section 72(2)  enables the  State Government to  direct who  may discharge what powers, duties and functions  under the  Act until  the Constitution of new authorities.      For sometime  after the  enactment of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities  Act most  of the  University Bodies were not constituted  though an Administrative Committee had been appointed by  the Government  under s.  67 of  the ordinance which preceded  the Act.  As there  was no Executive Council and since,  it was  not possible  to call  a meeting  of the Administrative Committee,  the Vice-Chancellor  proceeded to act under  s. 13(6)  of the  Act to constitute an Admissions Committee consisting  of the  Vice-Chancellor, all the Heads of the 693 Departments, the  Dean,  Students  Welfare,  the  University Proctor and A the Registrar. This was done on July 12, 1973. Sometime thereafter,  the Executive  Council was constituted and  on  September  3,  1973  the  Executive  Council  by  a resolution approved  the action  of the  Vice-Chancellor  in constituting an Admissions Committee consisting of the Vice- Chancellor.  the   Pro-Vice-Chancellor.  the  Deans  of  the faculties of  Arts, Science, Commerce and Law, all the Heads of Departments  the Dean,  Student Welfare,  the  University Proctor and  the Registrar. It will be seen that the Members of the  Admissions Committee  are all educationists who hold their membership  Ex-officio. The Admissions Committee which was constituted  in 1973  has been  functioning ever  since, without question.      The Admissions  Committee at its meeting held on May 6, 1986 resolved to introduce an Entrance Test for admission to the degree courses in Arts, Science and Commerce and adopted a detailed  scheme  for  that  purpose.  We  are  told  that pursuant to  the Resolution  of the  Admission Committee, an entrance test  has been  held  and  the  results  have  been tabulated but  not  yet  published.  Meanwhile  the  Student Federation of  India and some students filed a writ petition challenging the  introduction of  the Entrance  Test on  the ground  that  the  Resolution  dated  May  6,  1986  had  no authority in  law. The  High Court  held that the Resolution was without  authority of  law and  therefore,  quashed  the same.      As already  mentioned by  us at  the outset the primary

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

ground on which the Resolution was quashed by the High Court was that there was no emergency such as that contemplated by s.  13(6)   to  justify   the  Vice-Chancellor  passing  the Resolution dated  May 6,  1986. We  have already pointed out that the  Resolution dated  May 6,  1986  was  that  of  the Admissions Committee  and not  that of  the Vice-Chancellor. However, the  Resolution has  been attacked on several other grounds which we shall now proceed to consider      It was  argued that  the Admissions  Committee was  not legally constituted  as there  was no emergency such as that contemplated by  s. 13(6)  to enable  the Vice-Chancellor to constitute  the   Admissions  Committee.   The  very   order constituting the  Admissions Committee  recites that  it had become necessary for the Vice-Chancellor to have recourse to s. 13(6)  as there was no Executive Council in existence and as it was not possible to call the Administrative Committee. Those were  good enough  reasons for the action of the Vice- Chancellor and 694 we do not think that anyone can be permitted to question the Constitution of the Admissions Committee at this stage after the Committee  as constituted  in 1973  had been functioning for over  a dozen  years. It  was next argued that the Vice- Chancellor was  competent to  invoke the power under section 13(6) if an authority of the University was in existence but was unable to discharge its duties but not if such authority was not  m existence  at all. It was said that the existence of  the   authority  and  its  inability  to  act  were  the conditions precedent  to action by the Vice-Chancellor under s. 13(6).  This  argument  has  only  to  be  stated  to  be rejected. Under  s. 13(6)  the condition  precedent  to  the Vice-Chancellor’s action is the necessity for action and the failure to  take such  action by  the authority competent to take action.  It does  not mean  that if the failure to take action is  the result of the non-existence of the authority, the  Vice-Chancellor  cannot  have  recourse  to  s.  13(6). Another submission  was that  the Admissions Committee which took  the   present  decision  was  not  the  same  as  that constituted originally. This argument was sought to be spelt out from  the circumstance that notice of the meeting of the Admissions Committee  was given  to several persons who were not members  of the Committee as originally constituted. The circumstance that  many others were invited to be present at the meeting  does not mean that they were invited as members of the  Admissions Committee.  They do not become members of the Admissions  Committee by  the mere fact of being invited to attend  a meeting  of the  Committee. They appear to have been invited  to assist  the Committee in its deliberations. It was  suggested that  they were invited to provide support to the  Vice-Chancellor in  large numbers.  We do not attach any importance  to this  suggestion. It  was also  commented that only  six members  of the Admissions Committee attended the meeting  on May  6, 1986  and that  all the  others  who attended the  meeting were  not members.  But notice  of the meeting was  given to  all the  members and if some of them, for their own reasons, refrained from attending the meeting, their failure  to attend  the meeting  cannot invalidate the deliberations of the Committee.      The principal  submission on  behalf of the respondents was  that  any  proposal  for  entrance  examination  should originate from  the Academic Council and thereafter take the form of an ordinance by the Executive Council. It was argued that this was the net effect of s. 45(1)(b), s. 51(2)(a) and proviso(a) to  s. 52(3).  It was  said that  s. 28  did  not enable the  Admissions Committee  to prescribe  any Entrance

