JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– The two petitioners, Dr. Jitendra Nath Banerjee and Sri Jayanta Banerjee, son of Dr. Jitendra Nath Banerjee moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging and/or assailing the improper constitution of the West Bengal Board of Examination for admission to the Engineering, Medical and Technological Degree Colleges and also the irregular and arbitrary procedure adopted by the Board of Examiners in the matter of assessment of the examination papers submitted by the candidates appearing at the said Examination and also in the matter of conducting and publishing the results of the Joint Entrance Examination of 1982. 2. On hearing the petitioners this Court by an order dated 30th July, 1982 directed the petitioners to serve copies of the application on the respondents with a notice mentioning specifically that the matter was specialty fixed for hearing on 4th of August, 1982 at the first sitting of the Court. An interim order was made on the following terms :–– "In the meantime there will be an interim order restraining the respondents from giving effect to the impugned results of the Joint Entrance Examination held in 1982 and they are also directed to produce the results that have been published first on 30.6.82 as well as the subsequent results before this Court on that day and they shall also preserve all the papers of the examinees." Pursuant to this direction copies of this application have been sent to the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 under registered covers with acknowledgement due and the receipts granted by the Postal Department have been annexed to the Affidavit of Service sworn on 3rd August, 1982. It has also been stated in the Affidavit of Service that a copy of the application has been served in the office of the Government Pleader of this Court and the same was accepted on 3rd August, 1982. The relevant receipts have also been annexed in the Affidavit of Service. 3. On the 4th August, 1982, eight applications for addition of parties have been filed pursuant to the leave asked for by the petitioners for moving the writ application not only on behalf of the petitioners but also in a representative capacity on behalf of the other parties interested in the result of the present case, who may join and/or contest in accordance with law. As these applications for addition of parties were not opposed by the petitioners they were allowed and the petitioners were permitted to be added as petitioners in the main writ application. On 5th August, 1982 two other applications for addition of parties have been filed and the same were also allowed by this Court. Subsequently, however, on 6th August, 1982, another eight applications have been filed for being added as petitioners in the said writ application. A separate writ application was filed praying for not giving effect to the results of the aforesaid Examination for admission in the Medical Degree Colleges published by the said Board. 4. Before proceeding to consider the arguments of the learned Advocates for both the parties as to the maintainability of this writ application as well as to the marking out of a prima facie case or an arguable case for the issuance of the Rule it is pertinent and relevant to consider the pleadings made in the two writ applications. In the writ application moved on behalf of Dr. Jitendra Nath Benerjee and Sri Jayanta Banerjee it has been stated that the petitioner No.2 is a good student having a good academic career consistently and in support of the said statement the marks obtained by the petitioner No.2 at the Secondary Examination held by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education has been annexed wherefrom it appears that the said petitioner had obtained 633 marks, that is, a little over of 63% of marks being placed in the First Division. It has also been stated that he duly appeared at the Higher Secondary Examination held in April, 1982 and his Registration No. was also mentioned. He applied for appearing at the Joint Entrance Examination for admission in the Medical Colleges and he was registered under Registration No. M/GAS-114 as will be evident from the Admit Card annexed as Annexure 'C' to the petition. It has been stated that he duly sat for the Joint Entrance Examination and answered all questions to his great satisfaction. He expected to be within the list of selected candidates for being admitted to the Medical Course and on 30th June, 1982 the first results of the Joint Entrance Examination were published and the said list, however, was hurriedly withdrawn for republication later on. He expected to be within the list of selected candidates for being admitted to the Medical Course and on 30th June, 1982 the first results of the Joint Entrance Examination were published and the said list, however, was hurriedly withdrawn for republication later on. Subsequently the list of the successful candidates was published without mentioning therein the marks obtained by the candidates whose names appear in the said list and the name of the petitioner No.2 did not appear therein. It has been further pleaded that the West Bengal Board of Examination for admission to the Engineering, Medical and Technological Degree Colleges, did not follow any system to afford an opportunity to the aggrieved students for review, re-examination and/or scrutiny of his or her answer-scripts. It has also been alleged that the result that was published for the first time and that was published for the second time were different from each other and this had given rise to serious doubts of arbitrariness, discrepancy, malpractice and utter discrimination at the behest of some persons of influence having vested interest. There was a great resentment amongst students who appeared at the ensuing examination, examiners connected with the examination, guardians, educationists and people in general as to the mala fide and arbitrary mode of conducting and publication of the result of the Joint Entrance Examination, 1982 held by the West Bengal Board of Examination for admission to the Engineering, Medical and Technological Degree Colleges. It has also been alleged that there had not been any fair examination of the answer-scripts of the students including that of the petitioner No.2 and there is discrimination in tabulation of marks and in the publication of the list of successful candidates. It has been further pleaded in the said petition that in certain selected cases, grace marks have given to the tune of sixty in number without having any declared policy, rule, norms, procedure and lawful practice. In the matter of giving grace marks an arbitrary procedure had been adopted and neither the consent of the examiners nor the approval of the authorities concerned including the Medical Council of India had been obtained and no consistent principle and systematic formula had been followed in this regard. In the matter of giving grace marks an arbitrary procedure had been adopted and neither the consent of the examiners nor the approval of the authorities concerned including the Medical Council of India had been obtained and no consistent principle and systematic formula had been followed in this regard. It has been further pleaded that if the answer-scripts, tabulation sheets, selection papers and connected mark-sheets are produced before this Court, it will be disclosed clearly that there has been gross injustice, unfairness, arbitrary discrimination, undue favouritism, sacrificing all norms and procedures of fair examination system to the greatest prejudice and injury to cases of the students in general and to the case of the petitioner No.2, in particular. It has also been pleaded that inspite of repeated interviews, the respondents are not entertaining the grievances of the petitioners and their genuine notes of discontent are put to deaf ear. It has been further pleaded that these grievances are not only of the students but also of the public which were ventilated in the newspapers. The petitioners having received no remedy or redress have been compelled to move the instant writ application to this Court. 5. There is a prayer for a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to rescind, recall and cancel the results of Joint Entrance Examination, 1982 and to declare the results afresh upon tabulation of marks without grace and publish the list of successful candidates on a fair and proper scrutiny and assessment. There is also a prayer for a Writ of Certiorari directing the respondents to produce all relevant papers and documents including the answer-scripts, tabulation sheets and selection papers relating to Joint Entrance Examination, 1982 so that the same may be quashed, cancelled and set aside by this Court. There was a prayer for a Writ of Prohibition restraining the respondents from giving any effect to the purported results of Joint Entrance Examination, 1982 without including the name of the petitioner No.2. There was also a prayer for an interim order of injunction for review and reconsideration and/or re-examination of the answer-scripts of the petitioner No.2 by independent examiners. There was a prayer for a Writ of Prohibition restraining the respondents from giving any effect to the purported results of Joint Entrance Examination, 1982 without including the name of the petitioner No.2. There was also a prayer for an interim order of injunction for review and reconsideration and/or re-examination of the answer-scripts of the petitioner No.2 by independent examiners. In this application also the petitioners crave leave of this Court to file the application in representative capacity as well as that of their self and individual interest, and any person so interested in the result of the present case, may joint and/or contest in accordance with law. 6. This application was moved on 30th July, 1982 and after hearing the learned Advocates for the petitioners this Court directed the petitioners to serve copies of the application on the respondents with a notice mentioning that the matter has been specially fixed for bearing on 4th August, 1982. An interim order was made by this Court restraining the respondents from giving effect to the impugned results of the Joint Entrance Examination held in 1982 and they were directed to produce the results that have been published first on 30.6.82 as well as the subsequent results before this Court on that day and they shall also preserve all the papers of the examinees. 