S. R. SINGH, J. The Special Appeal No. 562 of 1992 is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-7-1997, whereby a learned Single Judge dismissed the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23760 of 1997 on the ground of alternative remedy available to the writ petitioners Satya Prakash Singh and Himanshu Agrawal under Section 68 of the U. P. State Univer sities Act, 1973 (in short the Act ). The said writ petition was filed, inter alia, for the following reliefs: " (i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the decision by means of Resolution No. 26 dated 7-5-1997 of the Executive Counsel Annexure-2 to this writ petition, amended rules approved in its meeting dated 14-6-97 Annexure-3 to this writ petition. (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 4, the Management Committee of the In stitution to hold the entrance test for the year 1997-98 for the course of B. Sc. Agriculture I. " 2. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26298 of 1997 has been filed by the Committee of Management of Chaudhary Charan Singh, Shivdan Singh Degree College, Iglas, Mahamaya Nagar and another basically for the self same reliefs which were claimed in the earlier Writ Petition No. 23760 of 1997 filed by the two prospective students Staya Prakash Singh and Himan-shu Agrawal. The reliefs sought in this writ petition are these: " (i) issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the resolution of the Academic Council resolution No. 26 (An-nexure No to the writ petition) and the resolu tion in form of amended rule dated 14-6-1997 (Annexure No. IV to the writ petition) and fur ther the notice and communication dated 2nd June, 1997 (Annexures No. 4 and 5 to the writ petition ). (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent from holding and declaration of result, of al leged entrance examination, 1997 by University by Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Agra as per notification dated 21-6-1997 for B. Sc. (Ag.) 1st year course. (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respon dents from any interference, in admission mat ter, for course B. Sc. (Ag.) 1st year, conducted by the petitioners Committee of Management, for its institution. (Ag.) 1st year course. (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respon dents from any interference, in admission mat ter, for course B. Sc. (Ag.) 1st year, conducted by the petitioners Committee of Management, for its institution. (iv) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (v) award the costs of the writ petition in favour of petitioners. " 3. Since the point involved in this petition was the same as the one involved in special Appeal, the learned Single Judge directed the writ petition to be placed before the Special Appeal Bench for disposal on merit. Accordingly both the cases were heard together with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 4. The core question that arises for determination in these cases is : whether combined entrance test orgainsed and held by the respondent University for ad mission of students to B. Sc. (Ag.) 1st year course in the colleges affiliated to it for the session 1997-98 is violative of the right to manage and control the affairs of the college vested in the Committees of Management of the respective affiliated colleges by virtue of Section 37 (4) of the Act. 5. Although learned Single Judge in his judgment under appeal declined to go into the merits of the question and dis missed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy and the self same preliminary objection was raised by Sri Pankaj Mittal in the writ petition filed by the Committee of Management of the College in question, but regard being had to the fact that the question involved is pure question of law and even if the matter is referred to the Chancellor under Sec tion 68 of the Act, it is bound to be agitated by the party aggrieved by the order of the Chancellor, as held by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 607 of 1995, Dr. B&l Krishna Agrawal v. State of U. P & Ors. , decided or 10th January, 1995, we are of the considered view that it is not the case where the petitioner may be non- suited on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. B&l Krishna Agrawal v. State of U. P & Ors. , decided or 10th January, 1995, we are of the considered view that it is not the case where the petitioner may be non- suited on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. We, therefore, propose to go into the merits of the question involved in these case and accordingly we have heard Sri R. C. Srivastava, Senior Advocate as sisted by Sri Shailendra, for the petitioner appellants and Sri Pankaj Mittal for the respondent University. 6. Sri Pankaj Mittal, learned Counsel for the respondent University urged that the prospective students had no right to challenge the decision taken by the University to hold combined admission test for admission of students in B. Sc. Agriculture 1st year course in the affiliated college. We do not consider it necessary to go into this question for, in our opinion, the Committee of Management does have a right to file writ petition challenging any decision taken by the University or its authorities which may have the effect of impinging upon any right of the Commit tee of Management in relation to the af fairs of the College. Sri Mittal also urged that the writ petition which purports to have been filed by the Committee of Management, has in fact not been filed by it in that, urged the learned Counsel, no office bearer of the Committee of Management has filed affidavit in support of the writ petition and one Harpal Singh has filed affidavit in both the petitions. We are not inclined to dismiss the writ peti tion filed on behalf of the Committee of Management simply because the affidavit filed in its support is one by Harpal Singh who had sworn affidavit in support of the writ petition instituted by the prospective students. The petition has been signed by the Counsel on the authority given to him by the Committee of Management through a Vakalatnama which purports to have been executed by the Secretary of the Committee of Management of the con cerned College. 7. The petition has been signed by the Counsel on the authority given to him by the Committee of Management through a Vakalatnama which purports to have been executed by the Secretary of the Committee of Management of the con cerned College. 7. Section 37 (4) of the Act visualises that except as provided by the Act, the Management of an affiliated college shall be free to manage and control the affairs of the college and be responsible for its maintenance and up keep and its Prin cipal shall be responsible for the discipline of its students and for the superintendence and control over its staff. The question that is to be seen is whether the freedom to manage and control the affairs of the col lege given to the Committee of Manage ment by sub-section (4) of Section 37 of the Act includes the freedom to select stu dents for admission or the freedom so vested is controlled by the Act. It was held in St. Stephen College v. University of Delhi, J. T 1991 (4) SC 548, by the Honble Supreme Court, while examining the right of the minorities under Article 30 of the Constitution to administer the affairs of an educational institution of its choice, that Article 30 clothes a Minority Educa tional Institution with the power to admit students by adopting its own method of selection and that the State or the affiliat ing University has no power to regulate admission of students to such Minority Educational Institution while permitting the Minority Educational Institution to admit students belonging to the relevant minority to the extent of 50% of its in take capacity for, in its opinion : "the right to select students for admission is a part of administration. It is indeed an important facet of administration. This power also could be regulated but the regulation must be reasonable just like any other regulation". 