JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition challenge has been given to the validity of the notice (Annexure-1) published in Rajasthan Patrika, dated July 28, 1988, by the University of Rajasthan (respondent No. 2) by which it has been directed to make selections of the candidates for Post Graduate Courses on the basis of merit to be adjudged according to the performance of the candidates after holding the Pre-Post-Graduate- Entrance Examination, in accordance with the amended Ordinance 278-E framed under the University of Rajasthan Act, 1946 (hereinafter for short the Act of 1946), in exercise of the powers of the Vice Chancellor under Section 13 (4) of the Act of 1946 and it has also been prayed that a direction be given to the respondents to make selection of candidates for Post-Graduate Courses on the basis of merit to be adjudged according to the performance of the candidates at the three MBBS examinations with reference to existing Ordinance 278-E. 2. It has been stated that this writ petition is filed by the petitioner in the representative capacity who has secured admission in the MBBS, in S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur, at Pre-Medical Test-Examination. The petitioner in his first and second year examinations, held in the year 1984, 1985, respectively, secured 76.5% marks and stood second in the merit in his college. The petitioner in the third year secured approximately 68% marks and thus topped the merit list of his college. After completing the third year MBBS Examination, the petitioner joined one year's compulsory rotating internship, which is to end on 31st December, 1988. Normally, the petitioner's internship would have ended in June, 1988, but for the fact that University of Rajasthan delayed the holding of the three years MBBS Examinations. It is further submitted that as soon as a person finishes his compulsory rotating-internship, he becomes eligible to be selected for the Post-Graduate Courses, under the existing Ord. 278-E. This Ordinance provides that selection of post-graduate students shall be done when the regular batch of students completes one year's compulsory rotating internship. This rotating internship is to complete on December 31, 1988. Thus, according to the petitioner as per the prevailing practice, the petitioner would also have become eligible to be selected for the post-graduate course on January 1, 1989. Since the petitioner has topped in his college. This rotating internship is to complete on December 31, 1988. Thus, according to the petitioner as per the prevailing practice, the petitioner would also have become eligible to be selected for the post-graduate course on January 1, 1989. Since the petitioner has topped in his college. he is certain to get speciality of his own choice on the basis of merit as per existing Ord. 278-E. The respondent no. 2, University of Rajasthan has issued a notice which has been published in the local newspapers including Rajasthan Patrika dated July 28, 1988, whereby it has been notified that instead of prevailing practice of selecting candidates on the basis of merit judged on the academic record of the students in the under graduate courses, it has been decided to give way to the existing practice and to hold a pre-post graduate entrance examination on the basis of syllabus issued for the purpose of holding All India Entrance Examination. This pre-post graduate entrance examination is to be held on February 19, 1989. which shall consist of two papers of two hours duration each. It has also been Mentioned that the percentage of marks obtained in the examination shall be multiplied by 9/10 and to this total, shall be added the percentage of the total marks of the MBBS examination multiplied by 1/10. The total of the first and the second shall thereafter be calculated and merit prepared accordingly. 3. Respondent No. 2 in his return submitted that the delay, if any in holding the MBBS Examination was reasons beyond the control of the University of Rajasthan. It is alto asserted that respondent No. 2 has rightly amended Ord. 278-E, by which the best method of assessing the real merit of a candidate through an open competitive examination has been adopted. It is further submitted that even the criteria laid down by the Medical Council of India permits the authorities concerned to conduct a competitive Entrance Examination to determine the merit of a candidate for admission to post-graduate medical courses. It is also submitted that similar method of giving admissions by Pre-Post Graduate Entrance Examination exists in several reputed Institutions in the country. It has been denied by respondent No. 2 that the petitioner has filed the writ petition in the representative capacity. It is also submitted that similar method of giving admissions by Pre-Post Graduate Entrance Examination exists in several reputed Institutions in the country. It has been denied by respondent No. 2 that the petitioner has filed the writ petition in the representative capacity. The respondent No. 1, the State of the Rajasthan in its return has submitted the method of selection by way of Pre-Post Graduate Entrance Test for Post Graduate Medical Course adopted by respondent No. 2 being the best way to assess, the merit of the students. It is further submitted that the petitioner is yet to qualify for Post-Graduate Course by completing internship on December 31, 1988. Therefore, the writ petition is premature and is liable to be dismissed on this count. 