S. R. MEHROTRA v. H. P. UNIVERSITY — 1988 DIGILAW 31 (HP)

JUDGMENT P. D. Desai, C. J.—The petitioner is the Professor and Chairman,, Department of History, as well as the Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences, of the first respondent-Himachal Pradesh University (hereinafter referred to as "the University"). He is also a member of various bodies/ authorities including the Academic Council of the University. He has challenged, inter-alia, herein : (a) the action of the Vice-Chancellor (hereinafter referred to as "the second respondent") to grant provisional admission to the fifth respondent in M. Sc., Chemistry Degree Course, First Semester, 1987-88 session, in the month of November, 1987, (b) the decision of the Executive Council of the University taken in its meeting held on January 12, 1988 to create a supernumerary seat for the fifth respondent in M. Sc., Chemistry Degree Course, First Semester 1987-88 session, against the "cultural quota" and (c) the action of the University and of the second and third respondents the third respondent being the Chairman of the Department of Chemistry in the University in permitting the fifth respondent to appear in the M. Sc. First Semester Theory Examination held in January, 1988 although she had not attended a single class or done any practicals. The consequential reliefs which he seeks are to restrain the University from declaring the result of the fifth respondent in the Theory Examination and from allowing her to take her Practicals Examination and to direct the second respondent to perform his statutory duty under section 12-C (4) of the Himachal Pradesh University Act, 1970 (hereafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. The petitioner submits that in moving the present petition, he is acting bonafide and has been actuated solely by a strong sense of duty, a deep concern for the academic discipline and standards and a sincere desire to uphold the rule of law and that having regard to the various positions held by him such as the Professor and Chairman, the Dean and a Member of the various bodies/authorities of the University and as a socially conscious citizen he has sufficient interest in the matter. He has elaborated upon the locus standi to maintain the present petition in paragraphs 2 and 9 of the petition as well as in the additional affidavit dated April 30, 1988 filed during the pendency of the petition. 3. He has elaborated upon the locus standi to maintain the present petition in paragraphs 2 and 9 of the petition as well as in the additional affidavit dated April 30, 1988 filed during the pendency of the petition. 3. Before dealing with the factual aspects of the case, it is necessary to advert to the backdrop as well as to certain statutory provisions. The University is both a teaching as well as an affiliating University. The Faculty of Science is one of the Faculties constituted by the University and the Department of Chemistry is under the said Faculty. M. Sc, Chemistry, is one of the Degrees which is awarded by the University and the course of study for the said Degree is organised and arranged in the Department of Chemistry. The duration of M. Sc, Chemistry Degree Course, is two academic years spread over four semesters. 4. Ordinance 3.1 of the First Ordinances of the Himachal Pradesh University, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Ordinances") makes provision for admission to the various courses of study and also for the reservation of seats. Broadly speaking, 75 per cent of seats in each course of study are set apart for what may be loosely termed as the Himachal candidates and the remaining 25 per cent are open to all. 15 per cent and 7½ per cent of the available seats in each of the categories mentioned above are reserved for students belonging to the Scheduled Castes and "Scheduled Tribes respectively. 5 per cent of the available seats (subject to a minimum of one seat) m each category aforesaid and in each Department are reserved for "outstanding cultural activities". The seats accordingly reserved are called the "cultural quota" seats. 5. For the academic session 1987-88, the relevant rules governing admission against the cultural quota seats were as follows: "1. Admission against outstanding cultural quota, at par with sports quota, would only be made once in the beginning of the academic session. No forms for such admission would be entertained after the expiry of the last date for the general admissions in the University. 2. * * * * * 3. Only those students will be eligible for admission against out standing cultural quota who are having at least highly commend able position in Inter-college Youth Festival in any item on any of the previous two years/Festival/Competitions. 2. * * * * * 3. Only those students will be eligible for admission against out standing cultural quota who are having at least highly commend able position in Inter-college Youth Festival in any item on any of the previous two years/Festival/Competitions. Other things being equal, preference will be given to those who have represented this University in inter-versity festival or State in inter-State cultural competition/festival. 4. While considering against cultural quota the following cultural items will be considered only : (1) Debate (2) Indian Folk Dance (3) Indian Classical Music (vocal) (4) Indian Classical Music (Instrumental) (5) Light Vocal Music (6) Vadya Vadan (7) Group Singing (8) Indian Classical Dance (9) One Act Play/Short Play/ Skit (10) Symposium (11) Poetic and Symposium. (Note: The distinction in the individual items will have preference over the team items. The students seeking admission against outstanding cultural quota should also qualify the minimum eligibility condition for admission in that course as provided under rules). 5. * * * * * 6. * * * * * 7. In order to judge the suitability of the candidates for admission against cultural quota, trials would be held in the respective cultural item by a committee comprising of Dean Students Welfare (as Chairman) and two persons to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor ; and the recommendation of the committee will be final. Original certificates would be seen by the Committee at the time of trials." 