D. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THE controversy raised in these cases relates to admission of non-collegiate (private) candidates to the Post-Graduate Examinations conducted by the Utkal University ('the University' for short) in 1993. The petitioners had intended to appear in the said examinations as non-collegiate (private) candidates. When the notification dated 17-10-92 (Annexure 1) was issued by the Controller of Examinations of the University inviting applications from eligible non-collegiate (private) candidates for admission to the examination, a condition was imposed that candidates securing less than 40 per cent marks in the aggregate and the subject (separately) at the degree shall not be eligible for admission to Post-Graduate Private appearance in any faculty. In the notification this stipulation was stated as an important provision for determining eligibility of the candidates. The petitioners do not fulfil this eligibility qualification. The petitioners, therefore, filed these writ applications seeking quashing of the said eligibility qualification in the notification, Annexure 1. They contend, inter alia, that no such qualification had been prescribed in previous years; that there is no necessity and no sound reason for restricting the admission of non-collegiate (private) candidates to the examination; that there is no rational basis for the eligibility qualification laid down, particularly that a candidate has to secure at the degree stage 40 per cent in aggregate in addition to securing 40 per cent in the concerned subject, in which he intends to appear in the P. G. Examination. The stipulation regarding eligibility qualifications was questioned in O. J. C. Nos. 365, 964 and 1263 of 1993 which were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by the judgment rendered on 26-4-1993. Therein this Court declined to quash the eligibility qualifications prescribed, holding inter alia, that the University has every right to stipulate conditions regulating admission to various examinations and it could not be said that there is no good and valid reason for fixing the impugned eligibility criteria nor can it be said that the stipulation of 40 per cent marks in the aggregate and the subject separately is unreasonable. When the present cases were listed before another Bench it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the decision in the aforementioned decided cases merits reconsideration, because the cases referred to in paragraph 6 of the judgment relate not to admission to examination but to admission to courses. When the present cases were listed before another Bench it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the decision in the aforementioned decided cases merits reconsideration, because the cases referred to in paragraph 6 of the judgment relate not to admission to examination but to admission to courses. On consideration of the said submissions, the Division Bench felt that it is a fit case which merits to be decided by a larger Bench. In pursuance of the said order the cases were listed before this Full Bench. ( 2 ) THE factual backdrop of the case over which there is no dispute may be stated thus: No private educational institution in the State is recognised or affiliated for imparting education at the post-graduate level. Some such institutions hold coaching classes for preparing students for post-graduate examinations and such students appear in the examination as non-collegiate (private) candidates. In the recent past the number of such candidates has increased manifold and as stated on behalf of the University the number is around 15000 to 20000. Faced with the stupendous task of finding suitable accommodation for all the candidates and keeping in view the necessity for maintaining high standard of academic excellence at the post-graduate level, the authorities of the University felt the necessity for screening the applicants intending to appear as non-collegiate (private) candidates in the Post-Graduate Examination. The Heads of Post-Graduate Teaching Department of the University had resolved that only candidates having 50 per cent or more marks in aggregate or in concerned honours subjects should be eligible for appearing at the M. A. Examination as non-collegiate (private) candidates. Thereafter, the Syndicate of the University in its meeting held on 9-4-92 considered the matter and resolved that the criteria prescribed by the State Government for admission to Post-Graduate classes should be fixed for determining the eligibility for non-collegiate (private) candidates for the P. G. Examination 1993. Since the examination was fast approaching, the Vice-Chancellor of the University in purported exercise of power vested in him under Section 6 (15) of the Orissa Universities Act, 1989 amended the Examination Regulation introducing the impugned eligibility qualifications. Subsequently the decision was ratified by the Academic Council of the University. Accordingly in the notification dated 17-10-92 issued by the Controller of Examinations (Annexure 1) the impugned eligibility criteria were indicated. Subsequently the decision was ratified by the Academic Council of the University. Accordingly in the notification dated 17-10-92 issued by the Controller of Examinations (Annexure 1) the impugned eligibility criteria were indicated. ( 3 ) AS noted earlier, the petitioners assail the eligibility qualification as irrational, unnecessary and having no nexus with the purpose to be achieved in the matter. They also contend that though Section 6 (15) of the Act vests power in the Vice-Chancellor to pass such order or take such decision in certain circumstances and subject to certain conditions, as specified in the provision, the manner in which such power has been exercised by the authority in the present case does not conform to the statutory requirement and therefore the decision / order is unsustainable. Elucidating the point Sri B. K. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the decision on the face of it is incapable of uniform implementation with regard to the applicants, inasmuch as students who did not have the subject at degree stage are also eligible to appear in the Post-Graduate Examinations as non-collegiate (private) candidates and in that case, as the order shows, the only eligibility criteria is 40 per cent in aggregate at degree stage, whereas in case of student who has studied the subject in question has to secure 40 per cent marks in the subject and in addition, 40 per cent in aggregate. As regards the manner of exercise of power under Section 6 (15) of the Act, Sri Patnaik contended that no material has been placed on record to show that the Vice-Chancellor before passing the order had formed an opinion that it was necessary to pass an order in that regard immediately and it was not practicable to convene the meeting of the concerned authority for that purpose before taking a decision and the decision was taken by the Vice-Chancellor. Sri Patnaik strenuously contended that the eligibility qualification in question causes serious hardship to the petitioners and similarly placed students who had made preparations for appearing in the Post-Graduate Examination as non-collegiate (private) candidates with the hope to secure post-graduate degree. Denying them such facility at the threshold according to Sri Patnaik, is uncalled for. According to him the decision which seriously affects reasonable expectation of the students has not been taken with due application of mind to all relevant matters. Denying them such facility at the threshold according to Sri Patnaik, is uncalled for. According to him the decision which seriously affects reasonable expectation of the students has not been taken with due application of mind to all relevant matters. ( 4 ) SHRI P. K. Mohanty appearing for the University supported the impugned eligibility criteria. He contended that before the Vice-Chancellor passed the order he had sought for the advice of Post-Graduate Teachers of the University who had recommended in March, 1991 that 50 per cent in aggregate and 50 per cent in the honours subject should be prescribed as eligibility criteria for admission of the non-collegiate (private) candidates to Post-Graduate Examinations. Thereafter the Syndicate in the meeting held on 9-4-92 considered the matter and resolved to follow the criteria prescribed by the State Government for admission to Post-Graduate Courses in Government Colleges. In pursuance of the said decision the Vice-Chancellor passed the order prescribing the eligibility criteria of 40 per cent in aggregate and 40 per dent in the concerned subject at graduate level. In such circumstances Sri Mohanty contended that it cannot be said that the decision had been taken without proper consideration or without due application of mind. Regarding exercise of the power under Section 6 (15) of the Act by the Vice-Chancellor, Sri Mohanty urged that since the Syndicate which is the competent authority to take a decision in this matter under Chapter XXV of the Regulation containing special provision for private students has taken the decision which has been merely reiterated and implemented by the Vice-Chancellor no exception can be taken to his order, on the grounds urged by the petitioners. ( 5 ) ON the case of the parties and the contentions raised on their behalf as discussed above, the questions which fall for determination are whether in the facts and circumstances it can be said, that the eligibility criteria prescribed by the University are irrational, arbitrary and unnecessary and whether the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of the power under Section 6 (15) of the Act is illegal and therefore unsustainable. ( 6 ) AT the outset I make it clear that the contention raised by Sri Patnaik relating to certain anomalies in implementation of the impugned eligibility criteria in respect of certain other class of students does not arise for consideration in the present case since undisputedly all the petitioners are students who studied the subject in which they wanted to appear at the Post-Graduate Examination, 1993 as non-collegiate (private) candidates. Therefore, I do not propose to go into those questions. ( 7 ) I shall first advert to the question of correctness of the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Pradipta Kumar Das v. Controller of Examination (O. J. C. Nos. 365, 964 and 1263 of 1993 ). Therein the Division Bench took the view that since education has a vibrant content, a static and stagnant continuity of Rules once formulated would be totally inappropriate and dangerously counter-productive; altered situations need alterations in the Rules, in a set up governed by the Rule of law; that there is no vested right in a candidate, to be admitted to any University Examination and that the University undisputedly, has the right to stipulate conditions regulating admission to various examinations. It was observed in the judgment that in the region of policy, it is only for the decision making authority to consider the various matters and take a decision; Courts do not ordinarily have any role in the decision taking process, and that in the matters of fixation of eligibility criteria, Courts should be slow to interfere and such matters should be left to the University. Considering the factual backdrop highlighted in the counter-affidavit filed by the University and its functionaries, the Bench held that it could not be said that there was no good and valid reason for fixing the impugned eligibility criteria and the stipulation of 40 per cent marks in the aggregate and the subject separately could not be held to be unreasonable. The matter was left to the appropriate authority to decide if a candidate had secured more than requisite percentage of marks in the subject concerned, then scoring 40 per cent marks in aggregate may not be insisted upon. ( 8 ) THAT prescribing eligibility criteria for admission to examination is a policy matter of the University is not disputed. The matter was left to the appropriate authority to decide if a candidate had secured more than requisite percentage of marks in the subject concerned, then scoring 40 per cent marks