Vijcnder Jain, J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall dispose of Civil Writ Nos. 2577 to 2581, 3707 and 3792 of 1992. ( 2 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiachallenging Clause Vlll (a) of the Bulletin of Information and the relativeordinance (s), if any, issued by the University of Delhi providing that themedical Course Admission Committee may assign a particular candidate toone institution, on the basis of. the seats initially available in that particularinstitution and no shifting from one institution to another institution will beallowed once the allotment of institution/college has been finalised by theadmission Committee even though the candidate may become eligible foradmission to the institution of his first choice on the basis of admitted meritcum-choice criteria and the seats that remain or fall vacant as a result ofsome candidate not taking up admission or dropping out after takingadmission. ( 3 ) SINCE common questions arise in all these matters, we may welltake facts of one petition only (C. W. 2577/92 ). ( 4 ) THE case of the petitioner is that he appeared in the entranceexamination and qualified in the said examination securing 128th rank in themerit list. The petitioner was entitled for admission only in respect of nonreserved seat. The petitioner in his application for admission to the entranceexamination had indicated his first choice of the institution as Maulana Azadmedical College (hereinafter to be referred to as MAMC) and Universitycollege of Medical Science (hereinafter referred to as UCMC) as the secondchoice. The result of the entrance examination was published on 5th June,1992. The case of the petitioner further is that though in the first instancehe was assigned to UCMS, he having secured 128th rank in the merit list hasbecome eligible for admission into MBBS course and is entitled to be shiftedto MAMC as per position of the admission in 1992. However, because of theimpugned condition as mentioned in the Bulletin of Information the petitionerwas prevented from shifting into MAMC had he has challenged the saidclause Vlll (a) of the Bulletin on the ground that he has been deprived ofhis right of admission in MAMC and a less meritorious candidate who mayor may not have expressed MAMC as his first choice was admitted intomamc. ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, in the past, i. e. upto 1991 the practice was that eventhough a candidate has been assigned to UCMS he/she could shift on thebasis of higher in merit to MAMC on seats falling vacant depending uponthe candidates who were not accepting the seats offered to them because theygot and preferred admissions into other institutions or because they preferredsome other course. However, in the year 1992 the respondents have deprived the meritorious candidate from shifting from UCMS to MAMS subject tothe availability of the seats and instead decided to offer these seats to lessmeritorious candidate who would be getting rank lower than the petitioner. Clause Vlll (a) of the Bulletin of Information reads as under : "allotment of colleges to the selected candidates will be madeby the Medical Courses Admission Committee in order of meritcum-choice of Institution preferred by the candidates in their application forms vis-a-vis availability of seats. The decision of thecommittee shall be final and binding. No shifting from one institution to another institution will be allowed once the allotment ofinstitution/college has been finalised by the Admission Committee. " ( 6 ) THE petitioner has further stated that upto the Session 1991, therelative condition permitted shifting of the selected candidates from oneinstitution to another institution and the relevant Clause VIII of the Bulletinof Information for the Session 1991 reads as under : "allotment of Colleges to the selected candidates will be madeby the Medical Courses Admission Committee in order of meritcum-choice of institution preferred by the candidates in their application forms. The decision of the Committee shall be final andbinding. No transfer or shifting of the candidates will be allowedafter the close of the admission. " ( 7 ) IN the counter-affidavit respondent admits that the shifting ofcandidate was not permitted upto the year 1988 but as the shifting createdproblems the change was necessitated by inclusion of a clause prohibitingsuch shifting for the students who were admitted in the year 1992. " ( 7 ) IN the counter-affidavit respondent admits that the shifting ofcandidate was not permitted upto the year 1988 but as the shifting createdproblems the change was necessitated by inclusion of a clause prohibitingsuch shifting for the students who were admitted in the year 1992. ( 8 ) ON being asked as to how Clause Vlll (a) of the Bulletin of Information has been changed for admission to MBBS Degree Courses in 1992 therespondents relied upon Clause 11-G (4) of the Statute framed under Delhiuniversity Act, 1922 (for short, the Act) which reads as under : "if, in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor, any emergency hasarisen which requires that immediate action should be taken, thevice-Chancellor shall take such action as he deems necessary andshall report the same for confirmation at the next meeting to theauthority which, in the ordinary course, would have dealt with thematter. " ( 9 ) IN sum and substance the arguments of the learned Counsel forthe respondent Mr. Kaul was that the Vice-Chancellor has used the emergency power and has altered the policy regarding admission to 1st yearmbbs course for the year 1992. ( 10 ) ON the other hand, Mr. P. A. S. Rao the learned Counsel for thepetitioner has contended that the change in the Ordinance to effect the policyof admission can be made as provided in that section and it is only undersec. 