4. The contention of Shri K. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the year 1968, Pre-Medical-Test was provided account of the fact that in the State of Rajasthan itself there were three Universities, viz. University of Raj. University of Udaipur and University of Jodhpur with a view to maintain uniformity Pre-Medical Test was started. It is pointed out that all the five Medical Colleges in the State of Rajasthan are affiliated with University of Rajasthan and the Examinations for MBBS are conducted by this one University alone. Therefore, uniformity in assessing the answer books of all the candidates in the five Medical Colleges of Rajasthan exists and therefore, there was no necessity of having any Pre-Post-Graduate Entrance Examination as decided by respondent No. 2. It is also contended that for about last 30 years, the admission to Post Graduate Course was given to the students on the basis of existing Ord. 278-E which required that the admission should be given to the students in Post-Graduate Course on the basis of academic record in the under-graduate course. It is further contended that the petitioner has obtained a vested right on the basis of his merit secured by him in under-graduate-course, therefore, it was not open to the University to revise the criteria of selection now. The petitioner has secured the first position in his college on the basis of merit in the under-graduate-course and could easily have obtained selection in the speciality of his choice. The right of the petitioner therefore cannot be obstructed or taken-away from him in the manner in which it has been done. The petitioner has secured the first position in his college on the basis of merit in the under-graduate-course and could easily have obtained selection in the speciality of his choice. The right of the petitioner therefore cannot be obstructed or taken-away from him in the manner in which it has been done. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has already six months on account of holding of examination late by respondent no. 2 and if proposed Pre-Post-Graduate-Entrance Examination is held in Feb., 1989 the result of the same is likely to be announced after gap of few months thereafter. Thus the petitioner shall lose his precious one year of career. It is also pointed out that according to various Sections of the Act of 1946, any amendment proposed to be made to any Ordinance, has to be sent by faculty of Medicine for amending the Ordinance. This draft for amendment of an Ordinance shall be placed before the Syndicate, which, however, has no power to amend any draft proposed by Academic Counsel under the provisions of Sub-Sec. (I) of Section 30 of the University of Rajasthan for re-consideration, either in whole or in part, together with any amendments which the Syndicate may suggest. All the Ordinances made by Syndicate have necessarily to be submitted to the Senate for consideration. The Senate has power to cancel any Ordinance made by the Syndicate by resolutions passed by a majority of not less than ⅔rd of the members voting. It is contended by the learned counsel that none of the above mentioned mandatory procedure as provided in various Sections of the Act of 1946 has been violated (sic) while amending the Ordinance 278-E. It is therefore, contended that the amended Ordinance 278-E is illegal and cannot be given effect to by respondent No. 2. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the amended Ordinance 278-E was never considered by Academic Council but was considered by a Committee appointed by Academic Council and Syndicate and accepted by Vice Chancellor under his emergency powers under Section 13(4) of the Act of 1946. It is, therefore, contended that the Academic Council as also the Syndicate was not empowered to delegate its legislative powers to the Committee appointed by them for drafting and approving the amended Ord. 278-E. Since the Legislature delegated powers of Legislation to Academic Council and Syndicate. It is, therefore, contended that the Academic Council as also the Syndicate was not empowered to delegate its legislative powers to the Committee appointed by them for drafting and approving the amended Ord. 278-E. Since the Legislature delegated powers of Legislation to Academic Council and Syndicate. Therefore, they are not authorised to further delegate the same to the Committee appointed by them. 5. The contention of Shri A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 is that since the answer books are examined by several examiners, therefore, there is likelihood that the standard of giving marks may change from examiner to examiner. Therefore, the best way to judge the merit of the students by holding Pre-Post-Graduate Entrance Examination, as is done by several other institutions in our country. Even though in the return filed by respondent No. 2, it has been asserted that the Vice Chancellor did not exercise his emergency powers under Section 13(4) of the Act of 1946. But during the course of arguments, the learned Counsel asserted that even if it is held that the Vice Chancellor exercised his power under Section 13(4), this was done with a view to give sufficient time to candidates to prepare for the examinations. It is also contended that decision shall be rectified by the Syndicate before the examinations are held. It is also pointed out that the writ is premature since the examinations are yet to be held and the petitioner himself has not yet completed the compulsory internship to qualify himself for selection to Post-Graduate Course. It is also contended by the learned counsel that there is no delegation of function by the Academic Council or by the Syndicate and that the decision to hold Pre-Post-Graduate Entrance Examination was taken by Academic Council and Syndicate itself but only details were left for the Committee appointed in this behalf to be drafted for amendment of Ord. 278-E. 6. Shri Khan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1 has supported the arguments advanced by learned counsel for respondent No.2. 