7. Another writ application was filed by Jayanta Sarkar and Sudipta Chowdhury who appeared at the said Joint Entrance Examination held in 1982 for admission in the Medical Colleges as well as for Engineering Colleges, first preference being given for admission in Medical Colleges. It has been pleaded in the said petition that the respondents acted mala fide and in a gross negligent manner in the matter of selecting the candidates for admission in the Medical Colleges and they failed to discharge the duties cast upon them in a fair and impartial manner, and as a result thereof the petitioners are going to loose the opportunity of admission in the Medical Colleges, the petitioners' long cherished aim of life. It has been further pleaded that the respondents first published the results of the said Examination on 30.6.82 but hurriedly withdrew the same and republished it subsequently on or about 10.7.82. In the republished list, the petitioners' names did not appear for admission in Medical Colleges. It has been further pleaded that the respondents first published the results of the said Examination on 30.6.82 but hurriedly withdrew the same and republished it subsequently on or about 10.7.82. In the republished list, the petitioners' names did not appear for admission in Medical Colleges. This statement has been affirmed as based upon information received from the staff of the West Bengal Board of Examination for admission to the Medical and Technological Colleges. In paragraph 13 it has been stated specifically that the respondents published only the names of the successful candidates but did not mention therein the marks obtained by them. This omission to indicate the marks obtained by candidates prevented the petitioners including other outsiders to know the reasons for selection and non-selection of the petitioners. It has also been stated that in the previous years the published list of selected candidates contained the names as well as the marks obtained by each of the successful candidates. It has been further alleged that the respondents without authority of law indiscriminately and capriciously granted grace marks to some candidates to prejudice the deserving candidates including the petitioners. The respondents also failed to assess the answer papers examined in a fair and impartial manner and marks have been awarded in arbitrary manners find there has been unrestricted favouritism in the matter of awarding of marks. On publication of the results on 10th July, 1982 the petitioners and their guardians waited upon the respondent No. 3 and prayed for review of the petitioners' answer papers and also asked for the marks obtained by the petitioners but the respondents replied merely that there was no provision for any review and also for giving out the marks to the petitioners and the Board of Examination had the sole authority in the matter of not answering the matters to anyone in this respect. There was a prayer for a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to cancel the list of selected candidates for admission in Medical College published by them and further commanding the respondents to review, re-examine the answer papers and republish the list upon fair and impartial re-assessment of answer papers only on merits without awarding any grace marks to any examinees. There was a prayer for a Writ of Certiorari calling upon the respondents to produce before this Court all records connected withholding of the Examination, assessment of answer papers, and publication of the list of successful candidates and to do conscionable justice by quashing the list of selected candidates for Medical Colleges published by the respondents and any other orders, records, results, etc. that may be deemed necessary and proper. There was a prayer for injunction upon the respondents restraining them from giving effect to the list of selected candidates for Medical Colleges published by them. 8. It is not necessary to reiterate once again that several applications have been filed on behalf of the examinees for being added as petitioners in this writ application. 9. Mr. Susanta Chatterjee, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Dr. Jitendra Nath Banerjee and Sri Jayanta Benerjee in the first writ application has submitted that the constitution of the West Bengal Board of Examination for admission to Engineering, Medical and Technological Degree Colleges is wholly illegal and arbitrary having no legal basis and as such, this body is not competent to hold the aforesaid Joint Entrance Examination. It has been further submitted that assuming for argument's sake that this West Bengal Board of Examination for admission to Engineering, Medical and Technological Degree Colleges can be formed by an executive and/or administrative order in pursuance of the executive power conferred on the State, still then, the manner in which the answer-scripts of the examinees have been assessed and also the manner in which the tabulation works were done are vitiated by arbitrariness, favouritism, unfairness and unreasonableness. There has been a total deviation from the standard that has been laid down in the rules for the Joint Entrance Examination made in exercise of the executive powers of the State inasmuch as in the said rules there was no provision for giving of grace marks by the Board of Examiners according to their whims and capriciousness, arbitrarily and discriminately favouring some candidates by giving grace marks without laying down any norms and contrary to the standards that have been prescribed in the said rules. It has, therefore, been submitted by Mr. It has, therefore, been submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that the selection list that has been prepared and published are vitiated by arbitrariness, unfairness and favouritism and as such, the same should be quashed and set aside and appropriate orders should be made for re-examination and/or review of the answer-scripts and/or re-tabulation of the marks and publication of the results afresh on such review by the authorities concerned. It has been submitted in this connection by Mr. Chatterjee referring to the supplementary affidavit filed on 6th August, 1982 that an advertisement was published in the Dainik Basumati at its issue on 8th July, 1982 by the West Bengal Government to the effect that only those examinees who appeared in the Joint Entrance Examination, and who secured 50% marks at least would be mentioned in the merit list and the application forms would be issued only to them between 12th July, 1982 to 22nd July, 1982. It has also been stated that one Sri Prosenjit Chatterjee, bearing Roll No. C/How-203 appeared at the Joint Entrance Examination, 1982 at Model School Centre within the campus of Shibpur B. E. College. The seat of the student was very near to the seat of the student, bearing Roll No. C/How-205. It has been further stated that on the 2nd day examination, and particularly during the 2nd session the candidate, bearing Roll No. C/How-205 left the centre after one hour. The said candidate did not appear at all and in particular during the second session the candidate, bearing Roll No. C/How-205 left the hall just after one hour. The said candidate did not at all appear as usual on the last day in the examinations of English and Mathematics papers. It. has been stated that the names of the candidates who have obtained marks below 50% also appeared in the list of successful candidates and Roll No. C/How-205 also appeared in the list of successful candidates in the Engineering course. The statements made in paragraphs 8 and 9 have been affirmed as true to the knowledge of the deponent, Sukhendu Chatterjee, father of Prosenjit Chatterjee and the statements made in paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 were affirmed as true to his information from his son, Sri Prosenjit Chatterjee. 10. Another supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the added petitioners, Jayanta Sarkar and Sudipta Chowdhury on 5th August, 1982. 10. Another supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the added petitioners, Jayanta Sarkar and Sudipta Chowdhury on 5th August, 1982. It has been stated that a Notification was published in The Statesman at its issue dated 8th July, 1982 wherein it has been notified by the Government of West Bengal that the names of candidates who secured at least 50% marks in the Joint Entrance Examination conducted by the West Bengal Board of Examination for admission to Engineering, Medical and Technological Degree Colleges in 1982 will be hung up on the Notice Board of all Medical Colleges on 10th July, 1982. It has been further stated in the Notification that saleable application forms will be issued from 12.7.82 to 22.7.82 only to those candidates whose names will appear in the aforesaid merit list. This has been annexed as Annexure 'X' to the supplementary affidavit. It has been stated in paragraph 3 of the said supplementary affidavit that this requirement of securing of minimum 50% marks for being eligible to be included in the merit list was not at all observed and to accommodate the less meritorious students grace marks had been given in general to replace the original merit list prepared and published on 30.2.82 so that examinees having less merit (who secured less marks in order of merit) have been included in the subsequent list. Thus, manipulation could be made possible at the end of the admission point of the Engineering and Medical Colleges latter on otherwise awarding of the 50 grace marks and 25 marks shall become meaningless. It has also been stated that this Notification was in the face of it mala fide inasmuch as there was no such requirement in the matter of making the merit list. It was an after-thought only to accommodate students of inferior merits and the decision of giving some 50 or 25 marks as grace marks to the candidates was taken by unauthorised persons illegally and beyond the scope of the West Bengal Act XXXIV of 1973 and the said Notification dated 8th July, 1982 by the Government was only a follow-up-proceeding. The statements of these paragraphs have been confirmed as true to the knowledge of the deponent, Panchanan Sarkar, father and natural guardian of the petitioner, Sri Jayanta Sarkar. 11. The statements of these paragraphs have been confirmed as true to the knowledge of the deponent, Panchanan Sarkar, father and natural guardian of the petitioner, Sri Jayanta Sarkar. 