JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE aforesaid petition and Misc. Petition No. 285 of 1974 (John Mathew v. University of Sagar and another), M. P. No. 287 of 1974 (Alphoness and 192 others v. The Controller of Examinations, University of Sagar and another), m. P. No. 325 of 1974 (Mattatil Cherian Thomas and 89 others v. Controller of examinations, University of Sagar and another) and M. P. No. 340 of 1974 (John thomas and 2 others v. University of Sagar and another) raise common questions and so they were all heard together. Consequently, they are being decided by this order. ( 2. ) THE petitioner in M. P. No. 158 of 1974 was an applicant to appear as a private candidate for the M. A. (Previous) Examination in English, the petitioners 9 in number in M. P. 285 of 1974 were applicants seeking permission to appear in M. Com. (Previous) Examination, the petitioners 192 in number in M. P. No. 287 of 1974 were applicants seeking permission to appear in m. A. (Previous) Examination, the petitioners 90 in number in M. P. No. 325 of 1974 were applicants seeking permission to appear in M. A. (Previous) Examination and the petitioners 3 in number in M. P. No. 310 of 1974 were applicants seeking permission to appear in M. Com. (previous) Examination ; to be held in the year 1974; of the Sagar University, Madhya Pradesh. They have filed these different petitions, challenging an order dated 11-1-1974 of the respondents. After the filing of these petitioners ad interim orders were issued to the respondents, directing that the petitioners be permitted to appear in the ensuing examinations with a further direction that their results shall be withheld till the decision of the present petition. During; the course of arguments the learned counsel stated that some of the petitioners did not appear in the examinations. Subsequently, he submitted an application dated 23-9-1974 stating that petitioners Nos. 113 to 135 and from 137 to 172 in M. P. No. 287 of 1974 did not appear in the examination. ( 3. ) THE facts briefly are that the different petitioners by their different applications had applied to the University of Sagar, Sagar (M. P.) seeking permission to appear in the M. A. (Previous) or M. Com. (Previous) Examinations to be held in the year 1974 as private candidates. ( 3. ) THE facts briefly are that the different petitioners by their different applications had applied to the University of Sagar, Sagar (M. P.) seeking permission to appear in the M. A. (Previous) or M. Com. (Previous) Examinations to be held in the year 1974 as private candidates. They had sent their applications on the requisite forms which they had called for from the University of Sagar after paying the necessary fees. They had sent their application forms duly filled in along with requisite fee to the University in time. The controller of Examinations, University of Sagar vide his impugned memo dated 11th January, 1974 (Petitioners Annexure a) informed these petitioners that "no candidate residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of this University (areas comprised within the limits of the Revenue Districts Balaghat, Chhindwara, Sagar, Narsimhapur, Seoni, Damoh, Mandla, East Nimar, Betul and hoshangabad) can be permitted to appear at any examination of this University". The petitioners have challenged this order as being arbitrary and illegal on different grounds. The respondents have, however, contended that the said impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and is perfectly justified. ( 4. ) FOR a proper appreciation of the rival contentions raised in these cases it would be necessary to examine the legal aspect of the matter. The University of Sagar was established under the University of Sagar Act, 1946 (No. 16 of 1946) which has been repealed by section (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwa-vidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (No. 22 of 1973) which came into force on 5-5-1973 as a result of a notification issued under section (1) (3) of the said Adhiniyam. The University of Sagar was established under the University of Sagar Act, 1946 (No. 16 of 1946) which has been repealed by section (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwa-vidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (No. 22 of 1973) which came into force on 5-5-1973 as a result of a notification issued under section (1) (3) of the said Adhiniyam. Section 2 (vi) of the said Adhiniyam is as follows : "all Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations made by various authorities of the respective universities under the repealed enactments and in force immediately before the date aforesaid shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to be statutes Ordinances and Regulations made by the appropriate authorities of the respective universities under the relevant provisions of this Act; provided that the Statutes and Ordinances deemed to be so shall cease to be in force on expiry of a period of one year from the appointed date or on the date of coming into force of the first statutes Ordinances, as the case may be, drawn under section 34 whichever is earlier;" Admittedly, when this Adhiniyam of 1973 (No. 22 of 1973) was brought into force an ordinance regarding admission of non-collegiate candidates to the university examinations was in force, a copy of which has been filed as annexure I by the respondents. It was further conceded by the learned counsel for the