278-E. 6. Shri Khan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1 has supported the arguments advanced by learned counsel for respondent No.2. Shri R.D. Rastogi, who appears on behalf of certain interveners apart from supporting the arguments of Shri A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent has asserted that the Vice Chancellor has rightly used emergency powers under the provisions of Section 13 (4) as the emergency did exist otherwise no examination by holding Pre-Post Graduate Entrance Examination could have been held in Feb, 1989, as is to be held now. It is also pointed out that even as per provisions of Section 22(g) the powers of Syndicate are delegated to Vice Chancellor for appointments/dismissals etc. and therefore, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by Vice Chancellor in exercise of his emergency powers under Section 13 (4) of the Act of 1946. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that the present system of assessing merit of the students in the under-graduate course is not satisfactory and it is alleged by the interveners that certain type of students, the examples of which are given in Schedule -A', attached with their application dated August 31,1988 for being impleaded as interveners always get higher rank in merits than the several other students. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that the scheme of examinations as proposed in amended Ord. 278-E should not be set-aside due to any technical flow even if it exists as asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is also contended that sub-delegation is permissible and therefore, no illegality has been committed, if the sub-delegation by Academic Council and Syndicate has been made by the Committee appointed to frame in details the scheme of examination and amended Ord. 278-E. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for all the parties and interveners and also gone through the documents on the file. Before considering the argument, advanced by both the parties. It will be necessary to see the relevant provisions of the Act of 1946 to appreciate whether the same have been followed or not. 8. 278-E. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for all the parties and interveners and also gone through the documents on the file. Before considering the argument, advanced by both the parties. It will be necessary to see the relevant provisions of the Act of 1946 to appreciate whether the same have been followed or not. 8. Section 13 enumerates the powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor Sub-Section (2) of Section 13 provides that "it shall be the duty of the Vice-Chancellor to see that this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances are faithfully observed and he shall have all powers necessary for this purpose." Clause (a) of Sub-Sec. (4) of Section 13 gives emergency powers to the Vice-Chancellor and provides that he may take action in any emergency, which in his opinion, calls for immediate action. He shall, in such a case, and as soon as may be thereafter report his action to the officer, authority or other body who or which would ordinarily have dealt with the matter. 9. Section 21 (1) provides that Syndicate shall be the executive body of the University. 10. Section 22 provides functions of the Syndicate. It is provided that subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by or under the provisions of this Act. the Syndicate shall exercise the following powers and perform the following functions, namely:- (a) to make, amend and cancel Ordinances; 11. It is, therefore evident that it is the Syndicate who is authorised to make, amend or cancel the Ordinances. 12. Section 23 provides the composition and term of office of Academic Council. 13. the Syndicate shall exercise the following powers and perform the following functions, namely:- (a) to make, amend and cancel Ordinances; 11. It is, therefore evident that it is the Syndicate who is authorised to make, amend or cancel the Ordinances. 12. Section 23 provides the composition and term of office of Academic Council. 13. Section 23-A provides functions of Academic Council Sub-clause (1) of Section 23-A provides that the Academic Council shall have control and general regulation of and be responsible for the maintenance of the standards of teaching and examination within the University and examination within the University Sub-clause (2) provides that all the foregoing provisions and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by or under the provisions of this Act, the Academic Council shall exercise the following powers and perform the following functions, namely:- (i) subject to the approval of the Syndicate, to make, amend and cancel Regulations laying down courses of study and curricula; (ii) to propose to the Syndicate Ordinances concerning admission to the University or to its examinations, courses of study and curricula, schemes of examination, and attendance; provided that proposals regarding courses of study and curricula and schemes of examination shall be made after considering the reports when necessary of the Faculty or of Faculties concerned. 