Judgment :- 1. In these two writ petitions the petitioners challenge the legality and validity of the action taken by the Syndicate of the Kerala University in calling upon the Principal of the S. N. M. Training College, Moothakunnam by the communication evidenced by Ext. P1 (copy of the same document has been marked as Ext. P1 in both the cases) dated 27th July, 1976 "to cancel the current admissions and make fresh admissions after giving opportunities to all applicants who were eligible at the time when the original applications were invited" after conducting a fresh selection in strict compliance with the rules laid down in Chapter XLII of the First Statutes and the conditions prescribed in the agreement for direct payment. The petitioners in O. P No 3929 of 1976 are four students who have been already admitted to the B. Ed. Course in the aforementioned College for the academic year 1976 77. The writ petitioner in O. P. No 4102 or 1976 is the Manager of the S. N. M. Training College. 2. The impugned order Ext. P1 reads: "UNIVERSITY OF KERALA Trivandrum, Dated 27th July 1976. No. Acad. D2/3236/76. From THE REGISTRAR To The Principal, S. N. M. Training College, Moothakunnam. Sub: Admission to B.Ed. course during 1976-77- regarding. Sir, While confirming the Telegraphic message already conveyed, I write to inform you that the Syndicate at its meeting held on 217 76 considered the judgment of the High Court in O. P. No. 2997/1976 F and the report of Sri. K. C. Joseph on the alleged irregularities in the admissions to the S. N. M. Training College, Moothakunnam. As directed by the Syndicate I am to inform you that the present admissions are irregular as many candidates who wanted to apply were denied opportunity and admissions have been made in the class violating of the rules in force. The Principal and Management are, therefore, instructed to cancel the current admissions and make fresh admissions after giving opportunities to all applicants who were eligible at the time when the original applications were invited and that fresh selection should be made in strict compliance with the rules laid down in Chapter XLII of the First Statutes and the conditions prescribed in the agreement for direct payment. The action taken in the matter may please be reported immediately. The action taken in the matter may please be reported immediately. Yours faithfully, Sd/ Deputy Registrar (Planning & Development) Similarly to: The Manager, SNM. Training College, Moothakunnam". 3. The main contention advanced by the petitioners is that there is no jurisdiction or power vested in the Syndicate of the University to issue a direction to the Principal of an affiliated private College to cancel the admissions of students which have already been effected and to direct a fresh selection to be conducted and admissions be made in accordance with such fresh selection. Various other points have also been taken by the writ petitions in support of the challenge against Ext. P1, but in as much as I have come to the conclusion after hearing both sides that the main point aforementioned taken by the writ petitioners has to be upheld it is unnecessary for this court to advert to or discuss the other subsidiary points that have been urged on behalf of the writ petitioners. 4. It would appear that the University had received complaints from certain quarters alleging irregularities in the matter of admissions of students to the B Ed Course in the S.N.M. Training College, Moothakunnam and that the Syndicate had deputed one of its Members, Shri. K. C. Joseph, to conduct an on the spot investigation into the alleged irregularities. Shri. Joseph is said to have visited the College on the 16th June, 1976 and conducted some investigations. On the basis of those investigations Shri. Joseph submitted his report to the Syndicate, a copy of which has been produced along with the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the University and marked as Ext. R5. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the Syndicate considered the said report and came to the conclusion that the admissions to the B. Ed. Course made by the authorities of the College during 1976-77 were not in conformity with the provisions contained in the relevant statutes and the directions which had already been issued by the University indicating the procedure to be followed with respect to the said matters. It is on the basis of the said opinion formed by the Syndicate that a decision was taken by it to call upon the College management and the Principal to cancel the admissions and to make fresh selections for admission to the B. Ed. Course for 1976-77. It is on the basis of the said opinion formed by the Syndicate that a decision was taken by it to call upon the College management and the Principal to cancel the admissions and to make fresh selections for admission to the B. Ed. Course for 1976-77. It is that decision of the Syndicate which was communicated by the Registrar of the University to the Principal of the College as per Ext. P1 which is impugned in this case. 5. The College has admittedly re-opened on the 1st June, 1976. The last date prescribed for the receipt of applications for admission to the B. Ed. Course in the College was 215 1976. The course is said to have actually commenced on 2 61976, the admissions having been finalised by the selection committee prior thereto. 