11. Another supplementary affidavit affirmed on 9th August, 1982 by Gunadhar Maity, an added petitioner, who appeared in the aforesaid Joint Entrance Examination of 1982 conducted by the West Bengal Board of Examination has been filed. In paragraph 2 of the said affidavit it has been stated that the list of successful candidates had been hung up in the Notice Board of the Medical College, Calcutta. Relevant portions of the said list have been annexed as Annexure 'N' series of the said affidavit. In paragraph 3 of the said affidavit it has been averred that in the said list his position has been shown at serial No. 341 against his Registration No. M/CAC-832. It has been further averred in paragraph 4 that when he went to submit the prescribed forms, he was told that his position was 741 as per another merit list. In the receipt granted by the college on receiving his application for admission to M. B. B. S. Course for the session 1982-1983 his serial which was first written therein as serial No. 341 was struck off and instead of that serial No. 741 was written thereon. A copy of the said receipt has been annexed as Annexure 'O' to the said affidavit. He immediately represented to the authority concerned of the Central Selection Committee receiving the application form for admission whereupon he was advised to make a written representation to the Health Minister, State of West Bengal, through the Chairman, Central Selection Committee of Joint Entrance Examination. The deponent accordingly made a written representation, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure 'P' to the affidavit. The above averments have been affirmed as true to his knowledge. 12. Another supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the added petitioner, Satyandra Nath Das. 13. Mr. Tapas Roy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the added petitioners, Debdas Banerjee and Sujit Banerjee has stated that the son of the petitioner No. 1, Debdas Banerjee is a brilliant student having a brilliant career of success throughout his academic life uptil now. 13. Mr. Tapas Roy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the added petitioners, Debdas Banerjee and Sujit Banerjee has stated that the son of the petitioner No. 1, Debdas Banerjee is a brilliant student having a brilliant career of success throughout his academic life uptil now. He was placed in the First Division securing in total 757 marks; in other words, he secured more than 75% of marks and in the Higher Secondary Examination held by the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Examination the son of the petitioner No. 1 was placed in the First Division and obtained in total 678 marks. On the basis of the results in the Madhyamik Examination the Government of India, Ministry of Education and Social Welfare, National Scholarship Scheme; granted a National Scholarship to the son of petitioner No. 1 and this has been marked as Annexure 'A' to the application for being added as parties. The petitioner No.2, Sujit Banerjee is also a brilliant student and he passed the Madhyamik Examination being placed in the First Division obtaining a total marks of 686. In Higher Secondary Examination he was placed in the First Division securing 623 marks in total. The mark-sheets were annexed as Annexure 'B' to the petition. It has been stated that he appeared in the said Joint Entrance Examination seeking admission to Medical Colleges. But none of the petitioners' names did appear in the list of successful candidates. Mr. Roy submitted that the instant writ application is maintainable even though this petition has been made on behalf of the petitioner and all other interested persons who are affected by the results. In support of this submission Mr. Roy has cited the decision of (1) Vasant Krishnarao Paturkar v. D. R. Majramkar, reported in AIR 1974 SC 1502 and he submitted that the instant writ application cannot be dismissed on the ground that it was a joint petition. Mr. Roy next submitted that the respondents were directed to produce certain documents, that is, the results of the Joint Entrance Examination published on 30th June, 1982 and also the subsequent results before this Court on the day of hearing. Mr. Roy next submitted that the respondents were directed to produce certain documents, that is, the results of the Joint Entrance Examination published on 30th June, 1982 and also the subsequent results before this Court on the day of hearing. The respondents having not complied with this direction made by this Court the interim order that has been made should not have been vacated and an adverse inference should be drawn against the respondents for withholding and for non-compliance with that direction by non-production of those vital documents necessary for determination of the question whether the petitioners have made out a prima facie case or an arguable case justifying the issuance of the rule and the extension of the interim order already made by this Court. In this connection certain decisions have been cited at the Bar by Mr. Roy. It has been further submitted by Mr. Roy that there has been an unequal treatment in the matter of giving of grace marks to certain candidates in order to enable them to be included in the list of successful candidates contrary to the provisions made in the Rule for Joint Entrance Examination, 1982 made by the Government. It has also been stated that one list was published on 30th June, 1982 but the same was withdrawn hurriedly and another list was published subsequently. It is incumbent, it has been submitted, on the Board of Examiners to examine the answer-scripts of examinees appearing in the said Joint Entrance Examination fairly, properly and not arbitrarily or capriciously or unreasonably. The giving of grace marks has vitiated the results of the examination and as such the same cannot be allowed to remain. It has been also submitted that the West Bengal Board of Examination which held the said Joint Entrance Examination had no statutory sanction and so, such a Board is not legally competent to hold the said examination. It has been submitted further in this connection by Mr. Roy that these Engineering Colleges, Technological Degree Colleges and Medical Colleges are affiliated to the University of Calcutta and as such admission of students in these colleges are required to be governed by Rules, Statutes and Ordinances framed under Calcutta University Act, 1979. It has been submitted further in this connection by Mr. Roy that these Engineering Colleges, Technological Degree Colleges and Medical Colleges are affiliated to the University of Calcutta and as such admission of students in these colleges are required to be governed by Rules, Statutes and Ordinances framed under Calcutta University Act, 1979. The rules for holding Joint Entrance Examination, 1982 cannot have any legal force and this cannot override or prevail upon the relevant provisions of the Statute and the Rules and Ordinances and Regulations framed therein in this regard. Mr. Roy has referred in this connection to the provisions of sections 26, 28, 52 and 54 of the Calcutta University Act. 1979. It has been submitted that the Council for the under-graduate studies is alone competent to frame rules for admission of students in these colleges in accordance with the provision of subsection (2) of section 26 of the Calcutta University Act, 1979 read with section 28 of the said Act. It has been submitted lastly by Mr. Roy that the rules impugned are arbitrary and ex facie bad being made in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as it has been provided in the said rule that the Board does not publish results nor does it communicate the results to any individual candidate. There is also no provision for post publication scrutiny and review and as such the Board will not entertain any such application for scrutiny or review. It has been submitted by Mr. Roy that the arbitrary publication of the results of the Joint Entrance Examination by giving grace marks in violation of the provisions of the rules have seriously affected the rights of the petitioners who are brilliant students having a very good academic career and as such the denial of review or scrutiny of their results exposes these rules to the attack of violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently invalidate the same on that ground. Some decisions have been cited by Mr. Roy on this point. 14. Mr. Himangshu Kumar Bose, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the added petitioner, Nirupam Ghosh has submitted that his client secured 249 marks out of 500 marks in the Joint Entrance Examination, 1982. He also submitted that this publication of the results has not been made properly. Some decisions have been cited by Mr. Roy on this point. 14. Mr. Himangshu Kumar Bose, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the added petitioner, Nirupam Ghosh has submitted that his client secured 249 marks out of 500 marks in the Joint Entrance Examination, 1982. He also submitted that this publication of the results has not been made properly. He has also submitted that the method of holding Joint Entrance Examination for Engineering and Medical students are basically bad and the examination for two streams of students should be held separately. It has been submitted that the examination that has been held and the results that have been published being vitiated by arbitrariness and inequality in the matter of giving of grace of marks should be set aside and results should be published afresh after reassessment and review of the answer-scripts and tabulation of marks. 15. Mr. Arun Prokash Chatterjee, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, has submitted that no tangible ground has been made out in the petition and as such no rule should be issued on this application. It has been further stated by Mr. Chatterjee that the ultimate authority in selecting candidates for admission to the Medical Colleges, Engineering Colleges and Technological Degree Colleges is not the West Bengal Board of Examination for admission to the Engineering, Medical and Technological Degree Colleges but the Central Selection Committee and the respective colleges concerned which will hold viva voce and medical tests for selecting candidates for studying the course. Mr. Chattrrjee has drawn attention of this Court to the relevant provisions of rules for the Joint Entrance Examination in this connection. In elucidating and elaborating the argument on this contention Mr. Chatterjee further stated that the Board does not select but merely prepares the list of examinees on merit and send it to the respective colleges and the Central Selection Committee. It has also been submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the Board does not publish the results of the examination as evident from the said rules. Mr. Chatterjee also submitted that on the basis of a resolution of a meeting of the Confidential Sub-committee 50 marks were added to all the candidates appearing in the said test for being admitted in Medical Colleges and 25 marks were added to all Engineering and Technological candidates. It has been submitted by Mr. Mr. Chatterjee also submitted that on the basis of a resolution of a meeting of the Confidential Sub-committee 50 marks were added to all the candidates appearing in the said test for being admitted in Medical Colleges and 25 marks were added to all Engineering and Technological candidates. It has been submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that there is no discrimination by the general