14. Thus it is clear from the relevant provisions quoted above that it is the Academic Council which subject to the approval of the Syndicate, can make, amend or cancel Regulations laying down courses of study and curricula. 15. Section 30 provides the procedure by which Ordinances are to be made Section 30 reads as under:- 30. (1) Same as otherwise provided in this Section Ordinances shall be made by the Syndicate, provided that no Ordinance concerning admission to the University or to its examinations, courses of study, scheme of examination, attendance, and appointment of examiners shall be considered unless a draft of such Ordinance has been proposed by the Academic Council. (2) The Syndicate shall not have power to amend any draft proposed by the Academic Council under the provisions of Sub-section (I) but may reject it or return it to the Academic Council for reconsideration either in whole or in part, together with any amendments which the Syndicate may suggest. (3) All Ordinances made by the Syndicate shall be submitted to the Senate, and shall be considered by the Senate at its next meeting. (3) All Ordinances made by the Syndicate shall be submitted to the Senate, and shall be considered by the Senate at its next meeting. The Senate shall have power by a resolution passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members voting to cancel any Ordinance made by the Syndicate and such Ordinance shall from the date of such resolution be void. Thus it is clear that Legislature has provided in the Act of 1946, the powers to be exercised by Vice-Chancellor. Academic Council, Syndicate and Senate. Detailed procedure has been enacted in Section 30 by which the Ordinances are to be made and the powers in this behalf to be exercised by Academic Council, Syndicate and Senate have been carefully enumerated. It will therefore, be necessary to examine whether the amendment in the Ord. 278-E has been done in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1946. A committee was appointed by Faculty of Medicine, which felt necessity to amend the exiting Ord. 278-E. By letter dated March 5, 1988, the Chairman of the Committee Dr. S.R. Mehta wrote to the Registrar (respondent No. 2) that the Committee was of the opinion that the selection for the Post- Graduate Course for M.D/M.S. should be done on merit judged on basis of Pre- P.G. Examination to be conducted by University of Rajasthan. This was proposed in view of certain decisions of Supreme Court of India. It was also proposed that Pre-Post-Graduate Entrance-Examination should be started for admission in academic year 1989. A proposed draft of amended Ord. 278-E was also attached with the above mentioned letter. It was proposed in the said draft that 25% of the total students irrespective of the other reservations made hereinunder will be filled-in as per allocations made by the Director General of Health Services Govt. of India, New-Delhi, on the basis of the result of All India Competitive Entrance Examination for admission to Post-Graduate-Course (M.D/M.S.) on open merit. Thereafter, the draft mentions certain reservations to be made for in-service candidates of Rajasthan State Medical Services in various specialities and also for naturally born S.C/S.T. candidates Part IV of the proposed draft refers to selection of candidates. Thereafter, the draft mentions certain reservations to be made for in-service candidates of Rajasthan State Medical Services in various specialities and also for naturally born S.C/S.T. candidates Part IV of the proposed draft refers to selection of candidates. The relevant portion for the purpose of this writ petition is that selection for the 250 seats shall be made on the basis of result of All India Competitive Entrance Examination for admission to the Post-Graduate Courses of M.D. & M.S. in open market. Selections in the remaining seats for Post-Graduate Course for M.D. and M.S. shall be done on the merit judged on the basis of academic record in the under-graduate course. Out of these applicants, who fulfil the above mentioned pre-requisites the selections would be done by a Selection Committee consisting of the Head of the Institution and the various heads of the speciality concerned Selection of Post- Graduate students shall be done when the regular batch of students completes one year compulsory rotating internship. The vacancies, if any, may be filled-up after six months of the regular selection i.e. if the selection of the regular batch of students was from 1st May to particular year, the selection for vacancies will be done from 1st November, of that year. 16. Thereafter a meeting of the Academic-Council was held on May 27, 1988 presided by Vice-Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan. The Council considered recommendations of the committee appointed by faculty of Medicine as communicated by the letter dated March 5, 1988 mentioned above and it was resolved that above recommendations be accepted and a committee consisting of 5 persons was appointed to recommend complete details of the Pre-P.G.Examination and it was further resolved that Vice-Chancellor may accept the recommendations of the committee on behalf of the Council and place them directly