9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Counsel for the University assailed the judgment of the High Court. We may now state a few relevant facts. The Uttar Pra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 recognized 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: 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. af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing, 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 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tee 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 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 A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