addition of aforesaid marks to all the candidates and even if deduction of those marks are made that will not in any way affect the result neither it will change the positions of the candidates in the merit list in any manner whatsoever. Mr. Chatterjee also submitted that the confidential resolution had taken at a secret meeting and the same cannot be disclosed or divulged to this Court for public interest, nor the relevant papers and documents in connection with the said resolution could be produced before the Court for its consideration. It has also been submitted that the allegation that the result was published at first on 30th June, 1982 is wholly without any foundation. No such publication of the results in the Medical Colleges and other colleges was made on 30th June, 1982. The result was sent to different colleges on the evening of 8th July, 1982 and the same was published on 10th of July, 1982. Mr. Chatterjee also submitted that the rules for the Joint Entrance Examination in question are not framed by the Government pursuant to the provision of any statute. They are not statutory rules but they are administrative rules framed by the West Bengal Board of Examination for the purpose of holding Examination for admission to the Engineering, Medical and Technological Degree Colleges. Mr. Chatterjee has also submitted in this connection that the West Bengal Medical and Dental Colleges (Admission) Act, (XXXVI of 1973) provided for the mode and manner in accordance with which admission to the Medical and Dental Colleges are to be made. Mr. Chatterjee referred in this connection to sections 3 and 4 of the said Act. He has also stated that section 11 of the said Act provided that the rules may be framed by Government for this purpose. This Act was, however, repealed in 1977. Mr. Mr. Chatterjee referred in this connection to sections 3 and 4 of the said Act. He has also stated that section 11 of the said Act provided that the rules may be framed by Government for this purpose. This Act was, however, repealed in 1977. Mr. Chatterjee has also submitted that the West Bengal Board of Examination was formed by the Government to hold Joint Entrance Examination for admission to Medical Colleges as well as to Engineering and Technological Degree Colleges on the basis of the provisions of this Act. Later on, however, Mr. Chatterjee on coming to know of the repeal of the said Act has frankly submitted before this Court that the said Act has been repealed and as such whatever submissions he had made on the said Act could not be taken into consideration. Mr. Chatterjee, however, relied on the Government order dated 17th February, 1972 issued under the signature of J. C. Sengupta, Secretary, Government of West Bengal regarding selection of candidates for admission in the Medical Course in the Dental and Medical Colleges in West Bengal run by the Government and the Universities. This Government order states that from the session 1972-73 selection for admission of candidates into Premedical Course in Dental and Medical Colleges made by the West Bengal Board of Examination will also be for admission to Engineering Degree Colleges on the basis of the Joint Entrance Examination for admission to Engineering Colleges also. It has been submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that on the basis of this executive order of the Government the West Bengal Board of Examination was conducting the Joint Entrance Examination for admission to the Medical, Engineering and Technological Degree Colleges. Mr. Chatterjee in this connection also refers to another order of the Government dated 7th July, 1981 which renamed the Board as the West Bengal Board of Examination for admission in Engineering, Medical and Technological Degree Colleges and the Government reconstituted the Board of Examination by naming the persons who will be the members of the Board. It has been submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that the rules that have been framed by the Board are valid and as such in holding Examinations by the West Bengal Board of Examination for admission to the Medical and Engineering Colleges the Board did not act without jurisdiction and unauthorizedly. 16. Mr. It has been submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that the rules that have been framed by the Board are valid and as such in holding Examinations by the West Bengal Board of Examination for admission to the Medical and Engineering Colleges the Board did not act without jurisdiction and unauthorizedly. 16. Mr. N. N. Gooptu, the Government Pleader, has, in the first instance, submitted that the instant writ application is not maintainable on the grounds that it was not made bona fide and the necessary parties like the Medical Colleges, the Central Selection Board as well as the successful candidates have not been impleaded as respondents in this application. It has been secondly urged by Mr. Gooptu that the petitioners having voluntarily accepted the rules and acquiesced to the same by appearing at the Examination being fully conversant with the provisions of the rules cannot now turn round and challenge the validity of those rules. The application is liable to be dismissed on the ground of estoppel and acquiescence. It has been further submitted that no challenge has been thrown as to the validity to the rules inspite of the fact that the rules were supplied with the application forms to all the candidates. This application, it has been submitted, is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioners to come before this Court at the earliest possible opportunity. Even if it has been taken that the result was hung up on 10th July, 1982 the instant application was moved before this Court on 30th July, 1982 and not before that. It has been stated that in the meantime valuable right accrued in favour of the successful candidates some of whom have already taken admission. Therefore, the application should be dismissed on this ground. It has been next submitted that the Government Order issued on 17th February, 1972 and 7th July, 1981 in regard to the admission in Medical Colleges as well as in Engineering and Technological Colleges by authorizing the West Bengal Board of Examination to hold the admission test are executive orders which the Government are competent to make by virtue of the power conferred on the Government under Article 162 of the Constitution and therefore the rules that have been framed by the Board in holding the said admission test is quite legal and valid. It has been further submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the argument that some of the students secured very high marks in the Secondary and Higher Secondary Examinations are expected to fare well in this Examination for admission held by the Board is of no substance inasmuch as the Examination in Secondary and Higher Secondary standard are of subjective type while the Joint Entrance Examination is of objective type and as such there is no basis of the argument that students who fared well in the Secondary and Higher Secondary Examinations will do well also in the Examination for admission to the Medical, Engineering and Technological Colleges. It has been further submitted that the rules framed by the Board of Examination does not provide for any post publication scrutiny or review and as such there cannot be any challenge to these rules as opposed to principles of natural justice and arbitrary by not providing for review or post-publication scrutiny. It has been further submitted that there was no pleading of mala fide in the petition and the same has not been proved by the petitioners on whom the onus heavily lies. It has also been submitted that this writ application is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioners failed to satisfy that there has been an infringement of fundamental rights by the publication of the impugned result. In this connection the decision of (2) State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd., AIR 1953 SC 252 has been cited at the Bar. 17. Before considering the merits of the contentions raised on behalf of the parties it is necessary and relevant to consider the preliminary objections about the maintainability of the writ application on the ground of non-impleading of necessary parties, namely, the successful candidates, the Central Selection Committee and also the Medical Colleges. The subject-matter of challenge in this writ application is the arbitrary and illegal manner of conducting and publishing the results of the examination held by the West Bengal Board of Examination for admission to the Medical Colleges, Engineering Colleges and Technological Colleges and also the legal competence of the Board of Examination to frame rules and to hold the said examination. To consider this question, in my opinion, the West Bengal Board of Examination for admission to Medical, Engineering and Technological Degree Colleges is the necessary and proper party and the same has been impleaded as respondent No.3 and its Chairman has been impleaded as the respondent No.4. It appears from the rules that the Central Selection Committee and/or the respective Colleges are to call for interview those candidates who have reached qualifying standards for viva voce and medical test. In this case no challenge has been thrown to the viva voce and medical tests held or to be held by the different colleges concerned or by the Central Selection Committee and as such, in my opinion, non-impleading of the Medical Colleges does not render the application infructuous or bad causing it to the danger of being dismissed in limine. The selected candidates, of course, are necessary parties and they have not been impleaded. But it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the list of successful candidates that were hung up in the respective colleges and the copies of which have been produced before this Court do not disclose the particulars of these candidates and as such in view of the controversy that has arisen between the parties I direct the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to supply the complete list of successful candidates with their names and addresses before this Court in course of a week from today, in order to enable the petitioners if they so desire to implead them as parties respondents in the instant application. Therefore, I am unable to hold that this application is liable to be dismissed in limine for non-impleading of necessary parties. It is pertinent to refer in this connection to the decision of (3) A. P. Chetiar v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 1971 SC 2085 . In that case the petitioner was a candidate who applied for admission in the Medical Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu being not selected challenged the selections on various grounds and a Rule