before the Syndicate. Thereafter a meeting of the Syndicate was held on July 2, 1988 which considered the recommendations of the Academic-Council made at its meeting held on May 27, 1988. It was resolved that orders of Vice-Chancellor be conferred and the remaining recommendations of the Council be accepted with some modification/ observations. Thereafter a meeting of the Syndicate was held on July 2, 1988 which considered the recommendations of the Academic-Council made at its meeting held on May 27, 1988. It was resolved that orders of Vice-Chancellor be conferred and the remaining recommendations of the Council be accepted with some modification/ observations. The Syndicate added two names to the members of the committee appointed by the Academic Council to complete the details of the Pre-P.G. Examination and further resolved that the committee may also consider the issue of giving weightage for Academic Council to the student and the committee may submit its recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor who is authorised to take a decision thereon. The committee appointed by the Academic Council had met on May 27, 1988 and passed a resolution No. 33 dated May 27, 1988 and drafted the provisions of proposed amended Ordinance 278-E. This draft was considered by the committee expanded by the Syndicate in its meeting held on July 18 and August 5, 1988 and it was resolved that the proposed revised Ordinance 278-E as well as the finalised the instructions to be printed and made available to the candidates appearing at the ensuing pre-P.G. Examination be sent to the Vice-Chancellor for acceptance under his emergency powers. The committee appointed by Syndicate made several changes in the proposed draft of Ordinance 278-E of Academic Council. It is thus clear that the draft of the proposed amended Ordinance 278-E is sent by the committee appointed by the Faculty of Medicine which had been accepted by the Academic Council and was modified and changed by the committee appointed by Syndicate and was sent directly for acceptance of the Vice-Chancellor under his emergency powers. 17. We have already discussed the provisions of the Act of 1946 which clearly lays down in Section 23-A that the draft to make amend and cancel Ordinances/Regulations have to be considered by the Academic Council. Section 30 of the Act, 1946 laid down that the Syndicate shall have no power to amend any draft proposed by Academic-Council but may be rejected or returned to the Academic Council for re-consideration either in whole or in part, together with any amendments which the Syndicate may suggest. Section 30 of the Act, 1946 laid down that the Syndicate shall have no power to amend any draft proposed by Academic-Council but may be rejected or returned to the Academic Council for re-consideration either in whole or in part, together with any amendments which the Syndicate may suggest. It is, therefore, clear that the draft as passed by the Academic-Council which was originally recommended by the committee appointed by Faculty of Medicine was modified and amended by the committee appointed by Syndicate. This draft was not even sent back to the Academic Council for reconsideration nor it was in fact considered by the Syndicate as such but was sent directly to the Vice-Chancellor for its approval under his emergency powers. 18. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the draft as proposed by Academic Council was greatly changed and modified by the committee appointed by Syndicate, and not by the Syndicate as such and as till today been sent for its approval to the Senate which has power to cancel any Ordinance made by the Syndicate. Apart from this it is also contended that the legislative powers have been granted under the provisions of the Act of 1946 on the Academic Council/Syndicate, Senate and they are not authorised to further sub-delegate the same to any other authority or committee as has been done in this case. 19. It can be said that delegation of legislative power has become a sort of necessity in prevalent conditions. Ideally speaking there can be no delegation of what is essentially a legislative power. But modern legislatures have such it heavy work-load that it is directly impossible to legislate in all details. They are therefore, forced to delegate their trust and authority on the well-known principle of delegatus non-potest delegare. 20. In Harishankar Bagla v. M.P. 1965(1) SCR 380 it was held by the Apex Court that principle of "Delegatus Non-Potest Delegae" is applicable, unless the power to sub delegate is expressly or by necessary implication conferred by the law. 21. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to case of University of Jodhpur v. Ramesh Chandra Sharma, 1976 RLW 674 in which it was held that the repeal of the Ordinance, is the legislative function, and, therefore, the repeal call also take place following the same procedure prescribed for making the Ordinance. 21. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to case of University of Jodhpur v. Ramesh Chandra Sharma, 1976 RLW 674 in which it was held that the repeal of the Ordinance, is the legislative function, and, therefore, the repeal call also take place following the same procedure prescribed for making the Ordinance. It can be said the amended Ordinance 278-E, in fact repeals the earlier Ordinance 278-E. The provisions of the Act of 1946 make it abundantly clear that the Ordinance made by the Syndicate shall not take effect until it has been approved by the Vice-Chancellor after considering the views of the Senate. But in this case even though the amended Ordinance 278-E has not been sent for approval to the Senate but the University has already started acting in accordance with the amended Ordinance even without approval of the same by the Senate. This is evidently against the mandatory provisions of the Act of 1946. 