R. R. K. TRIVEDI, J. ( 1 ) THE question involved in the present writ petition is regarding the right of student having completed graduation in two years degree course, to get admission for doing Post Graduation in University of Allahabad. The present petitioner passed her B. Sc. final examination from University of Kashmir which is still having two years degree course. Father of petitioner is employed as an Army Officer and he was posted in State of Jammu and Kashmir in peace station and so the petitioner could live with her father and complete her graduation from the aforesaid University. However father of petitioner was subsequently transferred to field area. Consequently he could not keep his family with him and the petitioner was compelled to shift to Allahabad (petitioners home district ). The petitioners result for the B. Sc. final examination was declared on 29/05/1989 and then she approached the authorities of the respondent No. l for seeking admission in Post Graduation course. ( 2 ) IT is relevant to mention here that the Allahabad University adopted three years degree course for granting graduate degree sometime back and was granting admission in Post Graduation and LL. B. courses only to those who possessed three years degree course. In order to provide relief to the students having two years course degree a Bridge course was started and the students were allowed admission thereafter for doing Post Graduation. The petitioner before the authorities of respondent No. 1 prayed that she is entitled for the admission in Post Graduation on the basis of graduation degree obtained from University of Kashmir. However she is prepared to do the Bridge course and she is also even prepared to get her admitted in third year course of B. Sc. and she may be allowed either of the three so that she may continue her academic career. Father of petitioner also wrote a letter to the respondent No. 2 explaining the difficulties. However the request of the petitioner was turned down firstly by the order dated 29/09/1989 which has been filed as Annexure-VI to the writ petition. In the order this much has been said that in M. A. , M. Sc. , M. Com. classes only candidates who had done 3 years course successfully are considered for admission. However the request of the petitioner was turned down firstly by the order dated 29/09/1989 which has been filed as Annexure-VI to the writ petition. In the order this much has been said that in M. A. , M. Sc. , M. Com. classes only candidates who had done 3 years course successfully are considered for admission. Another order was passed on 6/01/1990 by which she was intimated that there was no provision for admitting the student in third year of B. Sc. degree course who has done first and second year in other University. The petitioner in the writ petition has also mentioned that she was informed that the Bridge course has also been abolished. Hence there is no way open to her to get admission in M. Sc. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances the petitioner filed the present writ petition in this Court for the reliefs to quash the aforesaid two orders and further to direct the respondents to admit the petitioner in M. Sc. course. ( 3 ) THE respondents 1 to 3 after service of the notice have filed a counter affidavit and they have taken a stand that the orders have been rightly passed as a candidate is eligible for admission in M. Sc. previous only if he has done three years degree course for obtaining graduation degree under 10 + 2 + 3 Scheme. In para 7 of the counter affidavit it has also been admitted that the Bridge course has been abolished hence the petitioner was not admitted in Bridge course. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that she cannot be admitted to third year course of B. Sc. in view of the Ordinance of the University and the orders have been rightly passed. The said orders have been justified on the ground that the Ordinance of the University does not permit either of the three prayers made by the petitioner. In this writ petition counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and the learned counsel for the parties agreed that the writ petition may be heard and finally disposed of at the stage of admission. ( 4 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. In this writ petition counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and the learned counsel for the parties agreed that the writ petition may be heard and finally disposed of at the stage of admission. ( 4 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. ( 5 ) SRI Keshari Nath Tripathi, appearing for the petitioner, has challenged the orders passed by the respondents on the ground that they are arbitrary and illegal and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. The respondents cannot refuse admission to the petitioner as the degree awarded by the University of Kashmir has been recognised by the respondent No. 1 equivalent to the degree awarded by the Allahabad University. the respondents were not justified in creating class among the various degree holders on the basis of the period prescribed in different Universities for completing the said course. S. 6 of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the act) has been referred to in support of the above contention. Sri Tripathi also referred to Art. 41 of the Constitution of India contained in Part IV that the petitioners right to education cannot be defeated in this manner by the University authorities. The doors for further academic education have been closed by the University for all times. The petitioner being a female cannot go elsewhere to pursue her further study nor can she live with her father as he is posted at field area. The documents have been filed in support of the contention that her father is posted in field area and is not allowed under the Army Rules to keep family. ( 6 ) SRI Haider Hussain, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the authorities of the University are bound by their Ordinance which prescribes the right of admission in the University. He referred relevant Ordinance regulating the admission for the degree of Master of Science. The learned counsel has reiterated the stand taken in the counter affidavit that the Bridge course having been abolished and the petitioner having the graduation degree with two years course cannot be admitted in M. Sc. previous in view of the provisions contained in Ordinance No. 5. The learned counsel has reiterated the stand taken in the counter affidavit that the Bridge course having been abolished and the petitioner having the graduation degree with two years course cannot be admitted in M. Sc. previous in view of the provisions contained in Ordinance No. 5. In respect of the recognition by the Allahabad University of the graduation degree awarded by Kashmir University, the learned counsel stated that the same is subject to the other Ordinances and that cannot give right to the petitioner to get