was issued. At the final hearing the Court held that the selections were invalid for reasons mentioned in the order but the learned Judges of the Supreme Court did not strike down the selections in view of the fact that the selected candidates had not been made parties to this petition. At the final hearing the Court held that the selections were invalid for reasons mentioned in the order but the learned Judges of the Supreme Court did not strike down the selections in view of the fact that the selected candidates had not been made parties to this petition. This decision which has been cited on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has got no application to the facts of this case for the simple reason I have stated hereinbefore that unless the names of the selected candidates and their addresses are made known to the petitioners it is impossible for the petitioners to implead the selected candidates as party respondents. Certainly I am not hearing the application on merits finally after the issuance of the rule. I am only hearing the application in order to determine whether a prima fade case or an arguable case has been made out for issuance of the rule or not. 18. Another preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is that there has been unusual delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in moving this writ application before this Court and this prevents the petitioners from getting this extraordinary relief by way of issuance of a writ and/or appropriate order or direction from this Writ Court. Bhagwati, J. in the case of (4) Naraindas Indurkhya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 1232 has observed :–– "The Primary Education at all times and the Middle School Education, so far as Mohakoshal regions is concerned, after the enactment of the Act of 1959 and in other regions before that time, were regulated by the State Government. The State Government prescribed the courses of instruction and syllabi for all classes of Primary and Middle Schools Education and they were followed not only by Government schools but also by private schools not because of any statutory authority, but because most of the private schools depended on grant-in-aid from the State Government and unless the courses of instruction and syllabi prescribed by State Government were followed by them, they would not be recognized by the Board of Secondary Education. The Text Book Corporation was registered under section M. P. Societies Registration Act, 1959. The Minister of Education was the Chairman and some Government Officers were members of this Corporation. The Text Book Corporation was registered under section M. P. Societies Registration Act, 1959. The Minister of Education was the Chairman and some Government Officers were members of this Corporation. The M. P. Government made an order providing that 28 Text Books printed and published by Text Book Corporation for use in Primary and Middle School Classes. This order has been challenged on the ground it had got no legal force. Held that this does not mean that the State Government was not entitled to prescribe these text books in exercise of its executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution. The executive power of the State Government under Article 162 extends to all matters with respect to which the State Legislature has power to make laws and since education is a subject which falls within Entry No. 11 of list II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, the State Government could apparently in exercise of its executive power prescribe these 28 text books, provided in doing so it did not trench on the rights of any person. It is now well-settled by the decision of this Court that in Ram Jawaya v. State of Punjab, (1955) 2 SCR 225 : AIR 1955 SC 549 that the State Government can act in exercise of executive power in relation to any matter with respect to which the State Legislature has power to make laws, even if there is no legislation to support such executive action, but such executive action must not infringe the rights of any person. If the executive action taken by the State Government encroaches on any private rights, it would have to be supported by the legislative authority, for under the rule of law which prevails in our country every executive action which operates to the prejudice of any person must have the authority of law to support it. (Vide paragraph 27 of the judgment of this Court in Bennete Colemen & Co. v. Union of India (1973) 2 SCC 788 : AIR 1973 SC 106 ). The executive action of the Stale Government in extending upon the business of printing, publishing and selling text books in Ram Jawaya's case, (1955) 2 SCR 225 : AIR 1955 SC 549 though not supported by legislation, was upheld because it did not operate to the prejudice of any person. The executive action of the Stale Government in extending upon the business of printing, publishing and selling text books in Ram Jawaya's case, (1955) 2 SCR 225 : AIR 1955 SC 549 though not supported by legislation, was upheld because it did not operate to the prejudice of any person. This Court took care to point out that "if it were necessary to encroach upon private rights in order to enable the Government to carryon their business, a specific legislation sanctioning such course would have to be passed." 19. Coming to the instant case on a consideration of the facts it will be evident at once that there has not been any unusual delay or laches on the part of the petitioners in moving this Court by this writ application. In paragraph 9 of the petition it is stated that the result of the Joint Entrance Examination was published on June 30, 1982 and the said list was hurriedly withdrawn from publication later on. In paragraph 10 it has been stated that the list of candidates alleged to be successful was published on or about 10th July, 1982 without giving their detailed mark-sheet. Thereafter, the petitioner moved this application on 30th July, 1982. In these circumstances, I am unable to hold that this application is liable to be dismissed for laches and delay is moving this Court. More so when it involves a very important question challenging the arbitrary and capricious manner in which without laying down any norms and/or standards marks have been added to the candidates without consulting the Board of Examiners arbitrarily and the merit list was published in a most arbitrary manner seriously affecting the future prospects of a large number of candidates who appeared in the said admission test. 20. Another preliminary objection which deserves consideration is that the application is barred by estoppel and acquiescence inasmuch as the petitioners knowing fully well the rules framed by the West Bengal Board of Examination for admission to Engineering, Medical and Technological Degree Colleges which were supplied to them along with the application forms for appearing at the said test clearly provide that the examination will be held by the Board of Examination in the manner laid down therein. The petitioners having acquiesced and accepted the terms contained in the said rules appeared in the said examination though there was no compulsion to them to appear in the said examination. After finding that their names did not appear in the selection list published in different colleges in order of merit they have now come to challenge these rules. This cannot be done inasmuch as they cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. It has also been submitted in this connection that having accepted these rules and acted on the basis of the representations as contained in the said rules they (the petitioners) cannot now turn round and challenge or question the legality and validity of these rules and also the result declared by the Board of Examination on the basis of the test held by them. Section 115 of the Evidence Act which deals with estoppel provides that when a person by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe, a thing to be true and to act upon such belief neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing. It has been rightly contended by Mr. Tapas Roy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of some of the candidates, i.e., added respondents that this provision has got no application to the instant case inasmuch as no question of any declaration or representation arise in this case. A student intending to get admission in Medical College or in Engineering College or Technological College has no other alternative but to appear in the examination held by the West Bengal Board of Examination for admission of students in these colleges. If the student who is desirous of prosecuting studies in Engineering or in Medical stream does not choose to appear in the said admission test has got no other avenue open before him for getting admission in the Medical and/or Engineering and/or Technological Colleges and his long cherished hope will never be fulfilled. If the student who is desirous of prosecuting studies in Engineering or in Medical stream does not choose to appear in the said admission test has got no other avenue open before him for getting admission in the Medical and/or Engineering and/or Technological Colleges and his long cherished hope will never be fulfilled. In such circumstances, there is no question that the petitioners having been fully aware of the declaration contained in the rules framed by the Board for holding the examination for admission in Medical and/or Engineering and/or Technological Colleges and after appearing in the said examination are estopped from assailing the rules and also the result published as these rules cannot be, under any circumstance, treated as a declaration or representation as provided in section 115 of the Evidence Act and any student appearing in the said examination is not estopped from challenging the arbitrary and capricious manner in which the answer-scripts were examined and evalued and assessed the tabulation works were made and results were published. The doctrine of estoppel in the facts and circumstances of this case does not apply and these two applications, in my opinion, cannot be dismissed on this ground. The question of promissory estoppel also cannot arise. 