6. Reference also needs to be made to some of the other statutory provisions at this stage. Ordinance 3.10 provides that the normal date of admission to all courses of study in the University shall be the 8th of July or the next following working day, if the 8th of July happens to be a holiday The Vice-Chancellor is, however, authorised to extend, for reasons to be recorded in writing, the dates of admission with or without payment of late fee. Ordinance 6.2 provides, inter alia, that every candidate, except when permitted to appear as a private candidate, shall be required to undereo a regular course of study, that is, attendance of lectures, tutorials, seminars practicals, etc. In order to be eligible to appear in a University examination, a candidate should have put in 75 per cent attendance in each of the concerned courses in Theory as well as Practicals. In order to be eligible to appear in a University examination, a candidate should have put in 75 per cent attendance in each of the concerned courses in Theory as well as Practicals. However the Principal/Dean of the Faculty and/or Head of the Department concerned may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, condone shortage of lectures delivered in each of the concerned courses upto a maximum of 10 per cent lectures in Theory and Practicals. Ordinance 23.3 empowers a Head of Department of Study, inter aha, to make admission to all courses (except LL.M, M. Phil, and Registration for Ph. D) and in performing the said function he must take the advice of the Departmental Council consisting of the members of the teaching staff in the Department. 7. Section 12-C of the Act prescribes the powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor who is therein described as "the principal executive and academic officer of the University". He is empowered, inter alia, to exercise general supervision and control over the affairs of the University and made responsible for its proper and efficient functioning. He is further entrusted with the duty to ensure "the observance of the provisions of this Act, the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations" and has been vested with all powers necessary for the said purpose. He has also been authorised to exercise such other powers as may be prescribed by the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations. 8. For the 1987-88 session, the total number of seats available for admission to the First Semester of M. Sc, Chemistry Degree Course, were 30 only, one out of which was reserved for the cultural quota. The normal date of admission to all the courses of study as per Ordinance 3.10 was July 8, 1988. It appears that at a meeting of the Chairpersons of various Departments of Studies and the Deans of Faculties with the Vice-Chancellor held on September 24, 1987, a decision was taken that after that date no admission should be granted to any course of study in the 1987-88 session. 9. The fifth respondent and one Deepak Kumar Saxena applied in June/July, 1987 for admission to the First Semester of M. Sc, Chemistry Degree Course, against the seat reserved for the cultural quota. 9. The fifth respondent and one Deepak Kumar Saxena applied in June/July, 1987 for admission to the First Semester of M. Sc, Chemistry Degree Course, against the seat reserved for the cultural quota. As per the rules governing the admission against the said seat, a Committee comprising the Dean, Students Welfare (Chairman), the Chairperson of the Music Department and the Assistant Director, Songs and Drama Division, Government of India, was constituted by the second respondent in order to take trials in the respective cultural items. The Committee held its meeting on July 20, 1987. The relevant part of the minutes of the proceedings of the Committee reads as follows: "After taking the selection trials for admission under cultural quota, the Committee resolved to recommend the following candidates in order of merit to various teaching departments for admission for the session 1987-88 : Sr. Name of the student. No. CHEMISTRY 1. Mr. Deepak Kumar Saxena. 2. Miss Nisha Awasthy (ineligible Ord. 3.1 (b) (3). * * * * * * * * * * Note: Miss Nisha Awasthy (Deptt. Chem.), Hari Ram (Deptt. DPM & LW) and Mr. Jagdish Chand Mokta (Laws) were found ineligible as per legal advice of the Legal Adviser of the University in terms of Ord. 3.1 (b) (3)." 10. The Vice-Chancellor was requested to approve the admissions subject to the availability of seats as per reservation. The Vice-Chancellor approved the proposal on July 22, 1987. Pursuant thereto, on or about July 23, 1987, Deepak Kumar Saxena was given admission against the aforesaid sole cultural quota seat. 11. fifth respondent, who appears to have initially acquiesced in the rejection of her claim for admission to the course in question, made a request to the Executive Council of the University on September 21, 1987, to grant her admission against the cultural quota seat. The request was considered in the meeting of the Executive Council held on October 9, 1987 and the following decision was taken: "The Executive Council perused the request of Nisha Awasthi dated 21-9-1987 and decided that admission may be granted to her in M.Sc. Chemistry on the analogy of grounds on which Mr. Mokta was granted admission to LL.B. Course in Law Department." The fifth respondent thereafter made an application to the third respondent for admission to the course in question. The third respondent placed the matter before the Departmental Council under Ordinance 23.3. Chemistry on the analogy of grounds on which Mr. Mokta was granted admission to LL.B. Course in Law Department." The fifth respondent thereafter made an application to the third respondent for admission to the course in question. The third respondent placed the matter before the Departmental Council under Ordinance 23.3. In its meeting held on October 23, 1987, the Departmental Council considered the matter and the material portion of its decision reads as follows : "The request of Miss Nisha Awasthi for admission to M.Sc. (Chem.) against cultural quota was considered in analogy with the case of Mr. Mokta in the department of law as cited in the Executive Council in its meetings resolution under item No. 44 dated 9-10-1987. It was observed that (i) Mr. Mokta was admitted under cultural quota in the department of Law against a Vacant Seat from the quota which was left unfilled upon Mr. Moktas representation earlier, (ii) In our department, the only seat reserved for cultural quota has already been filled up by admitting a student whose name was suggested by the DSW (vide letter No. DSW/HPU/87/88 CA. Admns. 52, dated 23-7-1987). The case of Miss Nisha Awasthi is, therefore, not quite analogous to the case of Mr. Mokta of the Department of Law and even after giving due regard to the Executive Councils decision, we find ourselves unable to admit her because we do not have a vacant seat under cultural quota." 