6. The short question to be considered is whether in such circumstances when the admissions have been already made and the students have already commenced their course of study in the College there is any power vested in the Syndicate of the University to issue a direction to the Management or to the Principal of an affiliated College to cancel such admissions on the ground that irregularities had been committed by the College Authorities in the matter of effecting admissions to the particular course of study. Such an action undoubtedly brings about serious adverse consequences to the students who have been admitted and have already commenced their course of study in the College and who might not be in any way responsible for the irregularities alleged to have been committed by the College management or the Principal. They are the persons much more vitally affected by such a step than the Principal or the Management of the College, since the direct result of the implementation of the directive for cancellation of the admissions is that such students will be divested of the benefits that have already accrued to them by reason of their admission into the College and commencement of the course of study after remitting the full amount of the prescribed fees. The source of power for any such action taken by the University has necessarily to be found in some provision contained in the Kerala University Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) or in the statutes or ordinances framed thereunder. The source of power for any such action taken by the University has necessarily to be found in some provision contained in the Kerala University Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) or in the statutes or ordinances framed thereunder. The only provision in the Act which has been relied upon by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the University as well as by counsel for other respondents is clause (xx) of S.23. S.23 enumerates the powers of the Syndicate and clause (xx) thereof states that the Syndicate shall have the power "to arrange for and direct the investigation into the affairs of private colleges, to issue instructions for maintaining their efficiency, for ensuring proper conditions of employment of members of their staff and payment of adequate salaries to them, in case of disregard of such instructions to modify the conditions of affiliation or recognition or take such other steps as it deems proper in that behalf". According to the learned counsel for the contesting respondents what has been done by the Syndicate in the present case is to arrange for an investigation into the affairs of the College relating in particular to the allegations of irregularities in the matter of admissions of students to the B. Ed Course for 1976-77 by deputing one of its Members, Shri. Joseph, to conduct an on the spot enquiry and to issue instructions which the Syndicate considered to be necessary for ensuring the maintenance of efficiency of the institution in the light of the report submitted by Shri. Joseph and that hence the action falls squarely within the powers of the Syndicate under clause (xx). Prima facie this argument looks quite attractive but on closer scrutiny it becomes evident that the said argument overlooks the crucial fact that the powers conferred on the Syndicate by S.23 of the Act are by the very terms of the said Section made subject to the provisions of the statutes. Hence we will have to look into the Statutes to find out the scope of the power of the Syndicate to arrange for and direct an investigation into the affairs of the Private Colleges and to issue instructions for maintaining their efficiency under clause (xx) or the said Section. Hence we will have to look into the Statutes to find out the scope of the power of the Syndicate to arrange for and direct an investigation into the affairs of the Private Colleges and to issue instructions for maintaining their efficiency under clause (xx) or the said Section. When we turn to the statutes we find that the relevant provisions are contained in statutes 4 and 5 of Chapter IX of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Statutes). Statute 4 deals with the topic of "investigation into the affairs of Private Colleges" and it reads: "The Syndicate shall, subject to the provisions of the Act and Statutes, have power to arrange and direct for the investigation into the affairs of a private college, if it is satisfied that there is a prima facie case for such investigation, (i) if a complaint in writing is received from any of the teachers or students or the Managing Council or Governing Body of the private College upon any affairs relating to that college, or (ii) if it is so required by the Senate." Under this statute the Syndicate's power to arrange for and direct investigation into the affairs of a private College can be exercised only if a complaint in writing has been received from any of the teachers or students or the managing council or the governing body of a private College in respect of any affair relating to such College, or if the Syndicate has been required so to do by a resolution by the