21. The most important and vital question that requires to be considered in order to come to a prima facie finding as to whether any prima facie and/or arguable case has been made out for issuance of the Rule in these instant cases is whether the Government is competent in exercise of the executive power of the State to issue the aforesaid Government orders made in 1972 and in 1981 respectively for the formation and/or constitution of the West Bengal Board of Examination, for holding examinations for admission to Engineering, Medical and Technological Degree Colleges. Inexplicably connected with this issue is another vital issue which also requires determination by this Court is whether the rules for the Joint Entrance Examination, 1982 framed laying down the manner of holding the said examination can be made by the West Bengal Board of Examination constituted by the Government on the basis of the said executive order. Inexplicably connected with this issue is another vital issue which also requires determination by this Court is whether the rules for the Joint Entrance Examination, 1982 framed laying down the manner of holding the said examination can be made by the West Bengal Board of Examination constituted by the Government on the basis of the said executive order. Thirdly, the West Bengal Board of Examination which is constituted by the executive order of the Government dated 17th February, 1972 though not expressly empowered by the Governor to frame rules laying down the manner and mode of holding the said examination is competent to frame the impugned rules and whether the same is enforceable. 22. To decide the aforesaid issues it is necessary and relevant to consider the extent of the executive power of the State. Article 162 of the Constitution provides that subject to the provisions of this constitution, the executive power of a State shall extend to the matters in respect of which the Legislature of the State has power to make laws :–– "Provided that in any matter with respect to which the Legislature of a State and Parliament have power to make laws, the executive power of the State shall be subject to, and limited by, the executive power expressly conferred by this Constitution or by any law made by Parliament upon the Union or authorities thereof." This provision thus lays down that the executive power of the State is coextensive with the legislative power of the State. The only limitation is that in any matter with respect to which the Legislature of a State or Parliament have power to make laws, the executive power of the State shall be subject to, and limited by the executive power expressly conferred by this Constitution or by any law made by Parliament upon the Union or authorities thereof. This Article, therefore, provides that the State in exercise of its executive power can make or pass orders in regard to matters with respect to which the State Legislature has power to make laws. It is pertinent to refer in this connection to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of (5) Ramjaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549 . It is pertinent to refer in this connection to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of (5) Ramjaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549 . It has been observed by B. K. Mukherjee, C.J. as follows: Thus under this Article the executive authority of the State is exclusive in respect to the matters enumerated in List II of Seventh Schedule. The authority also extends to the Concurrent List except as provided in the Constitution itself or in any law passed by the Parliament. Similarly, Article 73 provides that the executive power of the Union shall extend to matters with respect to which the Parliament has power to make laws and to the exercise of such rights, authority and jurisdiction as are exercisable by the Government of India by virtue of any treaty or any agreement. The proviso engrafted on clause (1) further lays down that although with regard to the matters in the Concurrent List the executive authority shall be ordinarily left to the State it would be open to the Parliament to provide that in exceptional cases the executive power of the Union shall extend to these matters also. 23. Neither of these articles contains any definition as to what the executive function is and what activities would legitimately come within its scope. They are concerned primarily with the distribution of the executive power between the Union on the one hand and the State on the other. They do not mean, as Mr. Pathak seems to suggest that it is only when the Parliament or State Legislature has legislated on certain items appertaining to their respective lists that the Union or the State executive, as the case may be, can proceed to function in respect to them. 24. On the other hand, the language of Article 162 clearly indicates that the powers of the State Executive do extend to matters upon which the State Legislature is competent to legislate and are not confined to matters over which legislation has been passed already. 25. It has been further observed in the aforesaid case as follows :–– "The executive Government, however, can never go against the provisions of the Constitution or of any law. 25. It has been further observed in the aforesaid case as follows :–– "The executive Government, however, can never go against the provisions of the Constitution or of any law. This is clear from the provisions of Article 154 of the Constitution but, as we have already stated, it does not follow from this that in order to enable the executive to function there must be a law already in existence and that the powers of the executive are limited merely to the carrying out of these laws." The aforesaid judgment has been relied upon in the case of Naraindas Indurkhya v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1974 SC 1232 at page 1240 para 10. In that case the question arose for determination was that if the State Government in exercise of its executive power could prescribe text books for primary and middle schools in the absence of any enactment in this respect. Bhagwati, J. who spoke for the Supreme Court observed: "But that does not mean that the State Government was not entitled to prescribe these 28 text books in exercise of its executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution. The executive power of the State Government under Article 162 extends to all matters with respect to which the State Legislature has power to make laws and since education is a subject which falls within Entry II of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, the State Government could apparently in exercise of its executive power prescribe these 28 text books provided that in doing so it did not trench on the rights of any person. It is well-settled by the decision of this Court in Ramjaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, (1955) 2 SCR 225 : AIR 1955 SC 549 that the State Government can act in exercise of its executive power in relation to any matter with respect to which the State Legislature has power to make laws, even if there is no legislation to support such executive action but such executive action must not infringe the rights of any person. If the executive action taken by the State Government encroaches on any private rights, it would have to be supported by a legislative authority, for under the rule of law which prevails in our country every executive action which operates to the prejudice of any person must have the authority of law to support it, vide paragraph 27 of the judgment of this Court in (6) Bennete Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, (1973) 2 SCC 788 : AIR 1973 SC 106 . Similar observation has been made by the Supreme Court in the case of (7) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Singh, AIR 1967 SC 1170 : (1967) 2 SCR 454 . It has been held that all executive action which operates to the prejudice of any person must have the authority to support it and the terms of Article 358 do not detract from that rule. Article 358 does not purport to invest the State with arbitrary authority to take action to the prejudice of the citizens. 26. Apropos in this context to refer to the provisions of Article 154 of the Constitution of India which provides that the executive power of a State shall be vested in the Governor and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution. In clause 2(a) of the said Article it has been further provided that nothing in this Article shall be deemed to transfer to the Governor any function conferred by any existing law on any other authority. It has also been provided in clause 2(b) that nothing in this Article shall prevent the Parliament or the Legislature of the State from conferring by law functions on any authority subordinate to the Governor. This Article, therefore, clearly enjoins that the Governor is empowered to exercise either directly or through officers subordinate to him the executive powers of the State in accordance with the Constitution. The only restrictions imposed upon the exercise of such power by Clause 2 of the said Article is that the Governor cannot exercise any function which has been conferred on any other authority by the enactment of any existing law and also the Legislature of the State or of the Union is not debarred from conferring by law any function on any authority subordinate to the Governor. The same view has been discussed in the case of (8) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association, reported in AIR 1982 SC 32 at pages 41-42, para 20. 27. On a conspectus of the decisions pronounced by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases as also of the provisions of Articles 154 and 162 of the Constitution of India. It is now well-settled that the executive power of the State though extends to matters with respect to which the State Legislature has power to make laws, yet the limitations to the exercise of such executive power by the Government are two-fold : Firstly, if any Actor law has been made by the State Legislature conferring any function on any other authority in that case the Governor is not empowered to make any order in regard to that matter in exercise of his executive power nor can he exercise such power in regard to that matter through officers subordinate to him. Secondly, the vesting in the Governor with the executive power of the Stale Government does not create any embargo for the Legislature of the State from making and for enacting by law conferring functions on any authority subordinate to the Governor. Judged by this test in the instant case the impugned orders made by the Government dated 17th February, 1972 and 7th July, 1981 annexed as Annexures 'C(1)' and 'D' to the affidavit-in-opposition sworn on 10th August, 1982 by Dr. Arun Kumar Seal, Principal, Bengal Engineering College, Shibpur and also the Chairman of the West Bengal Board of Examination for admission to the Engineering, Medical and Technological Degree Colleges on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 cannot have any legal effect in view of the fact that the Calcutta University Act, 1979 (West Bengal Act XXXVIII of 1979) had been passed by the State Legislature and the same was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 31st December, 1979. The Preamble of the Act has been introduced in order to reconstitute the University of Calcutta to enable it to function more independently as a