22. In case of Ramchandra Keshav Adke v. Govind Joti Chavare and others, AIR 1975 SC 915 , while considering the non-compliance of the intentions attributed to legislature, the Apex Court quoted following with approval which reads as under:- "A century ago, in Taylor v. Taylor, (1875) 1. Ch. D. 426 Jessel M. R. adopted the rule that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. This Rule has stood the test of time. It was applied by the Privy-Council in Nazir Ahmed v. Emperor ( AIR 1936 PC 253 ) (2) and later by this Court in several cases." 23. In the case of Ganpati Singhji v. State of Ajmer and anr., AIR 1955 SC 188 , it was held by their Lordships that the Regulation empowers the Chief Commissioner to make rules for the establishment of a system of conservancy and sanitation at fairs and large public assemblies. He can only do this by bringing a system into existence and incorporating it in his rules so that all concerned can know what the system is and make arrangements to comply with it. The Rules in question, however, in effect empower the District Magistrate to make his own system and see that it is observed. He can only do this by bringing a system into existence and incorporating it in his rules so that all concerned can know what the system is and make arrangements to comply with it. The Rules in question, however, in effect empower the District Magistrate to make his own system and see that it is observed. As the Regulation confers this power on the Chief Commissioner and not on the District Magistrate the action of the Chief Commissioner in delegating this authority to the District Magistrate is ultravires." In the case under consideration also the power was delegated by the legislature through provisions of the Act of 1946 to Academic Council, Syndicate/Senate and, therefore, any committees appointed by these bodies cannot be sub-delegated the legislation powers by these bodies. 24. In the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd. and others. 1986 SCC (1) 264 , while considering the limits of sub-delegation it was laid down by the Apex Court that where authority derives power from a statute, it cannot frame subordinate legislation under that statute so as to divest itself of that power. It is further held that "It may be open to a subordinate legislating body to make appropriate rules and regulations to regulate the exercise of a power which the Parliament has vested in it so as to carry out the purposes of the legislation, but it cannot divest itself of the power." 25. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 that approval of the draft by the committee appointed by the Academic Council and Syndicate is no sub-delegation and it was not necessary that the draft of the amended Ordinance 278-E may be sent for approval to Academic Council and Syndicate has no force. As already discussed above the various provisions of' the Act of 1946 are mandatory and the enactment of the Ordinance/Regulations has to be made only in the manner as provided by the legislature in the said Act. 26. It is further contended by all the learned counsel for the respondents and interveners that Vice-Chancellor has properly exercised his emergency powers under Section 13 (4) may be 1946. 26. It is further contended by all the learned counsel for the respondents and interveners that Vice-Chancellor has properly exercised his emergency powers under Section 13 (4) may be 1946. In this respect the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 13 lay down that "it shall be the duty of the Vice-Chancellor to see that under this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances are faithfully observed, and he shall have all powers necessary for this purpose." Sub-section (4) of Section 13 lays down as under:- "(a) He may take action in any emergency which in his opinion calls for immediate action. He shall, in such a case, and as soon as may be thereafter report his action to the officer authority or other body who or which would ordinarily have dealt with the matter. (b) When action taken by the Vice-Chancellor under clause (a) affects any person in the service of the University, such person shall be entitled to prefer an appeal to the Syndicate within fifteen days from the date on which such action is communicated to him." 27. Thus, the pre-requisites of the exercise of emergency powers given to the Vice-Chancellor under Sub-Section (4) of Section 13 are that they have (sic) must exist an emergency which in his opinion, calls for immediate action and that soon after the exercise of emergency powers the report of the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor has to be made to the officer, authority or other body who or which would ordinarily deal with matter if no emergency had arisen. 28. In our considered opinion there was no emergency on account of which the Vice-Chancellor had to exercise his emergency powers provided under this Section. The new session of M. D.M.