12. The request of the fifth respondent for admission was thus rejected despite the decision of the Executive Council in her favour. 13. The second respondent stepped in at that stage and granted provisional admission to the fifth respondent on or about November 27, 1987. The request of the fifth respondent for admission was thus rejected despite the decision of the Executive Council in her favour. 13. The second respondent stepped in at that stage and granted provisional admission to the fifth respondent on or about November 27, 1987. This was done after the fifth respondent undertook in writing to the third respondent to abide by the condition that she would not advance any claim to admission in the Department in case the Executive Council/Academic Council, which was to consider the subject in the next meeting, rejected the proposal for the creation of an additional seat in the Department, The second respondent has averred in the course of his affidavit dated April 2, 1988 that the factors which weighed with him in the matter of granting the provisional admission were that : (a) the fifth respondent was pressing hard for admission to the course in question in view of the decision of the Executive Council, (b) the Departmental Council had not granted admission to her for want of a vacant seat, (c) the Executive Council was not likely to meet in the near future to consider the matter, and (d) the teaching was in progress. Keeping in mind the interest of the fifth respondent, says the Vice-Chancellor, he considered it proper to grant provisional admission to her subject to an undertaking being given as aforesaid. 14. It is no longer in dispute, however, that when the fifth respondent was granted provisional admission as aforesaid, the classes were over since the students had already proceeded on preparatory holidays. She could not, therefore, attend any lectures/practicals in the First Semester. 15. The second respondent thereafter placed the matter before the Executive Council in its meeting held on January 12, 1988. The Executive Council recorded the following decision on the subject: "The Executive Council decided to create a supernumerary seat in favour of the candidate in M.Sc. Chemistry for the session 1987-88. Not to be quoted as a precedent." 16. Since the M.Sc, Chemistry First Semester, Examination was to be held in January, 1988, she submitted the examination admission form to the third respondent (Chairman of the Department of Chemistry) who did not give the requisite lecture attendance certificate which is a pre-requisite for appearing in the examination. Not to be quoted as a precedent." 16. Since the M.Sc, Chemistry First Semester, Examination was to be held in January, 1988, she submitted the examination admission form to the third respondent (Chairman of the Department of Chemistry) who did not give the requisite lecture attendance certificate which is a pre-requisite for appearing in the examination. When the matter was thereafter placed before the second respondent, he directed that the case be referred to the Academic Council before whom a few cases of condonation of short-fall in the requisite number of lectures were pending consideration. The matter was accordingly placed before the Academic Council in its meeting held on March 5, 1988. The Academic Council first took up for consideration (Item No. 5) the case of one Sunil Chaudhry, a student of the First Semester M.Sc. Zoology Course, for the condonation of short-fall in the requisite number of lectures and recorded its decision in the following words : "In a detailed discussion on the subject of condonation of requirement of lectures, the Council was of the view that it had no specific powers assigned to it under these Statutes and Ordinances on the subject and that the Academic Council is only a Policy Making Body and as such it could not consider the issue unless such a power of relaxing condition of requirement of lectures was provided for its consideration. As such, in the absence of this power, no decision on the subject was taken. Legal opinion may however be obtained. However, the candidate could continue his studies provisionally while the result could not be declared." 17. The Academic Council next took up for consideration (Item No. 11) the subject relating to various decisions taken by the Executive Council , while the Academic Council was not in session with effect from October 12, 1987 till date, and resolved as follows : "In the light of discussions, earlier held under item No. 5, the Academic Council reiterated that the consideration of the issue was not within its purview." 18. The resolution apparently covered also the decision taken in the meeting of the Executive Council held on January 12, 1988 with regard to the creation of a supernumerary seat in favour of the fifth respondent for granting admission to her in the course in question against the cultural quota. The resolution apparently covered also the decision taken in the meeting of the Executive Council held on January 12, 1988 with regard to the creation of a supernumerary seat in favour of the fifth respondent for granting admission to her in the course in question against the cultural quota. The subject relating to the condonation of short-fall in lectures in the case of the fifth respondent was next taken up for consideration (Item No. 31) by the Academic Council which resolved that "the decision as already taken under item No. 11 operates in this case also". The net result of the deliberations aforesaid of the Academic Council was that it refused to take any decision on the subject of the creation of an additional seat and the condonation of short-fall in lectures in her case since, in its opinion, it had no specific power under the Statutes and Ordinances to consider and decide the matter. 19. The fifth respondent was meanwhile permitted to appear in the First Semester Examination in the M.Sc. Degree Course held in January, 1988. The result of the said examination has already been declared but that of the fifth respondent has been withheld. According to the second respondent, the case of the fifth respondent is under consideration of the University in light of the decision aforesaid of the Academic Council. 