admission in M. Sc. previous. He relied on the case AIR 1987 SC 57 , University of Allahabad v. Amrit Chandra Tripathi, for the contention that University is bound by its Ordinance and the orders passed are justified. Sri Haider Husain further contended that the petitioner has not challenged the validity of the Ordinance on the ground of Art. 14 and Art. 41 of the Constitution and S. 6 of the Act as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the argument cannot be advanced at this stage without laying down the foundation for the same in the writ petition. ( 7 ) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties in my opinion, the question which falls for consideration is as to whether the students, like petitioner, who have obtained graduation degree with two years course have any right to admission for doing Post Graduation or not under the relevant Ordinance and as to whether the orders passed by the respondents on the basis of the Ordinance relied on are correct and legal and do not offend valuable right to further education of the petitioner. The foremost consideration in this respect is as to whether University authorities are justified in creating a class of the students, having graduation degree with three years course, only, eligible for the Post Graduation and closing the doors for those who obtained graduation degree with two years course. In my opinion, this classification is arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and since by the attitude adopted the right of education is closed forever to those who obtained graduation degree in two years, the right provided under Art. 41 of Constitution is also violated. In my opinion, this classification is arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and since by the attitude adopted the right of education is closed forever to those who obtained graduation degree in two years, the right provided under Art. 41 of Constitution is also violated. It is well known that Art. 41 in itself cannot be enforced but since the action of the authorities of respondent No. l is clearly arbitrary and discriminatory and Art. 14 is attracted, the right of the petitioner under Art. 41 which creates sacred obligation to the State to provide effective provision of right of education is also attracted. In my opinion, it is this right which has been incorporated in S. 6 of the Act which reads as under :-"university open to all classes and creeds. The University shall be open to all persons irrespective of class or creed, but nothing in this section shall be deemed to require the University to admit to any course of study a larger number of students than may be determined by the Ordinances : provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent the University from making special provisions for admission of students belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. "the learned counsel for the respondents is not justified in saying that no foundation has been laid down for the aforesaid argument in the writ petition. In para 20 of the writ petition and in ground (b) it has been specifically stated that the denial of the petitioners admission in M. Sc. course on the ground that the petitioner possesses the graduate degree of two years course is discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. On the other hand in the counter affidavit no reply has been given to this question. In the relevant paragraph 16 in which para 21 has been referred to, nothing has been said so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned. The only fact reiterated is that the petitioner cannot be admitted as the Bridge course has been abolished. ( 8 ) IT is well known that M. A. and M. Sc. courses are permitted in particular subject only. It could be seen by the University authorities as to whether the student, seeking admission in M. A. or M. Sc. The only fact reiterated is that the petitioner cannot be admitted as the Bridge course has been abolished. ( 8 ) IT is well known that M. A. and M. Sc. courses are permitted in particular subject only. It could be seen by the University authorities as to whether the student, seeking admission in M. A. or M. Sc. previous, had that particular subject while doing B. A. or B. Sc. course. Such a consideration could only be said to be relevant while considering the case of a candidate seeking admission to the Post Graduate course of M. A. or M. Sc. The graduation degrees could not be legally distinguished for purposes of admission only on basis of the years prescribed for doing the course. No material has been filed or placed before the Court to establish any difference in academic sense. For all purposes the graduation degree, whether obtained on the basis of two years or three years course is given same value. In my opinion, petitioner is fully entitled for being admitted in M. Sc. previous course on basis of the graduation degree possessed by her. The distinction made and adhered to by respondents as such does not appear to be substantive and real so far the admission to M. A. or M. Sc. previous is concerned. ( 9 ) IT is relevant to mention here that the University has recognised the degree course and other degrees awarded by the other Universities and list of such Universities has been given in Chapter XVIII. In this list the degree of Jammu and Kashmir University has been recognised on the reciprocal basis for purposes of admission to M. Sc. classes of the Allahabad University. There is no mention that only B. Sc. degree with three years course shall be recognised for the purposes of admission in M. Sc. previous. Whereas in the same list, in respect of other Universities it has been clearly provided that B. A. , B. Sc. and B. Com. three years degree course is recognised for admission in M. A. , M. Sc. and M. Com. courses. In respect of Andhra University three years course has been recognised. There is a long list from which it appears that the distinction has been made and only in respect of some Universities the graduation degree with three years course is recognised for purposes of admission. and M. Com. courses. In respect of Andhra University three years course has been recognised. There is a long list from which it appears that the distinction has been made and only in respect of some Universities the graduation degree with three years course is recognised for purposes of admission. Considered in this view also the University authorities cannot be justified in refusing admission to the petitioner. The power to recognise the degree of other Universities flows from S. 45 (3) of the Act which reads as under :"the University shall have the power to recognize (for the purposes of admission to a course of study for a degree), as equivalent to its own degree, any degree conferred by any other University or, as equivalent to the Intermediate Examination of any Indian University, any examination conducted by any other authority". After having recognised the degree of Kashmir University with two years