(M.S.) was to start in the month of January, 1989 and the proposal of the committee appointed by Faculty of Medicine had sent its draft for amendment of Ordinance 278-E to the respondent No. 2 as early as March 5, 1988. Apart from this the language of the Sub-Sec (4) of Section 13 makes it abundantly clear that the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of his emergency powers is not authorised to assume the powers of various authorities/bodies at one time and exercise the same. A similar question arose for consideration of this Court in the case of University of Jodhpur v. Rameshchandra Sharma (2). A similar question arose for consideration of this Court in the case of University of Jodhpur v. Rameshchandra Sharma (2). In the case referred to above the emergency powers as provided in Section 12 (5) of the Jodhpur University Act, 1962 were under consideration of the Court and Section 12 (5) is almost pari-materia and similar to the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act of 1946. It was held by this court that -The language of section 12 (5) makes it clear that the Vice-Chancellor under emergency power can act on behalf of any one of the authorities, officers or body, but it cannot assume the functions of all the authorities, officers or bodies simultaneously. The Vice-Chancellor, in our opinion, was not competent to repeal the Ordinance 368 (sic) by issuing a notification under the emergency powers." 29. We are (sic), therefore, find no force in the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that any emergency existed so far as the exercise by the Vice-Chancellor of his powers under sub-Section (4) of Section 13 of the Act of 1946 is concerned, nor he is authorised to assume the powers of various authorities/ bodies at one time and exercise the same. 30. The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that holding of pre-P.G. Examination is arbitrary and unreasonable because the petitioner and various other students have already cleared three examinations and have also had one and half years practical clinical experience under the same University. No further competitive examination for admission to P.G.Courses can be termed to be reasonable and such decision can only be said to be arbitrary. It is asserted that the petitioner has come in merit after completing the course of four and half years in M.B.B.S. and has stood number one in S.M.S. College. He has thus achieved a vested right of admission in the Postgraduate Course as per the existing Ordinance No. 278-E of the Act of 1946. The petitioner shall complete his one year's internship on 31-12-88 and on 1-1-1989, he shall be eligible and entitled for admission to Faculty of his choice which he will be deprived if pre.-P.G. Examination is held. We do not find any force in this contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner shall complete his one year's internship on 31-12-88 and on 1-1-1989, he shall be eligible and entitled for admission to Faculty of his choice which he will be deprived if pre.-P.G. Examination is held. We do not find any force in this contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. There is no question of petitioner even any vested right for admission to Postgraduate Course merely because he was first in merit in his College. Learned counsel for the respondents have rightly contended that the best way to judge merit of any student is through a competitive test. It is pointed out that in the recommendations of Postgraduate Medical Education adopted by Medical Council of India (sic). It is laid down that the selection of Postgraduates both for degree and diploma courses should be strictly on the basis of academic merit. Regarding evolution of merit it has been recommended that in order to determine the merit of a candidate for admission to Postgraduate Medical Courses, (i) his performance at the M.B.B.S. examinations, (ii) his performance during the course of internship and housemanship for which a daily assessment chart he maintained and (iii) the report of the teachers which is to be submitted periodically may be considered. It is pointed out that apart from this it has been also recommended that alternatively the authorities concerned may conduct competitive entrance examination to determine the merit of candidate for admission to post-graduate medical courses. It is given out by the learned counsel for the respondents that pre-P.G. Examination is held in several Universities in India. The learned counsel for the interveners submitted that the results of M.B.B.S. should not be relied upon for admission to post-graduate courses because those students who are toppers in M.B B.S. or generally related to some renowned doctors or to some other dignitaries and he has filed Schedule-A along with his application showing the names of such students who have obtained outstanding positions. It is asserted by the learned counsel that all these students are nearer relates of renowned doctors and some other dignitaries. It is asserted by the learned counsel that all these students are nearer relates of renowned doctors and some other dignitaries. We do not propose to go into truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the learned counsel for the interveners but it will suffice to say that such doubts if any in the minds of students should be cleared and a method be evolved which should be as fool proof as may be practical to be possible to do. It is also pointed out that since large number of students appear in M. B. B. S. Examination the answer books which checked by large number of examiners and there are examples and human factors and liking and disliking. Keeping all the facts and circumstances in view we do not find that there is anything unreasonable or arbitrary in holding entrance examination for admission to the Postgraduate Courses even though the students have passed their M.B.B.S. Examination from the same University, it cannot be said that on this account holding any pre-P.G. Examination is unreasonable or arbitrary. Shri A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has also been given out that some weightage will also be given to the marks obtained by the students in the under-graduate-examinations. 