31 of the Act which provides inter-alia : "ordinance how made :- (1) The Ordinances of the University as in force immediately before the commencement of the Delhiuniversity (Amendment) Act, 1952, may be amended, repealed oradded to at any time by the Executive Council ;provided that- (i) No Ordinance shall be made affecting conditions of residenceor discipline of students, except after consultation with theacademic Council: (ii) No Ordinance shall be made- (a) affecting the admission or enrolment of students or prescribing examinations to be recognised as equivalent to theuniversity examinations, or (b) affecting the conditions, mode of appointment or duties ofexaminers or the conduct of standard of examinations orany course of study,unless a draft of such Ordinance has been propose by theacademic Council. " ( 11 ) MR. " ( 11 ) MR. Rao also argued that in the instant case as the draft of suchchange in the policy of admission in MBBS course was not proposed byacademic Council the Vice-Chancellor did not have the power to change thepolicy under Clause 11-0 (4) of the Statutes. ( 12 ) WE are not inclined to go into this controversy in any detail. Even though if we test the arguments of the learned Counsel for the responddents that the Vice-Chancellor exercised his emergency powers then we haveto see as to whether actually there was any situation of emergency whichjustified the exercise of such powers by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. In the present case, there is not even a plea regarding existence of any emergency much-less about its nature which would disentitle the students whowere higher in merit to seek admission in the college of their choice. ( 13 ) WHEN the very existence of emergency on which the impugnedaction is sought to be based has been questioned it is the duty of the respondents to plead necessary facts and place material on record at least to primafade show the existence of emergency in order to justify the exercise of emergency powers. We would like to see whether the Vice-Chancellor has applied his mind objectively while changing/altering the criteria which was inexistence for the students appearing and seeking admission in the year 1991. On the basis of documents filed by the respondent, it appears that themedical College Admission Committee took the decision against the policyof shifting thereby adversely affecting the chances of meritorious students toseek admission to the college of their first preference in case any vacancy fellin that year and recorded a note to that effect. The Vice-Chancellor hassimply signed the same without considering the need for such a change andif the matter was so urgent as to take effect in the year 1992 itself withouthaving first recourse to the Academic Council, Merely because the Medicalcollege Admission Committee decided something cannot be a substitute forthe words "in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor" as provided under Statutes11-G (4 ). The opinion expressed by the Vice-Chancellor must be explicit. Therefore) in our opinion, neither there existed any emergency nor the Vice-Chancellor applied his mind as is required under Clause 11-G (4) of thestatutes or under Sec. 31 of the Delhi University Act. The opinion expressed by the Vice-Chancellor must be explicit. Therefore) in our opinion, neither there existed any emergency nor the Vice-Chancellor applied his mind as is required under Clause 11-G (4) of thestatutes or under Sec. 31 of the Delhi University Act. We do not find anyapplication of mind by the Medical College Admission Committee as to whyit thought that change was necessary and why it must from the year 1992itself. It is immaterial if the Academic Council later ratified the act of thevice-Chancellor which was invalid ab initio. In this view of the matter, weare of the opinion that Clause VIII (a) of the Bulletin of Information is notin confirmity with the rules and regulations and has to be struck down. Weorder accordingly. We are quite conscious of the fact that in universitymatters the interference by the Courts has to be minimal but when we findthat exercise of power has been arbitrary we must strike it down. Thereappears to be no consideration by the respondents. Medical College Admission Committee in particular, if its recommendation would not cause frustration to the students who are higher in merit being denied admission to a college of their choice while those lower in merit getting admission there. Of course, time limit can be set up to which shifting is permissible on the basis of merit. However, if the University Authority still feels that such a change is in the wider interests of the institutions and the students, it can always resort to amend the policy in accordance with law. In view of our finding on this aspect, we do not desire to discuss or pass orders on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that under the Act the Vice-Chancellor has no power to amend or change or alter the policy regarding admission to MBBS course, ( 14 ) IN the result, the writ petitions are allowed. We direct therespondents will consider the admission of the shifting of the petitioneron the basis of the policy prior to its amendment in 1992. No order as tocosts.