Holding

The Admissions Committee’s resolution to introduce an entrance test is valid and not tainted by any illegality; the High Court’s order is set aside.

Summary

The Allahabad University, through its Admissions Committee, resolved on 6 May 1986 to introduce an entrance test for admission to its degree courses in Arts, Science and Commerce. The resolution was challenged in the Allahabad High Court on the ground that the Committee lacked authority and that the Vice‑Chancellor had not acted under an emergency provision of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. The Supreme Court held that the Admissions Committee was validly constituted under s.13(6) of the Act, that its resolution was not an act of the Vice‑Chancellor, and that s.28(3) and s.28(4) empower the Committee to prescribe criteria or methods of admission, including an entrance test. The Court found no conflict between the provisions governing admissions and held that the High Court’s quashing of the resolution was erroneous. Consequently, the University was directed to announce the selected candidates, while the Academic Council retained its supervisory role for future years.

Issues considered

The validity of the Admissions Committee’s resolution to hold an entrance test under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973.
Whether the Vice‑Chancellor could validly constitute the Admissions Committee under s.13(6) in the absence of an Executive Council.
Whether the Admissions Committee has authority under s.28(3) and s.28(4) to prescribe an entrance test without prior approval of the Academic Council.
Whether sections 28, 45, 51 and 52 of the Act create a conflict of authority in admission matters.
The correctness of the High Court’s order quashing the resolution.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973s. 13(6), s. 19, s. 20, s. 21(1)(iii), s. 25, s. 28(3), s. 28(4), s. 45, s. 51(2), s. 52(2), s. 52(3), s. 72(1), s. 72(2)

Subjects

university admissionsentrance teststatutory interpretationAdmissions CommitteeVice‑Chancellor emergency powerssection 28section 13(6)academic council superintendencevalidity of resolution

Judgment

A

UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD AND ORS.
v.
AMRIT CHAND TRIPATHI AND ORS.
B
SEPTEMBER 2, 1986

IO. CHINNAPPf. REDDY AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.]

Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, ss. I3, 28, 52 & 67-
Admission to Degree Courses in Arts, Science & Commerce of
Allahabad University-Resolution of Admissions Committee to hold
c
Entrance Test for such admissio~-Validity of:

The Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act was enacted in 197 3.
Section 19 designates the authorities of the University among whom are
the Executive Council, the Academic Council & the Admissions Com- D
mittee. By s. 28(3) the Admissio~s Committee is reqnired 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 tit 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 E'
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 Gov-
ernment. As there was no Executive Council and since it was not possi- F
hie 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 Uni-
versity Proctor and the Registrar.
G
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. Pursuant to the Resolution of the Admissions Com-
mittee, an entrance test was held and the results were tabulated but not
yet published. Meanwhile the respondents-students tiled a writ petition H

6K7
688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 3 S.C.R.

A In the High Court challenging the introduction of the Entrance Test l>n
the ground that the aforesaid Resolution had no authority in law. The
High Court upheld the contention of the respondents and quashed the
Resolution.

Allowing the appeal hy the appellant-University,
B
HELD: 1.1 The resolution of the Admissions Committee dated
May 6, 1986 Is not tainted hy 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
c Act. Therefore, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the
University Is directed to forthwith announce the names of the candi- ?
dates 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]

D 1.2 The very order constituting the Admissions Committee re-
cites that it had 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 Admissiilns
E 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.
relrained from attending the meeting, their failure to attend the meeting
cannot invalidate the deliberations ol the Committee. [693G-H; 6'i4A; •·1

F 2.1 Section 28(4) of the Act which enables the Admissions Com-
J
mittee 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 vari-
ons courses of studies in the University must necessarily include the
criteria or methods of admission. The expr-ession "the principles or
G normS governing the policy of admission to various courses of studies in
the University" in s. 28(3) should not be interpreted in so narrow a
fashion as to exciude 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. l695B-B I

H 2.2 There is no conflict between section 28 and the other sections nor
UNIV. OF ALLAHABAD v. A.C. TRIPATHI 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 gov-
erning the policy of_admission to the various courses of study. This is B
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 Ex-
ecutive Council may make an Ordinance if it, so thinks fit. Once an
ordinance is made, it will not naturally be opefi to any of the University c
bodies, including the Admissions Committee to act contrary to it. This
appears to be the scl1eme 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- D
rule the decision of the Admissions Committee except by making an
ordinance on a proposal made by the Academic Council. l6~5D-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 E
of superintendance is upto the Academic Council'to exercise its power

- of superintendance. 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 staiutes to requisition a meeting. [696E-F] F

~ 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 Pein, No. 8310 of 1986. G

Shanti Bhushan. S.P. Gupta. H.K. Puri and Sunil Gupta for the
_,1. Appellants.

B.D. Agarwala, M. Mudgal and Sunil Ambwani for the
Respondents. H
690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19861 3 S.C.R.