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

Test for  admission to  the degree courses. We are unable to agree with  the submissions  of the  learned counsel for the respondents. We do not 695 see why  the expression  "the principles  or norms governing the Policy of admission to various courses of studies in the University" should  be interpreted in so narrow a fashion as to exclude the prescription of an Entrance Test. Sub-section 4 of  s.  28  enables  the  Admissions  Committee  to  issue directions regarding  ’the criteria or methods of admissions (including  the  number  of  students  to  be  admitted)  to constituent colleges  maintained by the State Government and affiliated or  associated colleges.’  This  provision  which enables the  Admissions Committee  to  issue  directions  to constituent colleges,  affiliated or  associated colleges in the  matter   of  criteria  or  methods  of  admission  also indicates that  the principles or norms governing the policy of admission to various courses of studies in the University must  necessarily   include  the   criteria  or  methods  of admission. We  are of  the view that sec. 28(3) empowers the Admissions Committee  to provide  for an  entrance test  for admission to the University degree courses. It was suggested that such  an interpretation would bring it in conflict with secs. 45,  51 and  52 of  the Act  and that  there  will  be duality of  authority in  the matter of regulating admission to University  degree courses.  As we  shall presently point out there  is no  conflict between  sec. 28  and  the  other sections nor are there dual authorities under the Act. These provisions have  to  be  construed  harmoniously  so  as  to eliminate any  conflict and  without rendering any provision of the Act or any authority created by the Act, superfluous. Sec. 45(1)  lays down the rules of eligibility for admission to  a   course  of  study  in  the  university.  Clause  (a) prescribes the  passing of  the Intermediate  or  equivalent examination or  a  degree  of  a  university  as  the  basic qualification for  admission  and  clause  (b)  enables  the prescription of further qualifications by ordinance. Section 51(2)(a) authorises  the making of ordinances to provide for "the admission  of students  to  the  university  and  their enrolment and  continuance as  such". But any ordinance that may be  made for  the purpose  of sec.  45(1)(b) or for that matter any  ordinance affecting  the admission  of  students shall not  be made  unless the  draft of  the same  has been proposed by  the Academic  Council. It is so provided by the proviso to sec. 52(3). What must be noticed here is that the Executive  Council,  of  its  own  motion,  cannot  make  an ordinance  affecting   the  admission  of  students  to  the university. It  can only  be done  at the  instance  of  the academic council  by its proposal. We have already seen that under sec.  28(3), the  Academic Council  has the  power  of superintendence over  the power  of the Admissions Committee to lay  down the principles or norms governing the policy of admission to various courses of study in the University. The scheme of  the Act  in regard  to admissions  to the  degree courses of the university, therefore, 696 appears to be like this: The Admissions Committee prescribes the principles or norms governing the policy of admission to the various  courses  of  study.  This  is  subject  to  the superintendence  of   the  Academic  Council.  The  Academic Council may  exercise its  powers of  superintendence, among other ways,  by proposing  an ordinance  which may  have the effect  of   reversing  or   modifying  the  action  of  the Admissions Committee.  Thereafter the  Executive Council may make an  ordinance if it so thinks fit. Once an ordinance is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

made, it will not naturally be open to any of the university bodies, including  the Admissions  Committee to act contrary to it. This appears to be the scheme of the Act in so far as it relates  to admissions.  It follows  that the  Admissions Committee has  the power  to prescribe an Entrance Test. The Academic Council  has the  power to overrule the decision of the  Admissions  Committee  in  exercise  of  its  power  of superintendence. The  Executive Council such as has no power to overrule  the decision of the Admissions Committee except by making  an ordinance  on a  proposal made by the Academic Council. The  learned counsel  for the respondents submitted that the scheme for the proposed entrance test ought to have been brought before the Academic Council so as to enable the Academic Council to exercise its power of superintendence by approving or  disapproving the  scheme. We do not think that there is  any statutory requirement that any action taken by the Admissions Committee under sec. 28 is not to be effected until the  Academic Council  is provided with an opportunity to exercise  its power  of superintendence.  It is up to the Academic Council  to exercise  its power of superintendence. If as  is claimed  the Vice-Chancellor  does  not  take  the initiative to  call a  meeting of  the Academic Council, the members of  the Academic  Council desiring to call a meeting of the  Academic Council  are free  to take  recourse to the provisions of  the Act,  the ordinances  and the Statutes to requisition a  meeting. We  are, therefore,  unable to  hold that the Resolution of the Admissions Committee dated May 6, 1986 is tainted by any illegality. We set aside the judgment of the  High Court,  dismiss the  writ petition filed in the High Court,  and further  direct the University to forthwith announce the  names of the candidates selected for admission to the  various courses.  We leave  it upon  to the Academic Council to take such action as it may think fit in regard to the future  years.  We  do  not  also  express  any  opinion regarding the soundness of the scheme of the Entrance Test. There will be no order as tn costs. M.L.A.                                       Appeal allowed. 697