respondents that no first Statutes Ordinances, have been drawn under section 34 of this Act. That being the position, and which was not denied on behalf of respondents also this Ordinance (respondents Annexure I) shall remain in force for a period of one year from the appointed date, as notified by the State Government which in the instant case would be 5-5-1973. Thus on the date when the memo dated 11-1-1974 (petitioners Annexure I) was issued to the petitioners by the University this Ordinance (respondents annexure I) was in force which permitted admission of non-collegiate candidates to the University Examinations This Ordinance did not bar a candidate residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of this University from being permitted to appear at any examination of the University. ( 5. ) THE learned counsel for the respondents mainly relied upon section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 in respect of the impugned order dated 11-1-1974 (petitioners Annexure a ). ( 5. ) THE learned counsel for the respondents mainly relied upon section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 in respect of the impugned order dated 11-1-1974 (petitioners Annexure a ). Section 7 of this Adhiniyam is as fallows: - "7. (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the powers conferred on the University by or under this Act shall not extend beyond the limits of the territorial jurisdiction specified in the Second Schedule from time to time. Provided that the State Government may authorise the University to associate or to admit to any of its privileges, colleges situated within the state outside the aforesaid limits in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Statutes made thereunder. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being inforce, no college or educational institution situated within the territorial limits of any University shall be associated in any way with or be admitted to any privileges of any other University incorporated by law in India and any such privilege granted by any such other University to any educational institution within these limits prior to the date of the establishment of the University shall be deemed to be withdrawn on such establishment. (3) Nothing contained in this section shall apply in the case of colleges or other educational institutions:- (a) imparting instructions exclusively in agriculture and allied sciences and admitted or deemed to be admitted to the privileges of the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya under the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya Act, 1963 (No. 12 of 1963 ). (b) imparting instructions exclusively in Music and Fine Arts or either of them and admitted or deemed to be admitted to the privileges of the Indira Kala Sangit Vishwa vidyalaya Act, 1956 (19 of 1956) and (c) preparing candidates for the degree or equivalent examinations of Varenshye sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya. " It also was conceded that the non-collegiate students could be admitted to the examinations held by the University of Sagar provided they fulfil the other requisite qualifications. Although we are not called upon to decide that question but in view of section 24 clause (xxxvii) and section 37 clauses (iv), (v)and (vi) it appears that this Act contemplates non-collegiate students being admitted to the examinations of the University. Although we are not called upon to decide that question but in view of section 24 clause (xxxvii) and section 37 clauses (iv), (v)and (vi) it appears that this Act contemplates non-collegiate students being admitted to the examinations of the University. However, this shall be subject to the other provisions of the Act, Statutes and Ordinances that may be applicable from time to time. The learned counsel for the respondents with that admitted position contended that in view of section 7 of this Adhiniyam only such non-collegiate candidates could be admitted to the examinations of the university who would be residents of the areas comprised within the limits of the Revenue Districts viz ; Balaghat, Chhindwara, Sagar, Narsimhapur, Seoni, damoh, Mandla, East Nimar, Betul and Hoshangabad which is the territorial jurisdiction of this University. A plain reading of section 7 of the Adhiniyam clearly negatives the meaning sought to be put on behalf of the respondents to this section. This section 7 provides that all colleges and educational institutions located within the territorial limits of a particular University shall be associated or admitted to any of the privileges of that University alone and not to any other University subject to exceptions that have been provided under this section. This section refers, as we say in common language, to the affiliation of the educational institutions and colleges with the University. By this section the colleges and educational institutions subject to the exceptions provided under it could be admitted only to the University within whose territorial jurisdiction the institutions are located. The purpose behind this section is apparent. This has been meant to give a better administration and teaching etc. and to avoid any possibility of any unhealthy competition in the different Universities. ( 6. ) APART from this in the instant cases the Ordinance (Petitioners annexure I) continued to remain in force after coming into force of this adhiniyam of 1973 which does not in any manner put any such prohibition