A V. M. Tarkunde and R. B. Mehrotra for thc·lntervcncr.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. Special Leave granted.
B
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 entr-
ance test for admission to Degree Courses of Arts, Science and Com-
c merce of the University cannot be characterised as arbitrary-, illegal or
irrational in view of the fact that the standard of stud en ts passing
Intermediate Examination or equivalent examinations thereto is de-
>-
teriorating 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.
D
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,
E
whether properly constituted or not, and not that of the Vice-
Chancellor and there was therefore, no question of the Vice-Chan-
cellor taking recourse to the provisions of s. 13(6) of th_e 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
F
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
G the mode of appointment and the conditions of service of the Vice-
Chancellor 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
H
' . UNN.OF ALLAHABAD v. A.c. TRIPATHI [REDDY. J.i 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 B
the Executive Council and section 21 prescribes the powers and duties
of the Execiitive 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 c
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 conduc-
ted by the University. Section 28 provides for the· constitution of the
Admissions Committee and its powers and duties. The Constitution of
D
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 ad-
E
mission (including the number of students -to be admitted) to cons-
tituent colleges maintained by the State Government and affiliated or
associated colleges" and prescribes that such directions shall be bind-
ing on such colleges. Sec. 45 deals with 'admission of students' and
prescribes
F
"No students shall be eligible for admission to the course of
study for a degree unle'ss-

(a) he has passed-

(i) the Intermediate Examination of the Board of High
G'
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- H
692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 3 S.C.R.

A 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
B be specified in the Ordinances:

_Provided that the University may prescribe by Ordi-
~
nance any lower qualifications for admission to a degree in
Fine Arts."

Section 51(2) stipulates that an Ordinance shall provide for, among '
}
c 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. Pro-
viso(a) to sec. 52(2) prescribes that no Ordinance shall be made.
r
D
"affecting the admission of students, or prescribing exami-
nations to be recognized as equivalent to the University
examinations or the further qualifications mentioned in
sub-section(l) 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." -4
E
Section '72(1) requires the authorities of the Universities to be con-
stituted as soon as may be ~fter the commencement of the Act and
,
prescribes that every person holding office as member of such au tho-
rity immediately before the commencement of the Act shall cease to be
~
such member on the comniencement of the Act. Section 72(2) enables
F
the State Government to direct who may discharge what powers,
duties and functions under the Act until the Constitution of new lr
authorities.

For sometime after the enactment of the Uttar Pradesh State
Universities Act most of the University Bodies were not constituted
G though an Administrative Committee had been appointed by the Gov-
ernment 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 pro-
ceeded to act under s. 13(6) of the Act to constitute an Admissions
Committee consisting of the Vice-Chancellor, all the Heads of the
H
UNIV. OF ALLAHABAD v. A.C. TRIPATHI [REDDY. J.J 693

, Departments, the Dean, Students Welfare, the University Proctor and A
J• ..... 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 B
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, wi\houtquestion.
•
The Admissions Committee at its meeting held on May 6, 1986
c
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
D
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 there-
'
·-.- fore, quashed the same.
E
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
j Vice-Chancellor passing the Resolution dated May 6, 1986. We have
already pointed out that the Resolution dated May 6, 1986 was that of
F
(
the Admissions Committee and not that of the Vice-Chancellor. How-
ever, 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 bys.·
G
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 H
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 3 S.C.R.

A we do not think that anyone can be permitted to question the Constitu-
~
~1 tion 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 author-
B
ity was not in existence at all. It was said that the existence of the
authority and its inability to act were the conditions precedent to ac-
lion 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

c
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).
I -

Another submission was that the Admissions Committee which took
the present decision was noMhe same as that constit.uted originally.
This argument was sought to be spelt out from the circumstance that
r-
notice of the meeting of the Admissions Committee was given to
D
serveral 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 mem-
hers 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
E assist the Committee in its deliberations. It was suggested that they
were invited to provide support to the Vice-Chancellor in large num-
hers. 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 ·--\.
F 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
G 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 thats. 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
H
."

UNN. OF ALLAHABAD v. A.C. TRIPATHI [REDDY . .1 I 695

see why the expression "the principles or norms governing the Policy A
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 Commit-
tee to issue directions regarding 'the criteria or methods of admissions
(including the number of students to be admitted) to constituent col- B
leges 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
principfos 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) c
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, 51and52
of the Act and that there will be duality of authority in the matter of
regulating admission to University degree courses. As we shall pre-
D
sently point out there is no conflict between sec. 28 and the other
sections nor are there dual authorilties 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
E
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. Sec-
tion 51(2)(a) authorises the making of ordinances to provide for "the
admission of students to the university and their enrolment and con-
- tinuance as such". But any ordinance that may be mad·e for the
F
purpose of sec. 45(l)(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 uuiversity. It can only be done at the
G
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 principl_es 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, H
696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 3 S.C.R.

A appears to be like this: The Admissions Committee precribes the
principles or norms governing the policy of admission to the various
courses of stndy. 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 Admis-
B
sions Committee. Thereafter the Executive Council may make an ordi-
nance if it so thinksfit. Once an ordinance is made, it will not natnrally
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
;.
c 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
responde!lts. submitted that th_e _scheme for the proposed entrance test
D 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 .
E 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, -
F therefore, unable to hold that the Resolution of the Admissions Com-
mittee 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 furtlier 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
G 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 to costs.

M..L.A. Appeal allowed.