course for purposes of admission to M. Sc. previous examination, the respondents cannot legally say that the petitioner is not qualified for joining the M. Sc. previous. The qualification for admission to M. Sc. previous course, is B. Sc. degree. The same course could be taught and studied in two years as well as in three years. In many Universities the same course is still being taught in two years. To create distinction between graduation degrees on basis of years in which its course has been completed is wholly illegal and arbitrary for refusing admission. The stand taken by the respondent is contrary to the provisions of S. 45 (3) of the Act. ( 10 ) THOUGH as clear from the above the petitioner is entitled for admission in M. Sc. previous on the basis of B. Sc. degree obtained from Kashmir University irrespective of the fact that it was done in two years, however as the respondents have contended that she is not entitled for admission as the Bridge Course has been abolished, the controversy regarding the Bridge course has also to be considered. In Ordinance No. 5 which was made as transitory Ordinance for such students who obtained graduation degree with two years course; Bridge course has been provided so that such students, if for some reasons could not pursue their further studies, could join University again after completing the Bridge course. In Ordinance No. 5 which was made as transitory Ordinance for such students who obtained graduation degree with two years course; Bridge course has been provided so that such students, if for some reasons could not pursue their further studies, could join University again after completing the Bridge course. The Ordinance No. 5 thus kept the gets open to such students by providing the provision of Bridge course. However unfortunately the stand of the respondents is that the Bridge course has been abolished which means a complete closure of the academic career of the students with two years degree course. During the argument no Ordinance has been placed before me abolishing the Bridge course. Learned counsel for the respondents however placed before me Resolution No. 130 of the Academic Council dated 9/12/1988 and stated that by this resolution the Bridge course has been abolished. This resolution cannot be given any value for the reasons that firstly it relates to the Arts Bridge course and secondly in this very resolution it has been stated that so far as the question of recognition of the Bridge course of other Universities is concerned with regard to admission in Post graduate classes at this University, the matter be referred to the Equivalence Committee for consideration. It is clear from S. 52 that the Ordinance is made by the Executive Council and the Academic Council only makes proposal for the same. No resolution of the Executive Council was produced before me showing that the Bridge course has been abolished. Further no opinion of the Equivalence Committee for derecognising the Bridge course of other Universities has been placed. In these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the Bridge course contemplated by Ordinance No. 5 has been abolished. No facts as to how and when the said Bridge course was abolished by amending Ordinances has been mentioned in the counter affidavit. Though it will be another serious question as to whether the Bridge course provided for such students, can be legally abolished which shall close the doors for the students with two years degree course forever. However in the present case as I am not satisfied that such course has actually been abolished in accordance with law, I am not expressing any opinion about the validity of the alleged abolition. The stand taken by the respondents is thus unjustified in this regard also. However in the present case as I am not satisfied that such course has actually been abolished in accordance with law, I am not expressing any opinion about the validity of the alleged abolition. The stand taken by the respondents is thus unjustified in this regard also. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on AIR 1987 SC 57 , in which the question involved was, as to whether University authorities were competent to introduce entrance test for admission to degree courses in Arts, Science and Commerce. After considering various provisions of Act it was held that entrance examination has rightly been introduced and in this context their Lordships held that the University authorities are bound by the Ordinance. The position of law expressed by Honble Supreme Court cannot be disputed. However facts of the present case are altogether different. It is not disputed that the University is a State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India and its action are subject to Art. 14 thereof. Any action of the respondents closing the doors of the temple of education in arbitrary and discriminatory manner by creating imaginary classification cannot be permitted which is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. The right of education is a valuable right and it cannot be curtailed unless the candidate seeking admission in the University is not entitled for same for any legal and valid reason. In my opinion, the respondents were not justified in refusing admission to the petitioner in M. Sc. previous course. Petitioner completed her graduation degree and was declared successful in May, 1989. She has been deprived of her further pursuit of studies for more than a year by respondents in arbitrary and illegal manner. After loss of so much time, due to illegal action of respondents, in my opinion, it would not be in the interest of justice to compel petitioner to go for completing the Bridge course, which shall cause to her a further loss of time for no fault of her own. It also does not appear necessary as the respondents have failed to prove any difference in B. Sc. course prescribed in Kashmir University and in the University of Allahabad. ( 12 ) FOR the reasons above, the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. It also does not appear necessary as the respondents have failed to prove any difference in B. Sc. course prescribed in Kashmir University and in the University of Allahabad. ( 12 ) FOR the reasons above, the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. The impugned order dated 29-9-1989 (Annexure-VI) is hereby quashed and the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to allow admission to the petitioner in M. Sc. previous without any further delay if she is otherwise qualified for the same and fulfils other necessary conditions for the same. She shall not be denied admission on basis of the fact that she possesses B. Sc. degree with two years course. In view of the aforesaid direction, there is no necessity of quashing impugned order dated 6-1-1990 (Annexure-VIII) by which she has been refused admission in B. Sc. IIIrd year examination. ( 13 ) THE writ petition is thus allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .