JUDGMENT 1. - A common question of law is involved in all the writ petitions, mentioned above. Hence, they are decided by one order. Writ Petition No. 4031/91 has been filed last of all the petitions, after certain further steps were taken by the respondent-University. In this petition, it has been prayed, inter alia, which covers the prayers made in other petitions also, to quash and set aside the notice of the Controller of Examinations, University of Rajasthan, dated June 9, 1991 and all other proceedings taken thereafter, and hold that holding of Pre-Entrance Test is beyond the scope and power of the said University. 2. The description of facts and documents is given as mentioned in Writ petition No. 4031/91. The petitioner passed Senior Higher Secondary School Examination in the year, 1990 with First Division by securing 60 % Marks (Anx.2) from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer. A notice dated May 21, 1991 (Anx.1) regarding admission was published in 'Rashtradoot' dated May 23, 1991 by Shri Bhagwati Ayurved Nurse/Compounder Training College, Bhankrota (Jaipur),whereby, applications were invited for admission for three years' course of Ayurveda Nurse/Compounder, regarding Session, 1991-92. Since the petitioner was qualified, he applied for admission to the aforesaid course by paying Rs. 20/- and submitted the form duly filled-up. Thereafter, the petitioner came across the notice dated June 9,1991 (Anx.3) published in 'Rajasthan Patrika' of June 9, 1991,whereby, the Controller of Examinations of respondent No. 2, University of Rajasthan, notified that for admissions to the aforesaid course amongst others commencing from the Session, 1991-92, a Pre-Entrance Test shall be conducted by the University and that the date for conducting such test will be notified later on. The admissions were to be given on the basis of merit list prepared as a result of the above-mentioned Pre- Entrance Test. This date has not yet been announced. 3. It is submitted by Mr. B.L. Sharma and Mr. R.S. Rathore, learned counsel, that his petition has been filed by the petitioner as a public interest litigation on behalf of a large number of students, who are likely to be affected by holding of Pre-Entrance Test. This date has not yet been announced. 3. It is submitted by Mr. B.L. Sharma and Mr. R.S. Rathore, learned counsel, that his petition has been filed by the petitioner as a public interest litigation on behalf of a large number of students, who are likely to be affected by holding of Pre-Entrance Test. The learned Counsel discussed in detail various Sections, Ordinances and Regulations of the University of Rajasthan Act, 1946 (for short, 'the Act, 1946') and contended that the University is not empowered to hold any Pre-Entrance Test and only such examinations can be held by the University as laid down in the relevant provisions of the Act, 1946. It is further contended that no amendment in the various provisions of'the Act has been made so far to enable the University to conduct a Pre-Entrance Test. It is also contended that the University will, inter alia, charge some fees for holding such Pre-Entrance Test, which cannot be charged by the University, unless it is authorised to do so by a relevant Statute/Ordinance framed in this respect. It is pointed out that uptil now, some Pre-Entrance Tests for the course of Pre-Teacher Entrance Test (PTET) have been held under the notification/direction issued by the Government of Rajasthan, even though, this University or any other University in Rajasthan has been authorised to conduct the same. It is further pointed out that no such directions/orders have been issued by the Government of Rajasthan for holding such Pre-Entrance Tests and the University is not authorised by the provisions of the Act to hold such tests on its own. It is also pointed out that the University can hold only such examinations, which are held at the end of course of study, i.e., academic session as per sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act. It is submitted that the Vice-Chancellor has used emergency powers to issue order dated May 10,1991, whereby, he accepted the recommendations of the Academic Council, which could not have been done, since there was no emergency and he could not, at the same time, exercise emergency powers provided in clause (4) of Section 3 of the Act on behalf of the Syndicate and Senate. Reliance has been placed on Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan,(1) 1989(3) SCC 132 , and Bharat Sapta v. State of Rajasthan, (2) 1989(1) RLR 88 . Reliance has been placed on Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan,(1) 1989(3) SCC 132 , and Bharat Sapta v. State of Rajasthan, (2) 1989(1) RLR 88 . It is also submitted that as required under clause (a) of Section 24-D of the Act, the Board of studies has not been consulted for prescribing the syllabus/curricula for the proposed Pre-Entrance Test. It is further submitted that hardly any process has started as yet and even the date of holding Pre-Entrance Test has not been announced. This is likely to take few months, which means that the session will start, instead of July, some where in November/December, which will waste atleast precious six months' time of the students. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Dalip Singh, learned counsel, that reply on behalf of the respondent University has been filed in Writ Petition No. 3419/91, which may be read in all the petitions. It is further submitted that as per provisions of sub- clause (2) of Section 4, sub-clause 2 of Section 23-A and sub-clause (2) of Section 29, the University has power to hold Pre-Entrance Test. Placing reliance on University of Allahabad v. Amrit Chand Tripathi, AIR 1987 SC 57 , it is urged that the University can act on its own. The University can frame Ordinance for that purpose if necessary. Referring to Mahesh Heeranandani v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1989(1) RLR 286 , it is also urged that the courts have also been slow in interfering in the Academic field. It is submitted that all the petitioners are opposing the commencing of Pre- Entrance Test, as it would take away the right of private colleges to give admission to the students on their own. The procedure has been fully followed as the Faculty of Ayurveda recommended to the Academic Council for holding Pre-Entrance Test vide its resolution dated December 26/28, 1989 (Anx.R2/1), which considered and approval this idea in principle and called upon the faculty to recommend the Scheme of Examination and syllabus for the same vide its resolution dated January 12/13, 1991 (Anx.R2/2). Thereafter, the Faculty of Ayurveda, in its meeting, held on March 27,1991 (Anx. R2/3), constituted a Committee of nine persons to suggest the scheme and syllabus for entrance test for the Academic Session, 1991-92 and it was authorised to directly report to the Academic Council on its behalf. Thereafter, the Faculty of Ayurveda, in its meeting, held on March 27,1991 (Anx. R2/3), constituted a Committee of nine persons to suggest the scheme and syllabus for entrance test for the Academic Session, 1991-92 and it was authorised to directly report to the Academic Council on its behalf. The Committee, in its report, suggested amendment to Ordinance 329-N 31-2 and 4 as also the syllabus and the scheme of the examination in its meeting held on April 4,1991 (Anx.R2/4). The Academic Council considered the said recommendations and accepted the same with certain modifications vide resolution No. 39 passed in the meeting held on April 6/8,1991 (Anx.R2/5). On June 14,1991, the Vice-Chancellor of the University approved the said recommendations of the Academic Council. The petitioners seem to have come to know of the events at this stage and, thereafter, the present petitions have been filed, at their behest. The issuing of advertisement (Anx.1) by one of the petitioner- colleges is only a selfish act to misguide the student and derive undue advantage by collecting various evidence from the students. It was, therefore, submitted that the University issued notification (Anx.3), which was published in the 'Rajasthan Patrika' dated June 9.1991, informing the desirous candidates that the admissions would be granted for the session, 1991-92, only after the Pre-Entrance Test. It is further submitted that the Vice-Chancellor has passed no order as such on May 10, 1991,but has only approved the recommendations of 'the academic Council. Ordinance 329-N-31 has been approved by the Academic Council on April 6/8, 1991 and Syndicate, in its meeting, held on June 14, 1991 (Anx.R2/6). Therefore, Ordinance 329-N-31 stands amended, after the resolution of the Academic Council dated April 6/8, 1991, was accepted by the Syndicate, in its meeting, held on June 14, 1991 (Anx. R2/7) vide resolution No. 3. It is contended that the University is empowered under the provisions of the Act to lay down conditions of eligibility for admissions in various courses of studies. 5. R2/7) vide resolution No. 3. It is contended that the University is empowered under the provisions of the Act to lay down conditions of eligibility for admissions in various courses of studies. 5. The respondent University is expected to act in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Statutes and Ordinances, A bare reading of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 shows that the University holds examinations to con- fer Degrees and other Academic Distinctions upon such persons, who have per- sued a course of study in the University itself or at its affiliated /approved institution, after they have appeared and passed the examination of the University under the conditions laid down in the Ordinance and Regulations. Section 8 prescribes limit regarding teaching of the University and it also provides that courses of study and curricula shall be prescribed by the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations. Section 13 is regarding powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor. Sub-section (4) empowers him to take any action in any emergency, which, in his opinion, calls for immediate action. Soon thereafter, he shall report, regarding his action, to the concerned body/authority, who would have ordinarily dealt with the matter. This sub-section thus, empowers the Vice-Chancellor to take immediate action, if any emergency arises, in his opinion, within the limits and the manner prescribed therein. Section 22 provides that one of the functions of the Syndicate is to make, amend or cancel the Ordinances. Section 23-A is regarding Functions of Academic Council. It empowers the Academic Council to make, amend and cancel Regulations laying down courses of study and curricula, which will be subject to the approval of the Syndicate. It shall propose to the Syndicate Ordinances concerning admission/examinations. Section 27 deals with Scope of Statutes. Sub-section (6) deals with fees to be charged for courses of study and curricula prescribed by the University and admissions which are given to appear in the examinations to obtain Degrees and Diplomas. Section 28 lays down the procedure for making Statutes and provides that Senate can amend, repeal or add to Statute in the manner provided, after the draft is proposed by the Syndicate. Section 29 deals with the scope of the Ordinances and lays down that Syndicate may make Ordinances, regarding conditions, under which students shall be admitted to courses of study and curricula and examinations for obtaining Degrees, Diplomas and other Academic Distinctions. Section 29 deals with the scope of the Ordinances and lays down that Syndicate may make Ordinances, regarding conditions, under which students shall be admitted to courses of study and curricula and examinations for obtaining Degrees, Diplomas and other Academic Distinctions. Section 30 deals with making of Ordinances and lays down that Ordinance shall be made by the Syndicate on a draft proposed by the Academic Council. It cannot amend the draft, but may reject it or return to the Academic Council for re-consideration with any amendment suggested. Thereafter, Ordinance made by the Syndicate is to be submitted to the Senate for approval. From the discussions of above provisions, it is clear that actions taken by any of the Authorities of the University of Rajasthan, including Vice- Chancellor have to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Statutes and Ordinances etc. 6. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the University that vide Anx. R2/1, in the meeting of Faculty of Ayurveda, held on December 26/28,1989, Resolution No. 11 (Cha) was passed, resolving that entrance examination for Compounder/Nursiltg Course be started. Thereafter, meeting of the Academic Council was held on January 12/13, 1991, which passed Resolution 28(2) vide Anx. R2/2,by which, it was resolved that University may conduct entrance examination for Diploma in Ayurvedic Compounder/Nursing Course and faculty be asked to recommend the scheme of examination and syllabus for the test. On March 27, 1991, the meeting of Faculty of Ayurveda, vide Resolution No. 6 (Anx.R2/3) resolved to appoint committee of members of faculty to suggest the scheme of examination and syllabus, the report of which may be sent directly to the Academic Council. In the meeting of committee, appointed by the Faculty of Ayurveda, held on April 4,1991 (Anx.R2/4), amendments in Ordinance 329-N-31 : 2 were suggested. It was further decided that from the Session 1991-92 Pre- Ayurveda Nursing Test may be held for giving admission to the candidates to the above course. Therefore, further amendment in the above Ordinance was also proposed. It also prescribed syllabus. It was pointed out that these recommendations were sent directly by the Committee to the Academic Council, which passed Resolution No. 39 vide Anx. Therefore, further amendment in the above Ordinance was also proposed. It also prescribed syllabus. It was pointed out that these recommendations were sent directly by the Committee to the Academic Council, which passed Resolution No. 39 vide Anx. R2/5 dated April 6,1991, resolving on the recommendations of sub-Committee of Ayurveda Faculty " that the aforesaid recommendations be accepted with minor modifications." Para 4 of Ordinance 329-N-31 was revised by the Academic Council as under: "(4) Admission shall be made in order of merit on the basis of Ayurveda Nursing Test conducted by the University, provided that reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Physically handicapped candidates shall be possible." The Syndicate in its meeting held on June 14,1991 (Anx.R2/7) resolved in para 3 that it had considered the recommendations made by the Academic Council at its meeting held on 6th/8th April, 1991. It is further mentioned that, in this connection, it was reported to the Syndicate that the following orders were passed by the Vice-Chancellor: "(i) Orders dated 10-5-91 accepting the recommendations of the Academic Council as contained in its Res. No. 33 dated 6/8th April, 1991 duly processed through the Faculty of Ayurveda regarding holding of Pre-Unani test by the University. (ii) Orders dated 105.1991 accepting the recommendations of the Academic Council as contained in its Res. No.39 dated 6/8th April,1991 duly processed through the Faculty of Ayurveda regarding holding of Pre- Nurse/Compounders test by the University." Minutes of the meeting of Syndicate held on February 25, 1991 (Anx.R2/9) have been produced alongwith an application dated September 21, 1991, in which the Syndicate considered the recommendations of the Academic Council made at its meeting held on January 12/13, 1991 and resolved that the aforesaid" recommendations of the Council be accepted. Vide Anx.R2/8 dated May 10,1991, which is a note-sheet, the Vice-Chancellor accepted four recommendations made by the Academic Council. It is mentioned at S.No. 8 of the note-sheet that "although the. recommendations of the Academic Council have yet to be affirmed by the Syndicate, if approved by the Vice-Chancellor, we may initiate actions as proposed above, with a view to avoid delay in each of the above cases, so that proper and temporary planning of the Pre-Entrance Test in respect of these courses may be ensured within stipulated period. recommendations of the Academic Council have yet to be affirmed by the Syndicate, if approved by the Vice-Chancellor, we may initiate actions as proposed above, with a view to avoid delay in each of the above cases, so that proper and temporary planning of the Pre-Entrance Test in respect of these courses may be ensured within stipulated period. Submitted for orders." Thereafter, a memo is also attached with this Annexture, in which, it is mentioned that the Vice-Chancellor has accepted four recommendations made by the Academic Council vide his order dated May 10,1991. It is further directed that actions on all these four recommendations may be taken at an early date and a compliance report in this regard may be sent to the undersigned for being placed before the Registrar/Vice-Chancellor, for information. This memo is dated May 23,1991 and signed by the Deputy Registrar. It is, therefore, clear from Anx.R2/8, that at that time, when the Vice-Chancellor ordered that Controller of Examinations to take all necessary actions on the recommendations of the Academic Council, the matter had not yet been placed before the Syndicate for its approval. The recommendations made by the Academic Council in its meeting held on April 6/7,1991, were considered by the Syndicate in its meeting held on June 14,1991 Anx. R2/7). The Syndicate in its meeting held on February 25, 1991, vide Anx. R2/10, considered the recommendations of the Academic council made at its meeting held on January 12/13,1991. Thus, it is clear that when the Vice-Chancellor vide his order dated May 10,1991 (Anx.R2/8) gave directions to the Controller of Examinations to make all preparations for Pre-Entrance Test for admission to Diploma Course in Nurse/Compounder, the Syndicate had yet to consider the same and pass final order. Thus, the Vice-Chancellor, in fact, exercised his emergency powers, when no emergency could be said to be in existence for passing such orders. The learned counsel for the University submitted that this was only a pre-emptive action to expedite the matters and, according to him, the Vice-Chancellor did not pass any orders on May 10,1991 and did not exercise any emergency powers. I do not find any force in this submission of the learned counsel. The Controller of Examinations could not have been given any directions, regarding holding the Pre-Entrance Test before the recommendations of the Academic Council were approved by the Syndicate. I do not find any force in this submission of the learned counsel. The Controller of Examinations could not have been given any directions, regarding holding the Pre-Entrance Test before the recommendations of the Academic Council were approved by the Syndicate. Thus, the Vice-Chancellor exercised powers of Syndicate as well as Senate under the provisions of Section 13(4) of the Act, 1946 when, in fact, nothing has been shown about the existence of an' emergency. In Ramchandra Keshav Adke v. Govind Joti Chavare and others, AIR 1975 SC 915 , the Apex Court quoted with approval the following which is 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 stood the test (5) AIR 1975 SC 916 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." The pre-requisite for such exercise is that there must exist an emergency which, in his opinion, calls for immediate action and that after the exercise of emergency powers, the report of the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor has to be made to the authority or the body, which would have ordinarily dealt with the matter, if no emergency had arisen. The amended Ordinance has to be sanctioned by the Senate as required under the relevant provisions of the Act, 1946. In Bharat Sapra v. State of Rajasthan (supra), similar question was considered and it was held by the Division bench of this Court that the Vice- Chancellor, while exercising emergency powers under Section 13(4), could not exercise such powers at one time, on behalf of more than one authority/body. In the matter under consideration, the Faculty of Ayurveda vide Anx. R2/1 dated December 26/28,1989, resolved that Pre-Entrance Test for Nurse/Compounder Course be started. Thereafter, meeting of the Academic Council was held on January 12-13, 1991 to consider the same matter. This clearly shows that there was hardly any emergency, when the Academic Council itself considered the matter, after the passage of more than one year. Therefore, the. R2/1 dated December 26/28,1989, resolved that Pre-Entrance Test for Nurse/Compounder Course be started. Thereafter, meeting of the Academic Council was held on January 12-13, 1991 to consider the same matter. This clearly shows that there was hardly any emergency, when the Academic Council itself considered the matter, after the passage of more than one year. Therefore, the. order of the Vice-Chancellor dated May 10,1991 (Anx.R2/8) is ab initio void and deserves to be set aside. The same view was taken by the Apex Court in Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan (supra) and it was held that when Statute prescribes a particular body to exercise a power, it must be exercised by that body alone. 7. The next submission made on behalf of the petitioners is that the University cannot hold Pre-Entrance Tests on its own as it is not authorised to do so under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. It must be stated clearly that this Court does not question the merit of the decision of the University to hold Pre-Entrance Test for admission to Diploma Course in Nurse/Compounder. The University is fully authorised to take such decision. The only question, under consideration, is whether the decision has been taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1946. It is contended that sub-section (2) of Section 4 authorises University to hold only such examinations, which are held at the end of course of study. This does not cover holding of pre-entrance test examinations. It can do so only when it is authorised by the Government of Rajasthan. I am unable to agree with this submission. I do not find any reason why such a narrow interpretation be given to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act. As required by the various provisions of the Act, in the meeting of Faculty of Ayurveda, held on December 26/28, 1989, resolution No. 11 (Cha) was passed resolving that entrance examination for Diploma in Ayurveda Com- pounder/Nursing Course be started. Thereafter, on January 12/13,1991, the Academic Council resolved that the University may conduct entrance examination for the said Diploma, and on March 27, 1991, it resolved to appoint committee of members of faculty to suggest the scheme of examination and syllabus. The committee so appointed suggested amendments in Ordinance 329-N-31 : 2 and decided to hold the pre-entrance test from the Session 1991-92. The committee so appointed suggested amendments in Ordinance 329-N-31 : 2 and decided to hold the pre-entrance test from the Session 1991-92. It also prescribed the syllabus. These recommendations were directly sent to the Academic Council and on April 6, 1991, the Academic Council accepted the recommendations. The Syndicate considered these recommendations on June 14, 1991. Thus, the complete procedure as laid down under the provisions of the Act, Statutes and Ordinances has been followed. I am, therefore, of the considered view that sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act empowers the University to conduct an entrance test for admission to the University Degree/Diploma courses. It is not necessary after the amendment in the Ordinance mentioned above that the University may be able to conduct the pre-entrance test only under the directions of the Government of Rajasthan. I, therefore, do not find any force in this contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. I am fortified in my opinion by the decision of the Apex Court in University of Allahabad v. Amrit Chand Tripathi (Supra), in which, while considering a matter of the same nature, it was held that there was no reason to interpret the relevant section in a narrow fashion so as to exclude the prescription of the entrance test when the full procedure for holding such test has been followed. 8. However, since I have already held that the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated May .10,1991 (Anx. R2/8) is ab initio void, these writ petitions are, therefore, partly allowed and order of the Vice-chancellor dated May 10,1991 (Anx. R2/8) and Anx.2 dated June 4, 1991, and notification published in 'Rajasthan Patrika' dated June 9, 1991 are quashed and set aside. 9. The petitions are partly allowed, as above, with no order as to costs.Petition partly allowed. *******