20. While the matter was resting at that stage, two developments took place. First, on or about March 9, 1988, the fifth respondent instituted a Civil Suit (No. 44/1 of 1988) in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Simla, seeking the reliefs, inter alia that: (1) the decision of the Academic Council be declared void and of no effect, (2) the admission of the fifth respondent to M.Sc. Course be declared as lawful and in accordance with the rules, regulations and statutes of the defendant University and (3) a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from cancelling the admission of the fifth respondent and further restraining from interfering with the lawful admission in any manner whatsoever be passed. Course be declared as lawful and in accordance with the rules, regulations and statutes of the defendant University and (3) a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from cancelling the admission of the fifth respondent and further restraining from interfering with the lawful admission in any manner whatsoever be passed. In the said suit, ad interim relief has been granted in her favour on the same day res training the University, and the second and the third respondents from can celling the admission of the fifth respondent in M.Sc, Chemistry Degree Course, in view of the admission granted by the Executive Council and because she had already appeared in the Examination. The petitioner is not a party in the said suit. Second, this writ petition was instituted by the petitioner on March 23, 1988 seeking the reliefs which are set-out at the commencement of the judgment. 21. The writ petition reached preliminary hearing on March 28, 1988 when notice thereof was ordered to issue returnable on April 6, 1988. The respective authorities of the University were directed t6 produce for the perusal of the Court the original record of all the proceedings which had taken place before them concerning the impugned admission of the fifth respondent. The case was heard thereafter on different days when the points involved—factual and legal-were considered in light of the submissions made by the petitioner and the counsel for the parties. In view of the fact that : (a) highly debatable questions having an extensive reach and having a direct bearing upon the academic pursuit and discipline were involved, (by many disputed points having possible ramifications which were not insignificant were raised and (c) if the impugned admission was to be treated as a precedent, it might give rise to litigation in future if and when an exercise of such or similar nature is repeated by the University, the Court suggested to the parties that certain basic issues involved in the case be referred for the opinion of a Committee of academics to be constituted by the Court and that all of them should agree to the petition being disposed of in terms of the opinion rendered by the Committee, if accepted by the Court. All the parties, including the University, agreed to the suggestion accordingly made. All the parties, including the University, agreed to the suggestion accordingly made. Under the circumstances, the Court passed an interim order on May 4, 1988, directing as follows: "(1) A Committee, consisting of the following persons, is constituted to consider and to opine about the matters/issues set out in the sub-para next following and to make suitable recommendations: (i) Vice-Chancellor—Chairman. (ii) Dean of Studies, (iii) Deans of all the Faculties. (iv) Dean, Students Welfare, (v) Chairman/Chairpersons of all the Departments of Studies. (2) The Committee will examine the question of grant of admission to the fifth respondent in M.Sc. Chemistry, First Semester, 1987-88 session, against the cultural quota and in a specially created supernumerary seat, in all its depth and dimensions and in light of the entire material which has been placed on the record of the present petition ; the Committee will devote special attention to the following issues/matters : (i) Whether, having regard to the rules applicable at the material time, the fifth respondent was eligible to secure admission against the cultural quota ? (ii) Whether, even if eligible, she could or should have been granted admission having regard to the fact that (a) only one seat was available against the said quota which was already duly filled in and (b) the academic session had already commenced nearly four months back ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is any justification for the creation of a supernumerary seat so as to grant admission to the fifth respondent? (iv) Whether the case of the fifth respondent is similar in all respects to that of Shri Jagdish Mokta, who was granted admission against the cultural quota in LL.B., First Semester, 1987-88 session, and, even if it be so, whether she could or should have been granted admission only on that ground even if any of the rules are shown to have been violated also in case of Shri Jagdish Mokta ? (v) Whether, in view of the fact that the fifth respondent was granted admission nearly five months back and has appeared in the First Semester examination, the Committee would like to recommend that the admission need not be quashed, even if it is found to be illegal/irregular, and the result of the examination should be declared, without the case being treated as a precedent? If so, is the admission capable of being regularised in any manner by the relaxation of any of the rules and by whom?” 22. The Court is of the view that the Committee should also examine and make recommendations with regard to the advisability of granting admission by the competent authority of the respondent-University in rare and exceptional circumstances in relaxation of the extant rules, if the same is required to be done in the interest of justice, and may prescribe guide lines for the same. 23. The Committee will submit its report to the Court on or before May 25, 1988, after taking into consideration the written representation, if any, made to it by the fifth respondent. Meanwhile, the fifth respondent will be permitted to prosecute studies and to appear in the examination, if any, subject, however, to the result of this petition and subject to the further condition that the result of the said examination, if any, shall not be declared till further orders. 24. The Committee constituted pursuant to the aforesaid interim orders held its meeting on May 23, 1988 under the Chairmanship of the second respondent. In all 20 academics, including the Vice-Chancellor, were present in the meeting. The Committee gave its considered opinion point-wise as follows: "Issue/Matter Recommendations of the Committee (i) Whether, having regard to the rules applicable at the time, the fifth respondent was eligible to secure admission against the cultural quota ? As per the existing rules at the material time the 5th respondent was not eligible to secure admission against the cultural quota. (ii) Whether, even if eligible, she could or should have been granted admission having regard to the fact that : (a) The reply to (a) even if she was eligible she could not be admitted because there was only one seat available and Mr. Deepak Saxena was admitted against that seat. (a) only one seat was available against the said quota which was already duly filled in and (b) the academic sessions had already commenced nearly four months back ? There have been cases where admissions have been made late on the orders of the Honble High Court. (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is any justification for the creation of a supernumerary seat so as to grant admission to the fifth respondent, Miss Nisha Awasthy ? There have been cases where admissions have been made late on the orders of the Honble High Court. (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is any justification for the creation of a supernumerary seat so as to grant admission to the fifth respondent, Miss Nisha Awasthy ? In the opinion of the present Committee, there was no justification for creating a supernumerary seat. (iv) Whether the case of the fifth respondent Miss Nisha Awasthy is similar in all respects to that of Shri Jagdish Mokta, who was granted admission against the cultural quota in LL.B., First Semester, 1987-88 Session, and, even if it be so, whether she could or should have been granted admission only on that ground even if any of the rules are shown to have been violated also in case of Shri Jagdish Mokta ? No, it is not similar in all respects. (v) Whether, in view of the fact that the fifth respondent was granted admission nearly five months back and has appeared in the First Semester examination, the Committee would like to recommend that the admission need not be quashed even if it is found to be illegal/ irregular, and the result of the examination should be declared, without the case being treated as a precedent? If so, is the admission capable of being regularised in any manner by the relaxation of any of the rules and by whom? No. In our opinion it is not possible to relax the rules and regularise the admission at this stage. As regards the question of making recommendations with regard to relaxation of admission rules in exceptional circumstances, the matter is being referred to the appropriate bodies." 25. This opinion of the Committee has beep placed on the record by the second respondent as an annexure to his affidavit dated May 24, 1988. 26. It is apparent that the Committee has given its opinion on all the material points against the fifth respondent. All the parties, including the said respondent, had agreed, as earlier stated, to the petition being disposed of in terms of the opinion rendered by the Committee, if accepted by the Court. 26. It is apparent that the Committee has given its opinion on all the material points against the fifth respondent. All the parties, including the said respondent, had agreed, as earlier stated, to the petition being disposed of in terms of the opinion rendered by the Committee, if accepted by the Court. There is no reason why due weight should not be attached to the opinion expressed by the Committee, which consisted of the Vice-Chancellor and the Heads of all the Faculties/Departments of Studies, and which thus reflects the views of the entire academic community of the University represented by them, and why it should not be accepted and acted upon. It is pertinent to recall that prior to this stage also: (a) the Committee consisting of the Dean, Students Welfare, the Chairperson of the Music Department and one more person, which was constituted by the second respondent to hold trials for judging the suitability of candidates seeking admission against the cultural quota, had found the fifth respondent ineligible, (b) the Departmental Council consisting of the members of the teaching staff of the Department of Chemistry had refused to grant admission to her after having distinguished her case from that of Mokta, (c) the third respondent (Chairman of the Department of Chemistry) had refused to give her the lecture attendance certificate since she had not attended a single lecture/practical before the First Semester Examination was held, and (d) the Academic Council had expressed its inability to condone the shortfall in lectures or to affirm the decision of the Executive Council with regard to the creation of an additional seat in her favour on the grounds stated by it. Unless, therefore, there are strong, cogent and convincing reasons, the Court should be loath to brush aside the considered and collective opinion of such a representative body of academics, which is in conformity with the previous decisions of other statutory bodies and authorities conversant and/or directly concerned with the subject, especially when the issue involved have a direct bearing upon the academic pursuit and the possible ramifications of by-passing their views on this occasion may, in all probability, affect, influence or regulate the future conduct of the University in such or similar cases. 27. It is relevant to note also that the opinion expressed by the Committee is buttressed by the several statutory provisions to which reference has been made earlier. 27. It is relevant to note also that the opinion expressed by the Committee is buttressed by the several statutory provisions to which reference has been made earlier. In accordance with Ordinance 3.1 only one reserved seat was available for admission against the cultural quota in the M. Sc, Chemistry Degree Course in the academic session 1987-88. The rules governing admission against the said reserved seat provided that such admission would only be made once in the beginning of the academic sessions and that the recommendations of the Committee constituted to judge the suitability of the candidates for such admission would be final The said seat was duly filled in by granting admission to Deepak Kumar Saxena on or about July 23, 1987 upon the recommendation of the Committee. The Committee had placed the name of the fifth respondent at Serial No. 2 in the merit list with a clear endorsement, however, that she was ineligible having regard to the provisions of Ordinances 3.1 (b) (3). The fifth respondent apparently acquiesced in the said decision and did not challenge the same. 8th of July is prescribed by Ordinance 3 10 to be the normal date for admission to all courses of study unless the Vice-Chancellor, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extends such date. For the academic session in question, the date appears to have been extended by the Vice-Chancellor upto September 24, 1987 in consultation with the Deans of Faculties and Chairpersons of various Departments of Studies. There was no question, therefore, of granting admission to any candidate in any of the courses at least on or after the said date. The fifth respondent, however, made a representation to the Executive Council two months after Deepak Kumar Saxena was granted admission and requested that she too be granted admission On October 9, 1987, the Executive Council decided to grant admission to her, although the last date for admission had expired as aforesaid and no seat was available at the material time against which the admission could have been granted. No power to grant admission under such circumstances is shown to have been vested in the Executive Council. The third respondent, who is the authority empowered to grant admission, refused to act upon the said decision and declined to give admission in consultation with the Departmental Council. No power to grant admission under such circumstances is shown to have been vested in the Executive Council. The third respondent, who is the authority empowered to grant admission, refused to act upon the said decision and declined to give admission in consultation with the Departmental Council. The second respondent, however, granted provisional admission to her on November 27, 1987, apparently on the footing that the matter would be taken back to the Executive Council for appropriate decision and also to the Academic Council presumably for its ex-post-facto approval. It is difficult to appreciate how against the aforesaid background this could have been done in the absence of a specific power to act accordingly. Besides, this was done at a point of the time when the classes were over and, therefore, no lectures/practicals could have been attended by her. On January 12, 1988, the Executive Council decided to create a supernumerary seat in favour of the fifth respondent. Not only the last date for admission had expired long back and the teaching work for the course in question had ended when this was done but the First Semester Examination also had already been held or was about to be held in the near future. No power to take such a decision in breach or relaxation of the relevant statutory provisions is shown to have been existing in the Executive Council. When the fifth respondent submitted the examination form, the third respondent rightly declined to grant the requisite Lectures Attendance Certificate, which is a pre-requisite for appearing in the examination. Yet she was permitted to appear in the examination on the strength of the provisional admission granted to her by the second respondent and presumably at his instance. All these various decisions in favour of the fifth respondent were taken apparently without any power, authority and jurisdiction having been vested in that regard in any person, body or authority. When the matter was ultimately taken to the Academic Council, nearly two months after the examination was held, it rightly refused to put its imprimature on these various actions on the ground that it had no power to relax the requirements of the various statutory provisions. The opinion expressed by the Committee appointed by the Court is thus in full accord with the relevant statutory provisions. 28. The opinion expressed by the Committee appointed by the Court is thus in full accord with the relevant statutory provisions. 28. In the course of his affidavit, the second respondent has justified the admission given to the fifth respondent for the reasons staled and also on the ground that it was only provisional and liable to be cancelled or regularised later and that the University though that "it was better to give a provisional admission as in the past in a number of writ petitions the requirement of requisite attendance was ignored or dispensed with in the interest of justice and the students". In terms it is stated that such a decision was taken inspite of the fact that classes were over "taking it again to be a case of that nature and without giving any chance to the student to litigate the matter" and that the case was referred to the Academic Council so that it could provisionally decide the matter and the difficulty for the condonation of lectures does not arise. Now, the bona fides of the authority in taking such action may not be doubted but, at the same time, it cannot be overlooked that in a society governed by the rule of law, certain basic principles must be observed. Enactments or orders governing the rights and duties of citizens, including the public servants, must not only be open and adequately published but they should also be relatively stable and they must be followed. The rule of law from this point of view means that decision should be made by the application of known principles and rules. If a decision is taken without any principles or without any rule, it is unpredictable and such a decision is the antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the rule of law. It is a settled rule of the administrative law that an executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them (See: Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628). The authority could not, therefore, have taken any action dehors the statutory provisions and/or relaxed their applicability without there being any power to make such exception or relaxation. The authority could not, therefore, have taken any action dehors the statutory provisions and/or relaxed their applicability without there being any power to make such exception or relaxation. It was incorrect and inappropriate to proceed on the analogy of the Courts power to issue directions for the grant of admission or provisional admission to a student and the further power to give any consequential direction(s) in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The Court is invested with the Judicial power of the State which involves the adjudication of claims affecting the rights of subjects in accordance with law and the consequential grant of a just and proper relief, if any, to the wronged party to the Us upon the consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. Till the adjudication takes place, the Court is empowered to and may grant an appropriate ad interim or interim relief upon being satisfied about the existence of a prima facie case and the balance of convenience and also the likelihood of an irreparable injury being caused in case no intervention is made at that stage. Apart from the fact that an authority exercising the executive power within the framework of the law investing it with such power cannot equate itself with or arrogate to itself the judicial or quasi-judicial powers, such authority has no power, authority and jurisdiction to act otherwise than in accordance with law and, even with the best of intentions, to make any exception or relaxation, unless expressly authorised so to do by the statute regulating its conduct. 29. The Executive Council decided to grant admission and created a supernumerary seat in favour of the fifth respondent acting under a belief that her case was similar to that of Mokta who was granted admission to the LL.B. Course in the 1987-88 session. Apart from the consideration that such an action was devoid of authority of law in light of the foregoing discussion, and for the identical reasons, the very premise on which the fifth respondent was admitted is apparently ill-founded. As the Departmental Council in Chemistry and the Committee appointed by the Court have pointed out, there is no similarity between these two cases. Mokta had sought admission against the cultural quota seat in the law Department in the First Semester of the 1986-87 session. As the Departmental Council in Chemistry and the Committee appointed by the Court have pointed out, there is no similarity between these two cases. Mokta had sought admission against the cultural quota seat in the law Department in the First Semester of the 1986-87 session. The admission appears to have been refused on the ground that he did not qualify under the extant rules governing admission against the said reserved seat. The seat was thereupon left unfilled. The said rules appear to have been amended thereafter in the meeting of the Executive Council held on December 27, 1986 and, on the strength of such amended rules, Mokta sought admission in the Second Semester against the seat which was left unfilled in the First Semester. The Executive Council appears to have decided meanwhile to grant him admission in relaxation of the prescribed age-limit. The Chairman of the Law Department, however, refused to grant him admission in the Second Semester. The seat thus remained unfilled. Mokta once again applied for admission against the cultural quota seat in the First Semester of 1987-88 session. The meeting of the Committee appointed by the Vice-Chancellor to judge the suitability of the candidate(s) for admission against the said seat was held on July 20, 1987. The said Committee refused to recommend his admission on the ground that the case was not covered even by the amended rules. He thereupon made a representation to the second respondent who referred the case for advice to the Legal Adviser of the University. The Legal Adviser opined that this was "a special case pertaining to last year admission, so a backlog of last year—the candidate be given admission this session 1987-88 against a supernumerary seat, in case a seat against this quota is not available, without disturbing the admissions already granted". The Legal Adviser, however, cautioned that for future "the position should be made clear and rules should not be changed every now and then" and that "they should be clear enough to admit no doubt". The aforesaid opinion was given on August 8, 1987 and admission was consequently granted to Mokta in the First Semester of 1987-88 session. The foregoing facts highlight the distinguishing features between the case of Mokta and that of the fifth respondent. The aforesaid opinion was given on August 8, 1987 and admission was consequently granted to Mokta in the First Semester of 1987-88 session. The foregoing facts highlight the distinguishing features between the case of Mokta and that of the fifth respondent. Mokta was not admitted against the cultural quota seat in the session, or in the midst of the session, for which he had originally applied. The decision of the competent authority not to grant him admission in the said session, once on the ground that he was ineligible and the next time on the ground that the request could not be entertained in the Second Semester, was not overruled by any other authority or body of the University. The seat against which he had applied remained unfilled since no other candidate was admitted against the same. When he applied for admission in the next session after the rules governing the admission against the said seat were amended, he was once against found ineligible. No attempt was made to override the said decision but the issue was referred for opinion to the Legal Adviser of the University. The Legal Adviser opined, in substance, that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, admission may be granted to him in the new session by treating it as a special case pertaining to the last year admission and so a backlog of the previous year but cautioned that for future the position should be made clear and rules should not be changed every now and then. Consequent upon the legal advice tendered accordingly, he was granted admission in the First Semester of the new session within time and without creating any supernumerary seat It would thus appear that there is no basis whatever to equate the case of Mokta with that of the fifth respondent and to make the several decisions in violation of the rules in her favour on that ground. 30. The most important and relevant factor which weighs against the fifth respondent and which could never have been overlooked was that she was not eligible to be considered for admission in the seat reserved against the cultural quota under the extant rules. 30. The most important and relevant factor which weighs against the fifth respondent and which could never have been overlooked was that she was not eligible to be considered for admission in the seat reserved against the cultural quota under the extant rules. According to these rules, only those students would be eligible "who are having atleast highly commendable position in Inter-college Youth Festival in any item on any of the previous two years/Festival/Competitions", It is the fifth respondents own case that she had obtained Inter-college Certificates in Debate for the years 1984-85 (highly commended) and in 1985-86 (commended). Even assuming without granting that the certificates accordingly obtained in the years 1984-85 and 1985-86, which were not the previous two years, could have been considered for determining the eligibility, the fact that one of the two certificates graded her only as commendable—not highly commendable— makes her ineligible for admission against the reserved seat. When, against the aforesaid background, she could not have been admitted even in regular course, it is strange to find her being admitted at the fag end of the First Semester, when the classes were over, and a supernumerary