Senate. Admittedly, in the present case the Senate has not passed any resolution or taken a decision requiring the Syndicate to arrange for or direct an investigation into the affairs of the S. N. M. Training College, Moothakunnam. Nor is it the case of the respondents that any complaint in writing has been received from any of the teachers or from the managing council or governing body of the said College in respect of the affairs relating to that College in respect of the affairs relating to that College and more particularly matters concerning the admission of students in the B. Ed. Course 1976-77. Course 1976-77. What is, however, said is that certain complaints had been received by the Vice-Chancellor of the University from some candidates who were desirous of applying for admission to the College but were allegedly prevented from doing so by reason of their having been refused application forms. It is argued that those were complaints from students and the tact of receipt of such complaints would therefore satisfy the first condition in statute 4. I do not find it possible to accede to this argument because the requirement laid down in the first condition mentioned in statute 4 is that the complaint in writing should have been from teachers or students etc. of the particular private College. The persons from whom complaints are said to have been received were not students of the S. N. M Training College but were only aspirants for admission to the College. The expression'student' has been defined in clause (24) of S.2 of the Act as meaning "a part-time or full-time student receiving instruction or carrying on research in any of the Colleges or recognised institutions". Hence it is only a person who is actually admitted to any course of study in the college and is already in its rolls that can be claimed as a 'student' for the purpose of the Act and the Statutes. It is not the case of the University that any complaint in writing had been received from any of the students who were already receiving instructions in any course of study in the College in question and hence it is not possible to say that condition (i) mentioned in statute 4 is satisfied in the present case That being so, the action taken by the Syndicate in deputing Mr. Joseph to conduct an on the spot enquiry into the allegations of irregularities committed in the matter of admission of students to the B. Ed. Course in the S N. M. College during 1976-77 cannot be said to be an investigation into the affairs of the said College validly arranged or directed under clause (xx) of S.23 of the Act read with statute 4 of Chapter IX of the Statutes. 7. The further question is whether the directive given to the Principal and to the management of the College in Ext. 7. The further question is whether the directive given to the Principal and to the management of the College in Ext. P1 to cancel admissions and to make fresh selections can be regarded as an instruction issued by the Syndicate for maintaining the efficiency of the College under clause (xx) of S.23 of the Act. Statute 5 of Chapter IX of the Statutes deals with the power of the Syndicate to issue such instructions It lays down that "the Syndicate shall have the power, subject to the provisions of the Act and the Statutes to issue, as and when it deems necessary or when required by the Senate, instructions requiring the private colleges to maintain definite standards as specified in such instructions". It is clear from a reading of the said clause that the instructions contemplated therein are instructions of a general nature laying down standards to be observed by the private Colleges in respect of academic or other matters. From the wording of clause (xx) of S.23 of the Act it is manifest that the instructions to be issued thereunder are for maintaining the efficiency of the private Colleges and this is further clarified by statute 5 of the Statutes by specifying that such instructions may require the private Colleges to maintain definite standards as specified in those instructions. It is not in the contemplation of this statute that the Syndicate should use the said power to issue any directive to a particular College in respect of a matter which does not directly and immediately concern the efficiency of the College but only relates to the avoidance of irregularities in the matter of admission of students. I do not therefore see any way to accept the contention put forward by the counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents that the directive issued by the Syndicate to the management of the College as per Ext. P1 to cancel the admissions already made and to make fresh selections is an instruction validly issued in the exercise of the power conferred by clause (xx) of S.23 of the Act read with statute 5 of Chapter IX of the Statutes. 8. P1 to cancel the admissions already made and to make fresh selections is an instruction validly issued in the exercise of the power conferred by clause (xx) of S.23 of the Act read with statute 5 of Chapter IX of the Statutes. 8. It was strenuously contended on behalf of the contesting respondents that the procedure for selection and admission of students has been laid down in Chapter XLII of the Statutes and that in the event of violation of the provisions of the said Chapter by the authorities of an affiliated College a power must necessarily be recognised as being inherently vested in the Syndicate of the University to call upon the management and the Principal of the College to rectify the irregularities by making a fresh selection in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter XLII. It is true that Chapter XLII lays down certain principles for the selection of students for admission to the various courses of study in the Colleges affiliated to the University. It is laid down inter alia that the admissions must be made from a select list prepared by a selection committee in accordance with statute 2 of the said Chapter and that subject to any rule of reservation the selection should be on the basis of merit. How the assessment of merit is to be made has also been dealt with in statute 5 of Chapter XLII. But, significantly, there is no mention at all in any of the provisions of the Chapter as to what action is to be taken by the University against the management of an affiliated College in the event of violation by it of the principles laid down in statutes 1 to 5 of the said Chapter. The result is that the said matter is left to be governed by the general provision contained in S.68 of the Act which lays down that "if the Syndicate is satisfied that any private college has not complied with any provision contained in this Act, or in the Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations, bye-laws, orders or rules, it may recommend to the Government for withholding or discontinuing aid or grant or it may disaffiliate the College from the University". From the mere fact that certain principles have been laid down in Chapter XLII of the Statutes for regulating the mode of selection and admission of students in affiliated Colleges it is not possible to regard the Syndicate as having been clothed with an implied power to enforce those provisions by the issuance of a directive to cancel the admissions already made Since such an action would have the direct consequence of interfering with vested rights there must be express legislative sanction authorising the Syndicate or any other authority of the University to take such a step. In as much as there is no provision either in the Act or in the Statutes or Ordinances of the University specifically empowering such an action to be taken against an affiliated College it is not possible to recognise the existence of a power in the Syndicate to issue a directive to the management or Principal of a private College to cancel all the admissions of students that have been already effected after the students have joined the course and commenced their study. 9. Although reliance was sought to be placed by the contesting respondents on statute 24 of Chapter XXXVII of the Statutes a reference to the said provision shows that it deals only with the subject of inspection of Colleges from time to time by persons appointed by the Vice-Chancellor or by the Syndicate or by the Board of Inspection constituted under clause (vi) of S.23. It is not the case of the University that any such inspection had been conducted in respect of the S.N.M. Training College or that the impugned action has been taken on the basis of the result of such an inspection. Further, no report of any inspection had been forwarded to the Principal of the College nor was his explanation called for before the action impugned in this case was taken. Hence the contention based on statute 24 of Chapter XXXVII of the Statutes cannot stand. 10. Besides the provisions of the Act and the Statutes referred to above no other provision in the Act or Statutes or Ordinances was relied on by counsel appearing for the respondents as furnishing a valid source of power for the action taken by the Syndicate of the University as per Ext. P1. 10. Besides the provisions of the Act and the Statutes referred to above no other provision in the Act or Statutes or Ordinances was relied on by counsel appearing for the respondents as furnishing a valid source of power for the action taken by the Syndicate of the University as per Ext. P1. In as much as I have found that none of the provisions relied on by the contesting respondents operates to invest the Syndicate with power to direct the management or the Principal of the affiliated College to cancel admissions of students that have already been made, the conclusion must follow that the said direction given to the Principal as per Ext. P1 is illegal and without jurisdiction. Ext. P1 will therefore stand quashed. 11. I make it very clear that nothing in this judgment is to be understood as containing any expression of opinion by this court regarding the merits of the allegations said to have been made against the College authorities or regarding the power of the University to deal with the said matter in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act or in the Statutes; in other words, the quashing of Ext. P1 will not preclude the University from taking other appropriate action as may be open to it in law in the matter of dealing with the allegations which are said to be before it. 12. The original petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. The parties will bear their respective costs.