in aggregate may not be insisted upon. ( 8 ) THAT prescribing eligibility criteria for admission to examination is a policy matter of the University is not disputed. A decision in such a matter is to be taken by the competent authority of the University, which in the present case is the Academic Council or the Syndicate and in certain circumstances the Vice-Chancellor also. ( 9 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of University of Mysore v. Gopala Gowda, reported in AIR 1965 SC 1932 considering the vires of regulations framed by the Academic Council to debar a student who failed for four times in the first year examination to continue the course ruled that if a student admitted to a course is found by the Academic Council to be unfit to prosecute his training on account of his general inaptitude for being trained in that course or on account of supervening disability to prosecute the course of study, it would be within the power of the Academic Council in exercise of its authority to control and maintain standards and also of its authority to prescribe conditions on which students may be admitted to examinations to direct that the student shall discontinue training in that course and failure and by a student to qualify for promotion or degree in four examinations is certainly, a reasonable test of such inaptitude or supervening disability. The Apex Court further observed that the power to maintain standards in the course of studies confers authority to prescribe, minimum qualifications for admission, courses of study and minimum attendance at an institution which may qualify the student for admission to examination. The expression 'maintenance of the standards' cannot be restricted only to matters such as minimum attendance. (Emphasis supplied)the Apex Court in the case of Javid Rasool Bhat v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, reported in AIR 1984 SC 873 , considering the question of validity of the selection of candidates for admission to Medical Colleges, held that the Government should advise a selection procedure which would be above reproach. No rigid rules can be laid down in these matters by Courts. No rigid rules can be laid down in these matters by Courts. In the very nature of things it would not be within the province or even the competence of the Court and the Court would not venture into such exclusive thickets to discover ways out, when the matters are more appropriately left to the wise expertise of medical academicians interested in the quality and integrity of medical education and public Administrators conversant with various administrative and socio- economic problems needs and requirements. The Court's duty lies in preventing arbitrariness and denial of equal opportunity. It was further observed by the Court that the question as to the subjects in which an entrance test may be held is hardly a matter for the Court unless of course, the subjects are so arbitrarily chosen as to have not the slightest connection with the object of the examination. (Emphasis supplied) ( 10 ) TESTING the case at hand on the touchstone of the principles laid down in the aforementioned decided cases there can be little scope for doubt that the University was well within its power in laying down the criteria for admission of non-collegiate (private) candidates to post-graduate examination. In the very nature of things, the wisdom of the concerned authorities of the University who are experts in the field of education and in whom is vested the duty and responsibility of maintaining a high academic standard of the courses of study and the degree and diplomas is to be respected. The Court should not interfere with the decision taken by the such authority unless the decision is wholly irrational and has no reasonable nexus with the purpose to be achieved. By no reasonable process of analysis, it can be said that the eligibility criteria laid down in the present case that a candidate should have secured 40 per cent in aggregate and the subject in question at degree stage has no nexus with the examination at all. It has to be borne in mind that non-collegiate (private) candidates do not undergo regular course of study in the subjects in any recognised institution; there is, therefore, no objective process of judging their preparation and performances before admitting them to the examination. It has to be borne in mind that non-collegiate (private) candidates do not undergo regular course of study in the subjects in any recognised institution; there is, therefore, no objective process of judging their preparation and performances before admitting them to the examination. In such circumstances if the decision making authority of the University laid down the criteria for screening the candidates and to admit to the examinations only such candidates whose performance at degree stage way of a reasonable high standard, it cannot certainly be said that the criteria prescribed are unnecessary and have no nexus with the examination. Further, as pointed out on behalf of the University there is pressing necessity to screening of the candidates in view of the limited infrastructural facility available for accommodating the non-collegiate (private) candidates. Therefore, in my considered view the Division Bench was right in upholding the impugned eligibility criteria in the case. ( 11 ) LET me next consider the contention of Sri Patnaik regarding validity of the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor. It is apparent from the clarification letter issued by the Controller of Examinations dated 21-1-1993 (Annexure 1 / a) in O. J. C. 2475 of 1993 ). That the Vice-Chancellor passed the order in exercise of the power vested in him under Section 6 (15) of the Act. Therein, it is also stated that the Syndicate had taken a decision in that regard in the meeting held on 9-4-1992. The matter was initiated by the move made by Heads of Post-Graduate Departments of the University, who had recommended to limit admission of non-collegiate (private) candidates in post-Graduate Examinations to Honours Graduates who had secured 50 per cent in Honours and 50 per cent in aggregate. The Syndicate had, however, decided to adopt the criteria prescribed by the State Government for admission to the Post-Graduate Courses in Government Colleges for admission of the non-collegiate (private) candidates to the Examination. The Post-Graduate Examinations of 1993 were fast approaching. The requisite notification inviting the application from the non-collegiate (private) candidates had to be issued sufficiently ahead of the examination to enable the authorities to make necessary arrangements to accommodate them in the examination. Further, as stated by Sri P. K. Mohanty which was not disputed by Sri B. K. Patnaik, the Academic Council usually meets once a year. The requisite notification inviting the application from the non-collegiate (private) candidates had to be issued sufficiently ahead of the examination to enable the authorities to make necessary arrangements to accommodate them in the examination. Further, as stated by Sri P. K. Mohanty which was not disputed by Sri B. K. Patnaik, the Academic Council usually meets once a year. In such circumstances, if the Vice-Chancellor passed the order giving effect to the decision of the Syndicate which is the highest decision making authority of the University, in exercise of the power vested under Section 6 (15) of the Act, which was subsequently ratified by the Academic Council on 12-7-93, it cannot be said that he exercised the statutory power illegally or without due application of mind. No doubt, no material is available on record to show that before passing the order the Vice-Chancellor had specifically recorded the opinion that it was necessary to pass such order immediately and that it was not practicable to convene the meeting of the Academic Council for that purpose. But on the undisputed factual position in the case discussed earlier, existence of pressing necessity and urgency to lay down criteria for screening of the non-collegiate (private) candidates for the 1993 Post-Graduate Examinations cannot be doubted. The order of the Vice-Chancellor cannot therefore be said to have been vitiated on that score. This point can also be examined from another angle, Sri P. K. Mohanty raised a contention that in the facts and circumstances of the case the decision to lay down the eligibility criteria under challenge having been taken by the Syndicate which is the competent authority to take such decision under Chapter XXV of the Regulations framed by the Academic Council, it has operated on its own strength and the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor, can reasonably be said to be an order carrying out and facilitating implementation of the Syndicate decision; it cannot be said to be an independent decision of the Vice-Chancellor, Chapter XXV lays down the special regulations for non-collegiate students. Such a student is defined in Regulation 1 to mean a person who has not undergone the prescribed course of studies as a regular student in a college, or having been enrolled has not completed the prescribed course of studies for the examination at which he desires to appear for the first time. Such a student is defined in Regulation 1 to mean a person who has not undergone the prescribed course of studies as a regular student in a college, or having been enrolled has not completed the prescribed course of studies for the examination at which he desires to appear for the first time. In Regulation 3 (i), it is laid down that the Syndicate shall ordinarily grant permission to appear at the Pre-University, Pre-Professional First and Final Examination (pass course only) for the Bachelor's Degree in Arts, Science or Commerce, M. A. , M. Sc. , and M. Com. Examinations, Bachelor of Education Examination and Bachelor of Laws Examination to the categories of non-collegiate students as prescribed in the Regulation. In Regulation 5 it is provided that the Syndicate may permit a person who has at any time appeared and failed at a University Examination as a non-collegiate candidate to appear at the same examination in subsequent years. Correction Slip No. 541 which substituted Regulation 1 (1) (ii) excepting the provisos - to the said Regulation of Chapter IV of the Regulations lays down that any registered student of the University who has passed the B. A. / B. Sc. / B. Com. / B. O. L. / B. A. and B. Ed or B. Sc. and B. Ed. Examinations or some other examinations recognised by the Academic Council as equivalent thereto may, if he is permitted by the Syndicate under Regulations 3 (ii) and 4 of Chapter XXV be examined as non-collegiate student in any of the subjects specified in Regulation 3 (1) of the Chapter. From the above provisions of the Regulations, it is manifest that the Syndicate is the competent authority to permit a person to appear as non-collegiate candidate in the Post-Graduate Examinations. Undisputedly, the Syndicate took the decision to lay down the eligibility criteria in the present case and the Vice-Chancellor passed the order carrying out or implementing the decision of the Syndicate. Therefore, stricto senso, it cannot be said that the Vice-Chancellor took the decision in the matter under Section 6 (15) of the Act. Thus, viewed from any angle, the order of the Vice-Chancellor cannot be held to be invalid on the ground of non-application of mind or non-compliance of the conditions of the provisions in Section 6 (15) of the Act. Thus, viewed from any angle, the order of the Vice-Chancellor cannot be held to be invalid on the ground of non-application of mind or non-compliance of the conditions of the provisions in Section 6 (15) of the Act. On the analysis and the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, I hake no hesitation to hold that the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Pradipta Kumar Das v. Controller of Examinations (supra) is correct and justified. In the result, there is no merit in the writ applications, which are accordingly dismissed; but in the circumstances of the case without any order for cost. V. A. MOHTA, C. J. I agree. R. K. PATRA, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.