University engaging and providing for instruction, teaching and training and research in various branches of learning and courses of study, promoting advancement and dissemination of knowledge and learning and extending higher education to meet the growing needs of the society, etc. The Medical College as well as the Engineering and Technological Colleges in question are undoubtedly affiliated to the University of Calcutta. Section 17 of the said Act specifies the authorities of the University which amongst others includes the Council of under-graduate studies. Section 25 of the said Act states that the Council of under-graduate studies shall include within it amongst other (1) the Council for under-graduate studies in Medicine, Dental Science etc., (2) The Council for under-graduate studies in Engineering and Technology. The mode of constituting these Councils have been specified in sub-section (2) of section 25. Section 26 of the said Act specifies the powers and duties of the Council for under-graduate studies. Clauses (iv), (vi) and (xi) of section 26 which are relevant for the purpose are set out hereunder :–– (iv) To fix the last date of admission of students to different courses of studies and the date of commencement of examinations in consultation with other Councils for under-graduate studies; (vi) To bold and conduct examinations and to approve and declare the results of the examination within such period as may be prescribed; (xi) To provide for the inspection or investigation into the affairs of under-graduate college or institutions recognized by the Councilor affiliated to the University and to exercise general supervision and control over them; Sub-section (2)(i) and (ii) provides that the Council for under-graduate studies for Medicine, Dental Science, Homoeopathy and Ayurveda shall have general responsibility for academic affairs for Medical Colleges affiliated to the Universities relating to entrance requirements, curricula, instructions, examinations, discipline, student activities etc. This Council is empowered to frame rules and make regulations relating to courses of under-graduate studies of Medicines and division of subjects in regard thereto. Section 52 enjoins that subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, Ordinances may be made to provide for all or any of the following matters : (a) The admission of students to the University and the colleges affiliated to or recognized by it and their enrolment as such. Section 55 of the said Act provides the manner of making regulations by the Syndicate. 28. Section 55 of the said Act provides the manner of making regulations by the Syndicate. 28. Therefore, from the above provisions set out hereinbefore it is clear that the Council for under-graduate studies in Medicine, Dental Science as well as the Council for under-graduate studies for Engineering, Technology are empowered to fix last date of admission of students to different courses of studies and the date of commencing of examination as well as to hold and conduct examination and to approve of and declare results of the examination within such a period as may be prescribed. It is also evident that Council for under-graduate studies in Medicine and Dental Science is empowered to frame rules and make regulations relating to courses of under-graduate studies in Medicine and they will have the general responsibility relating to entrance requirements. Section 52 also provides that Ordinances may be made providing for all or any of the matters mentioned therein including admission of students to the Universities and Colleges affiliated to the Universities. Therefore, the Calcutta University Act, 1979 has empowered the Calcutta University Council for under-graduate studies in Medicine and Dental Science as well as the Council for under-graduate studies for Engineering and Technology to frame rules for admission of students in these courses of studies in accordance with the Ordinances that will be framed under section 52 of the said Act. In this context the impugned orders which have been relied upon by both the Government Pleader appealing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that the constitution of the West Bengal Board of Examination for admission to Engineering, Medical and Technological Degree Colleges and also investing the said Board impliedly to frame rules are competent is not sustainable as the power to hold examination for admission to these Medical and Technological Degree Colleges affiliated to the Calcutta University has been expressly conferred on the Calcutta University and its Council for under-graduate studies for Medical and Dental Science and the Council for under-graduate studies in Engineering and Technology. The Order of the Government passed and made is exercise of the executive power in these circumstances is clearly hit by the provisions of clause (2) of Article 154 of the Constitution of India and as such these orders cannot have any legal force and effect. It may be pointed out in this connection that the Government Order, dated 17th February, 1972 merely provides that from Session 1972-73 selection of candidates for admission to Pre-medical course in Dental Colleges and Medical Colleges in West Bengal could be made by the West Bengal Board of Examination for admission to Engineering Degree Colleges by holding the Joint Entrance Examination for this purpose. This Government Order cannot now have any legal effect for two reasons. Firstly, the West Bengal Medical and Dental Colleges (Regulation and Admission) Act XXXVI of 1973 was enforced on 13 September, 1973 and as such at that relevant time in February, 1973 there was no enactment or law made by the State Legislature providing for the manner of admitting students to the Pre-Medical Courses of Studies. The aforesaid Act, that is, West Bengal Dental and Medical (Regulation and Admission) Act was repealed by Act 27 of 1977. It will not be out of place to mention in this connection that at the inception there was an agreement on behalf of the Engineering Colleges except the Engineering College affiliated to the Jadavpur University that a Joint Entrance Examination would be conducted by a Board constituted with the heads of the Colleges and a representative of the Government in the Education Department. Accordingly a Government order was made on 2nd March, 1962. This order, however, was replaced by another Government Order dated 23rd April, 1962 annexed as Annexure 'B' to the affidavit-in-opposition. It was for the first time stated that there could be an official body with full power to operate the rules and procedure to be evolved by the Board and with necessary staff to be appointed by the Board for conducting the Joint admission test. Thereafter, the impugned orders as mentioned hereinbefore have been made. It was for the first time stated that there could be an official body with full power to operate the rules and procedure to be evolved by the Board and with necessary staff to be appointed by the Board for conducting the Joint admission test. Thereafter, the impugned orders as mentioned hereinbefore have been made. This impugned orders, as I have held already, cannot have any legal effect and more particularly the Government Order dated 7th July, 1981 which supersedes all previous orders merely provides for reconstitution of the West Bengal Board of Examination for admission to Engineering, Medical and Technological Degree Colleges and this order does not empower the Board to make rules for holding the Joint Entrance Examination for admission to the aforesaid colleges. I have held already that the impugned orders are not enforceable and as such the West Bengal Board of Examination which was constituted on the basis of this order is not competent to hold the Joint Entrance Examination for admission to Medical, Engineering and Technological Degree Colleges nor the Government is competent to constitute such a Board of Examination in total disregard of the statutory provisions stated hereinbefore as embodied in the Calcutta University Act, 1979, which invest the University and its authorities with all powers of making Rules, Regulations, Statutes and Ordinances for the purpose of prescribing the course of studies to be followed by the Medical, Engineering and Technological Degree Colleges affiliated to it and also providing for the manner in which admissions are to be given to the students desirous of reading in any of these courses of studies. So, undoubtedly the attack that has been made in the instant writ application as to the competence of the Board to hold the Joint Entrance Examination for admission to Medical, Engineering Technological Degree Colleges affiliated to the University of Calcutta and the Rules framed for this purpose certainly beyond any pale of doubts raised important questions of law which need to be decided by this Writ Court. In these circumstances I am of opinion that a prima facie case as well as an arguable case has been made out for the issuance of the Rules on these applications. 29. Even assuming for argument's sake that the Government Order dated 7th July, 1981 annexed as Annexure 'D' to the affidavit-in-opposition sworn on behalf of the respondent Nos. In these circumstances I am of opinion that a prima facie case as well as an arguable case has been made out for the issuance of the Rules on these applications. 