as was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents. No doubt merely applying for permission to appear as a private candidate in an examination, in itself would not entitle a candidate to get the requisite permission as of right. No doubt merely applying for permission to appear as a private candidate in an examination, in itself would not entitle a candidate to get the requisite permission as of right. University Authorities would be very much within their rights to reject such a permission being granted, but then the rejection has to be based on some valid reasons which may be covered by the Act, Statutes or ordinances. In the instant cases the only reason for rejecting the permission was that they were not residents within the territorial jurisdiction of the university and this reasoning was based only on the interpretation of section 7 of the Adhiniyam. We may observe that this interpretation of section 7 of the adhiniyam is wholly misconceived. This interpretation of section 7 of the adhiniyam of 1973, if accepted, would result in so many absurd situations. This would also have an effect, that if a candidate who has completed his education in one University, for some reason or the other, which may be better standard of education, better facilities, a particular course or subject being available in another University and such others; wants to seek admission in such other University, would not be able to apply for admission to that other University because he admittedly would be a resident within the territorial jurisdiction of the earlier University. We do not think that the legislature would have at all intended by enacting section 7 that candidates of one university cannot be admitted either as regular students or as private candidates in the other Universities. The restriction has been put only in respect to the affiliation of the colleges and the educational institutions situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of a particular University. ( 7. ) THE learned counsel for the respondents also referred before us article 245 of the Constitution of India and also to two decisions one in State of Bombay v. R. M. D. Chamarbaugwalia aud others ( AIR 1956 Bom 1 ) and another in N. N. Ananthanarayane lyar and others v. Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax officer and others ( AIR 1959 Ker 182 ) in support of the contention that the provisions of this adhiniyam of 1973 could not be applicable beyond the territorial limits of its jurisdiction. Suffice it to say that neither the said Article of the Constitution of India nor the aforesaid two decisions are at all applicable to the questions in the instant eases and so they do not need any discussion whatsoever. ( 8. ) THE learned counsel for the respondents strenuously contended that merely because a candidate has submitted an application neither does he get a right for being admitted to the examination nor is the University duty bound to grant admission to such candidate. No doubt this contention has substance. The only consideration in it is that the University can reject the application of such candidates only in accordance with the provisions of the act, Statutes Ordinances etc. and not on a ground which has no support from either of these. It may further be observed that such provisions as may be made by the University should not also be violative of any provisions of the constitution of the Act. In the present case the Ordinance (respondents annexure I) was not inconsistent with the provisions of the Adhiniyam of 1973 and so was in force at the time when the impugned order (Annexure a) was issued. The basis of the reasoning given in the impugned order dated 11-1-1974 (Petitioners Annexure a) was the interpretation given by the university Authorities to section 7 of the Adhiniyam which as held by us, is wholly wrong Consequently, the impugned order (Annexure a) falls to the ground as being wholly illegal. The petitioners could not have been refused permission to appear in the examinations as non-collegiate candidates on the ground that they were not residents within the territorial jurisdiction of the University. ( 9. ) FOR the aforesaid reasons these petitions are allowed (in respect of the petitioners who have appeared in the respective examinations) and" the impugned order dated 11-1-1974 (Petitioners Annexure A) is quashed. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has, by an application dated 23-9-74 stated that petitioners Nos. 113 to 135 and 137 to 172 in M. P. No. 287 of 1974 did not appear in the examinations, hence in petition No. 287 of 1974 as regards such petitioners (who have not appeared in the examination) no direction is necessary. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has, by an application dated 23-9-74 stated that petitioners Nos. 113 to 135 and 137 to 172 in M. P. No. 287 of 1974 did not appear in the examinations, hence in petition No. 287 of 1974 as regards such petitioners (who have not appeared in the examination) no direction is necessary. We may mention that the results of such of the candidates who have appeared in the examinations and which were withheld as a result of the interim orders passed in each one of these petitions shall now be declared within one month from the date of this order. The costs of each one of these petitions shall be borne by the respondents. There will however, be no order as to counsels fee in any of these petitions. Petition allowed.