1986 (9) TMI 414 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Vice-Chancellor's actions u/s 13(6) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act.
2. Constitution and authority of the Admissions Committee.
3. Requirement for Academic Council's approval for the entrance test.
4. Validity of the resolution dated May 6, 1986, introducing an entrance test.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Vice-Chancellor's Actions u/s 13(6):
The High Court quashed the resolution dated May 6, 1986, on the ground that there was no emergency to justify the Vice-Chancellor's recourse to s. 13(6) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act. However, it was clarified that the resolution was that of the Admissions Committee and not the Vice-Chancellor, thus negating the need for invoking s. 13(6).

2. Constitution and Authority of the Admissions Committee:
The Admissions Committee was constituted by the Vice-Chancellor in 1973 due to the absence of an Executive Council, which was later approved by the Executive Council. The Committee, consisting of educationists holding ex-officio positions, had been functioning for over a dozen years without question. The argument that the Committee was not legally constituted was rejected, as the necessity for action and the failure of the competent authority to act justified the Vice-Chancellor's actions u/s 13(6).

3. Requirement for Academic Council's Approval:
The principal submission was that any proposal for an entrance examination should originate from the Academic Council and take the form of an ordinance by the Executive Council. However, it was held that s. 28(3) empowered the Admissions Committee to provide for an entrance test, subject to the superintendence of the Academic Council. The Academic Council could exercise its power by proposing an ordinance, which the Executive Council could then enact. There was no statutory requirement for the Admissions Committee to seek prior approval from the Academic Council.

4. Validity of the Resolution Dated May 6, 1986:
The resolution introducing an entrance test was attacked on several grounds, including the legality of the Admissions Committee's constitution and the necessity of Academic Council's approval. The Supreme Court held that the Admissions Committee had the authority to prescribe an entrance test and that the Academic Council could exercise its superintendence powers subsequently. The resolution was not tainted by any illegality, and the High Court's judgment was set aside. The University was directed to announce the names of the candidates selected for admission.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed. The University was directed to announce the results of the entrance test, leaving the Academic Council to take any future actions as deemed fit. No order as to costs was made.