29. Even assuming for argument's sake that the Government Order dated 7th July, 1981 annexed as Annexure 'D' to the affidavit-in-opposition sworn on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 providing for reconstitution of the Board of Examination for holding the Joint Entrance Examination for admission to the aforesaid Colleges is competent, still then, unless the Governor delegates or empowers the Board of Examination specifically to frame rules the Rules alleged to have been framed as rules for the Joint Entrance Examination, 1982 are wholly unauthorized and without jurisdiction and ultra vires the powers conferred on the Board. Such Rules, in my opinion, cannot have any validity. However, this is also a serious question which requires to be considered and decided in the writ application. The learned Standing Counsel has, however, argued that though no express power has been conferred on the Board of Examination to frame these rules, yet on the basis of the implied power the Board is competent to frame the said rules. It is relevant to mention in this respect that on a look at the rules which have been annexed as Annexure 'E' to the affidavit-in-opposition it does not show on the face of it as to who actually framed those rules. There is no signature of the rule making authority nor there is any disclosure if those rules were notified in the Calcutta Gazette for general information. The only averment made in paragraph 9 of the said affidavit-in-opposition is that the Board framed certain rules for the Joint Entrance Examination, 1982, meaning the aforesaid rules. Moreover, some of the provisions of those rules are on the face of it wholly arbitrary and it confers arbitrary and unreasonable powers on the Board of Examination in the matter of sending the results of the Joint Entrance Examination to the Colleges and the Central Selection Committee after holding the selection test of the candidates. It is specifically provided in those rules that the Board is in no way responsible for admission to the Colleges and the Board merely sends the results of the Joint Entrance Examination to the Colleges and the Central Selection Committee and the final selection tests with them. It is specifically provided in those rules that the Board is in no way responsible for admission to the Colleges and the Board merely sends the results of the Joint Entrance Examination to the Colleges and the Central Selection Committee and the final selection tests with them. It has also been provided therein that the Board does not publish the results and it does not communicate the results to any individual candidate. There is no provision for post-publication scrutiny and review and hence the Board will net entertain any such application. It has been urged in this connection by the learned Standing Counsel, Mr. Chatterjee on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by referring to the results sent to the Colleges that the Board does not disclose the marks obtained by the successful candidates whose names appeared in the merit list. It has also been submitted by Mr. Chatterjee in this connection referring to the statement that has been made in paragraph 15 of the writ application of Dr. Jitendra Lal Banerjee and another that grace marks have been given to the tune of 60 marks without having any declared policy, rules, norms, procedure and lawful practice that this was not done but a general addition of 50 marks to the medical candidates and 25 marks to the Engineering candidates have been given. It has also been contended for by Mr. Chatterjee that if this addition of marks that have been given be deducted from the marks obtained from the candidates if could not in any way alter or change the position of the candidates in the merit list and as such it has been submitted that there has been no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the matter of the general adding of the aforesaid marks to the students appearing in the admission test for the admission in the three streams of studies. Unfortunately, in the affidavit-in-opposition sworn by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 there is no whisper about the giving of these additional marks nor there is any averment that these additional marks were given to the students in general on the basis of any decision arrived at by the Board of Examiners. Unfortunately, in the affidavit-in-opposition sworn by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 there is no whisper about the giving of these additional marks nor there is any averment that these additional marks were given to the students in general on the basis of any decision arrived at by the Board of Examiners. But, on the other hand, it has been stated, in paragraph 19 of the affidavit-in-opposition that the Board asked the Confidential Sub-committee to finalize the result and place it at the adjourned meeting to be held on 7th July, 1982 and approved the same. Mr. Chatterjee also submitted in this connection that previously in accordance with the notification published by the Board the standard laid down for publication in the merit list of the names of candidates, was the obtaining of 50% of marks by the candidates. Subsequently, it was found that requisite number of candidates on the basis of the aforesaid requirements are not available to fill up the seats in the aforesaid colleges and as such candidates to have the requisite number of students those who secured less than 50 marks have been taken into consideration and the final list was prepared accordingly. Mr. Chatterjee when asked to produce the resolution of the Confidential Sub-Committee, submitted that it is a secret document and cannot be disclosed before this Court for public interest. Apart from anything else in the rules alleged to have been framed by the Board for Examination there is no indication that the merit list of the candidates would be prepared on the basis of the resolution of a Confidential Sub-Committee and/or that marks will be added to what have been obtained by the candidates on the basis of evaluation of their necessary scripts. Therefore, this act on the part of the Board in giving additional marks to the candidates on the basis of a resolution of a Confidential Sub-Committee which is not formed in accordance with the rules nor the rules do provide for formation of such a committee is wholly arbitrary, devoid of any reasonable basis and opens the flood gate of discrimination, favouritism and inequality. It is also surprising that though direction have been given by this Court to produce the impugned results of the Joint Entrance Examination and also the results that have been published on June 30, 1982 the same was not produced by the respondent Nos. It is also surprising that though direction have been given by this Court to produce the impugned results of the Joint Entrance Examination and also the results that have been published on June 30, 1982 the same was not produced by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 till this Court directed the issuance of a Subpoena to the Principal, Calcutta Medical College to produce the booklet containing the results of the Joint Entrance Examination. This Subpoena, however, was not served on 6th of August, 1982 and it was directed to be reissued on the next day and the Principal appeared before this Court on 8th August 82 when the learned Standing Counsel produced a letter written by the Principal, Medical College on 6th of August, 1982 addressed to him stating that no result of the said examination was published on 30th June, 1982. But he received the results on 8th July, 1982 and published the same on 9th July, 1982. Therefore, before that day in respect of the interim order containing the direction to produce this result before this Court the result was not produced before this Court by the learned Standing Counsel. Moreover, the learned Standing Counsel submitted before this Court that he cannot disclose before the open Court why a general addition of marks as stated hereinbefore was given but if the learned Judge so permit him to submit it he will meet the learned Judge in his chamber and will disclose the same. This submission of the learned Standing Counsel was turned down by this Court with the observation that the proceedings of the Court are to be carried on in the open Court and this Court cannot permit the learned Standing Counsel to disclose something in his chamber behind the back of the learned Advocates of the other side. This addition of marks on the basis of the resolution of the Confidential Sub-Committee without any consultation with the Board of Examiners and without any decision to that effect taken by the members of the Board and de hors the provisions of the rules is undoubtedly arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious. Nothing has been disclosed as to what norms or on what standards have been laid down by the Confidential Sub-Committee which has got no foundation at all to take a resolution for adding of marks to the candidates. Nothing has been disclosed as to what norms or on what standards have been laid down by the Confidential Sub-Committee which has got no foundation at all to take a resolution for adding of marks to the candidates. Nor the argument that has been advanced on behalf of the petitioners that these marks that have been added to some specially favoured candidates for reasons best known to the authorities concerned cannot be summarily rejected without any dose scrutiny and examination of the same. It is now well-settled by the decision of (9) Ramana Dayaram Shethy v. The International Airport Authority of India, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1628 at page 1635 that the executive or administrative authorities are rigorously fixed to the standard that has been laid down on pain of invalidation of their action if the said standard is deviated from. 30. It is necessary to point out in this connection that the right of education is one of the right which has been embodied in the Directive Principles of State Policy in Article 41 of the Constitution of India and this right to education though not a fundamental right enforceable in law yet it has been enjoined in Article 37 of the Constitution that the provisions contained in Part IV of the Constitution are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply this principle in making laws. Therefore, this writ application which raises all these important questions of law needs to be decided by this Court and as I have held already that a prima facie case has been made out for the issuance of a rule. I do not think it proper to determine at this stage the other questions raised regarding the defective instructions issued to the examiners in the matter of evaluating and giving mala fide marks on the answers, the glaring inconsistency in the questions made in English language and its Bengali version. 31. For the reasons aforesaid, since a prima facie case has been made out for the issuance of the rules and more particularly when the matter was argued continuously by the learned Advocates for both the parties for a number of days I am of opinion that a prima facie case has been made out for issuance of the Rules. 31. For the reasons aforesaid, since a prima facie case has been made out for the issuance of the rules and more particularly when the matter was argued continuously by the learned Advocates for both the parties for a number of days I am of opinion that a prima facie case has been made out for issuance of the Rules. Let a Rule issue in terms of the prayers of the petition. The interim order made by this Court on 30th July, 1982 is extended till the disposal of the rule. As the matter is extremely urgent I also direct the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to produce before this Court a complete list of successful candidates with their names and addresses within one week from the date of this order in order to enable the petitioners to implead them in this Rule, if they so desire. I also direct in consideration of the urgency as it involves the fate of a large number of students that the matter be fixed for hearing three weeks hence at the top irrespective of part heard. [There was an appeal. The Appellate Court simply vacated the interim order as made by the trial court on 20.8.82.––Edn.]