31. In the case of Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others etc. AIR 1981 SC 487 , it was held by their lordships of the Supreme Court that a procedure for giving admission cannot be regarded as arbitrary merely because it refused to take into account marks obtained by candidates at qualifying examination, but prefers to test the comparative merit of the candidates by insisting on an entrance examination. 32. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, contends that the whole scheme should not be set aside due to technical flow like appointing committee for drafting and amending Ordinance-278-E of the Act of 1946. He has placed reliance on the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and anr. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others, 1984 (4) SCC 27 . In this case the Apex Court opined that reasonableness or otherwise of subordinate legislation does not depend upon the Court's own views on the legislative policy as to what it ought to be. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others, 1984 (4) SCC 27 . In this case the Apex Court opined that reasonableness or otherwise of subordinate legislation does not depend upon the Court's own views on the legislative policy as to what it ought to be. It was also stated that while exercising statutory powers incidents of errors or irregularities should not be a decisive factor. Evidently this authority is of no help to the respondent. This Court has not given its own view as to how the Ordinance 278-E of the Act of 1946 should content but has annual examination, the legal aspect of the manner in which the amendment has been made. After careful consideration of various provisions of the Act of 1946, there is no aspect to come to the conclusion that the law as laid down in the said Act has not been followed at all. 33. In the case of Principal Patna College, Patna and others v. Kalyan Srinivas Raman AIR 1966 SC 707 it was observed by the Apex Court that when two interpretations are possible in University Regulations the High Court need not disturb decision of educational authorities. Evidently this authority has no application to the facts and legal position of the present case. 34. We do not find any merit in the contention of the respondents that the writ is pre-mature in as much as the petitioner has not yet completed one year of his rotating internship to make him eligible for admission to post-graduate courses. The respondent No. 2 has already advertised that the admissions in postgraduate courses will not be done in accordance with the Ordinance 278-E of the Act of 1946 as it existed but after holding pre-P.G. Examination. Therefore, it cannot be said that the stage has not yet arrived when the petitioner may have approached the Court. 35. We are, therefore, of considered opinion that amended Ordinance 278-E has been drafted/framed without sanction of Academic Council/Syndicate. Apart from this there existed no emergency to enable the Vice Chancellor to exercise the emergency powers provided under sub-clause (4) of Section 13 of the Act of 1946 nor he could exercise emergency powers at one time on behalf of more than one authorities; bodies. The amended Ordinance 278-E has not also been sanctioned by the Senate as required under the relevant provisions of the Act of 1946. The amended Ordinance 278-E has not also been sanctioned by the Senate as required under the relevant provisions of the Act of 1946. We therefore, hold that Ordinance 278-E of the Act of 1946 as framed by the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of his powers under sub-Section (4) of Section 13 to be ultra-vires of the powers of the Vice-Chancellor and is declared void and hence struck down. As a result of this the original Ordinance 278-E shall remain to be in force on the statute. The notice published by the University of Rajasthan in 'Rajasthan Patrika' dated 28.7.1988 is also declared to be illegal and quashed. However, we further hold that the respondent No. 2 shall be within his rights to amend the Ordinance 278-E strictly in accordance with the provisions laid down in the Act of 1946 and we do not find anything arbitrary or unreasonable if it decides to hold pre-P.G. Examination for admission to the Post-graduate-Courses. 36. Before parting with the case we deem it necessary to mention that several students who were allowed to be intervene and heard in the interest of justice walked into chamber of one of members of this bench with a view to pressurise the Court to take care of their interests. To say the least such pressure tactics are highly deprecable. The even scales of justice cannot be tilted by such actions. The foundation of judicial fabric is firm enough to withstand such pressure. 37. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed as stated above, with no order as to costs.Petition partly allowed. *******