seat being specially created for her. 31. The foregoing discussion leads to the conclusion that there is every justification for deciding the present case in terms of the opinion rendered by the Committee appointed by the Court. Ordinarily, as earlier found, the unanimous opinion of such a broad-based Committee of academics representing the entire academic community of the University would *have been accepted by the Court without any detailed inquiry into the matter since the issues involved have a direct nexus with the academic pursuit and the parties had agreed to abide by the opinion given by the Committee, if the Court was inclined to accept the same. However, the Committee was asked to opine whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it would like to recommend that the admission need not be quashed, even if it was found to be illegal/irregular, and the result of the examination should be declared, without the case being treated as a precedent, and, if so, whether the admission was capable of being regularised in any manner by the relaxation of any of the rules and by whom. The Committee has expressed its views emphatically on both these points and declined to recommend that the admission need not be quashed and further found that it is not possible to relax the rules and regularise the admission at this stage. Having regard to the fact that the fifth respondent has not only completed two Semesters of the first academic year of the M. Sc. Chemistry Degree Course but also appeared in the examination at the end of the Second Semester on the strength of the provisional admission and the permission granted in her favour by the second respondent and the further fact that the decision of the petition in terms of the opinion of the Committee would result in the cancellation of the provisional admission of the fifth respondent entailing all the inevitable consequences, the Court has considered it expedient in the interest of justice to examine the matter independently on its own merits. True, the fifth respondent will find herself in an unenviable position by virtue of the cancellation of her provisional admission as a result of the adverse decision of the petition but the situation to some extent is of her own making and one in which none can help her The Court is disinclined to interfere and to condone the several illegalities which lie at the root of her present predicament because doing so would not only be against the unanimous opinion of the academic community and dilute the academic standards and discipline of the University but would also leave an all-round impression that the pressing and persuasive pleas of sympathy for and on behalf of the beneficiary, who was not even eligible, can legitimise even the most flagrant breaches of law on the part of the benefactors. 32. Two objections raised on behalf of the fifth respondent may be dealt with in short before concluding the judgment. The first relates to the locus standi of the petitioner and the second to the so called delay and laches. Both these objections have been stated merely to be rejected. The petitioner is the Professor and Chairman of a Department of Study and the Dean of a Faculty of the University. He is also a member of the Academic Council of the University besides other bodies and authorities. Both these objections have been stated merely to be rejected. The petitioner is the Professor and Chairman of a Department of Study and the Dean of a Faculty of the University. He is also a member of the Academic Council of the University besides other bodies and authorities. He has sufficient interest in the matter as such and has apparently instituted the present petition acting bonafide motivated by a legitimate concern for the academic discipline and standards and for keeping the University and its various authorities and bodies within the bounds of law. The Executive Council decided to grant admission to the fifth respondent on October 9, 1987, the second respondent granted provisional admission to her on or about November 27, 1987 and the supernumerary seat was created in her favour on January 12, 1988 by the Executive Council The Academic Council declined ratification on March 5, 1988. The fifth respondent filed a Civil Suit and obtained an ad-interim relief against the cancellation of her admission on March 9, 1988. The present petition was instituted on March 23, 1988. Meanwhile, the petitioner carried on correspondence with the second respondent and also with the Chancellor of the University but to no avail. The objection based on the ground of delay and laches is thus ill founded. 33. For the foregoing reasons and in light of the report of the Committee, which the Court accepts, and in view of the recorded statement of all the parties hereto that they would agree to the petition being disposed of in terms of the opinion rendered by the Committee, if the same is accepted by the Court, Rule is made absolute. All the impugned actions of the University taken through its Executive Council and through the second respondent in favour of the fifth respondent, namely, the decision of the Executive Council to grant her admission in the M. Sc. Chemistry Degree Course, First Semester, 1987-88 session against the cultural quota, the decision of the second respondent to grant her provisional admission, the decision of the Executive Council to create a supernumerary seat in her favour and the decision to permit her to appear in the examination at the end of the Second Semester, are all quashed and set aside. All other and further and consequential actions, if any, will also stand quashed automatically. 34. All other and further and consequential actions, if any, will also stand quashed automatically. 34. Civil Suit (No. 44/1 of 1988) filed by the fifth respondent in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Simla, the issues wherein are identical with the points raised for the determination of the Court in the present petition, will naturally require to be disposed of in conformity with the decision herein rendered. The application for interim relief made in the said suit will naturally follow the suit. The Court directs the parties to the said suit, who are also parties hereto, to move the said court for passing appropriate orders in that regard sonnest after a certified copy of this judgment is made available to them. A copy of the writ order will be sent down by the Registry to the court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Simla. 35. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to the costs of the petition. No ordered as to costs of petition.