Civil Appeal No 2987 of 1986 From the Judgment and order dated 3171986 of the Allahabad High Court in C Misc
Writ Petn
No 83 l0 of 1986
G Shanti Bhushan
SP Gupta
HK Puri and Sunil Gupta for the Appellants
BD Agarwala M Mudgal and Sunil Ambwani for the Respondents
H 690 VM Tarkundeand RB 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 s136 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 section 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 section 136 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 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 section 13 prescribes his powers and duties
In particular s136 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 211iii 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 section 283 to lay down the principles or norms governing the policy of admission to various courses of studies in the University
Section 284 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
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 Provided that the University may prescribe by ordinance any lower qualifications for admission to a degree in Fine articles Section 512 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
Provisoa to sec
522 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 section1 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 721 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 722 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 section 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 section 136 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 ground on which the Resolution was quashed by the High Court was that there was no emergency such as that contemplated by section 136 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 section 136 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 section 136 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 136 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 section 136
This argument has only to be stated to be rejected
Under section 136 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 section 136
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 section 451b section 512a and provisoa to section 523
It was said that section 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 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 section 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
283 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
451 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 512a 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
451b 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
523
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
283 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 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
MLA Appeal allowed


Summary:
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 section 283 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 136 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 section 136 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 contention of the respondents and quashed the Resolution
Allowing the appeal by the appellant University  HELD 11 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 section 136 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 12 The very order constituting the Admissions Committee re cites that it bad become necessary for the Vice Chancellor to have re course to section 136 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 H694AF 21 Section 284 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 section 283 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 22 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 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 section 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