8. However, the correctness of the aforesaid proposition was questioned in T. M. A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. It is indeed an important facet of administration. This power also could be regulated but the regulation must be reasonable just like any other regulation". 8. However, the correctness of the aforesaid proposition was questioned in T. M. A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. , J. T 1993 (5) S. C. 704, wherein a Bench of equal number while referring the question for consideration by a larger Bench held as under: "so long as the Minority Educational In stitution is permitted to draw students belonging to that minority to the extent of 50% seats even by going down the merit list, we see no reason why the State/affiliating University cannot stipu late that the general students as well as minority students must all be drawn only from the com mon merit pool and that even the minority com munity students must also be acniitted on the basis of inter se merit determined on the basis of common/joint etrance test. Article 30 in our opinion, does not clothe a Minority Educational Institution with the power to adopt its own method of selection of students. It is not a pan of minority character of the Institution. The said requirement is but apiece of regulation which the State/affiliating University can prescribe in the interest of fairness and maintenance of stand ards. " (Emphasis supplied ). 9, We are not concerned with the right of the Committee of Management of a Minority Institution, but the question arises herein is similar to the one raised before the Supreme Court in the above mentioned cases in the context of Article 30 of the Constitution and its answer is yet to be given by a Larger Bench of the Apex Court. But regard being had to the open ing Expression "except as provided by this Act" used by the Legislature in sub-section (4) of Section 37 of the Act, we are of the considered view that freedom to manage and control the affairs of the College given to its management is not an absolute and uncontrolled one. But regard being had to the open ing Expression "except as provided by this Act" used by the Legislature in sub-section (4) of Section 37 of the Act, we are of the considered view that freedom to manage and control the affairs of the College given to its management is not an absolute and uncontrolled one. Section 28 (4) of the Act empowers the Admission Committee of the affiliating University to issue any direction subject to the provisions of sub section (5) "as respects criteria or methods of admission including the number of stu dents to be admitted to the constituent colleges maintained by the State Govern ment and to affiliated or associated col leges and such direction shall be binding on such colleges ; Admission Committee of the affiliating University is empowered to lay down principles and norms govern ing policy of admission to various courses of studies in the University subject, of course, to the superintendence of the Academic Council as visualised by sub section (3) of Section 28 of the Act. Sec tion 21 (1) (xvii) of the Act empowers the Executive Council to regulate and deter mine all other matters concerning the University as well as Institutes, con stituent, affiliated and associated colleges in accordance with the act, the Statutes and the Ordinances. Academic Council, according to Section 25 (1), is vested with the power to control and be responsible for the maintenance of standard of in struction, education and research carried on or imparted in the University. The right to manage and control the affairs of the College given to the management of an affiliated college by Section 37 (4) of the Act is, in our opinion, subject to regulatory decisions taken by the Execu tive Council under Section 21 (1) (xvii), by the Academic Council under Section 25 (1) (a) and by the Admission Committee under Section 28 of the Act. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that even if it be held that right to manage and control the affairs of the college given to the management of an affiliated college by Section 37 (4) of the Act includes right to admit the students, the said right is to be exercised subject to regulatory decisions taken by the Executive Council, Academic Council and the Admission Committee of the University under the relevant provisions afore stated. 10. 10. In the instant case, a decision was taken vide resolution No. 10 dated 4-4-1997 of the Board of Agriculture Faculty of the University that the admission to 1st degree in Agriculture Faculty be made through admission test. The said decision was considered and approved by the Ex ecutive Council and the Admission Com mittee of the University was directed to amend the Admission Niyamawali and proceed accordingly, as would be evident from the minutes of the Academic Coun cil, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition filed by the Committee of Management. Pravesh Niyamawali for the session 1997-98 was amended accordingly by the Admission Committee in its meeting held on 14-6-1997 providing, inter alia, for admission to the first year in three year degree courses of Arts, Science and Commerce Faculties and four year degree course in Agriculture Faculty on the basis of merit to be deter mined as a result of qualifying examina tion/entrance test. The amended Niyamawali is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure No. 4 and the Notification inviting applications for admission was is sued accordingly vide Annexure-5. The amended Niyamawali, in our opinion, is well within the scope and ambit of Section 28 (4) of the Act which empowers the Admission Committee to issue any direc tion as respects criteria or methods of ad mission including number of students to be admitted to constituent colleges main tained by the State Government and to affiliated or associated colleges and such direction, it is further provided, shall be binding on such colleges. Sub-section (6) of Section 28 clearly provides that no stu dent admitted to any college in contraven tion of the provisions of this Section, viz. the criteria of admission Laid down by the Admission Committee, shall be permitted to take up any examination conducted by the University. The Vice-Chancellor has been given the power to cancel any admis sion made in such contravention. the criteria of admission Laid down by the Admission Committee, shall be permitted to take up any examination conducted by the University. The Vice-Chancellor has been given the power to cancel any admis sion made in such contravention. The Ex ecutive Council, as already pointed out, is vested with the power to regulate and determine all matters concerning Univer sity as well as Institutes, constituent, af filiated and associated colleges in accord ance with the Act, the Statutes and the Ordinance and the decision of the Execu tive Council contained in resolution No. 26/26 dated 7-5-1997 was well within the scope and ambit of the powers conferred on the Executive Council vide Section 21 (1) (xvii) of the Act. No exception can be taken either to the impugned Pravesh Niyamawali or to the resolution passed by the Executive Council. The writ petition on hand as also the writ petition giving rise to the Special Appeal is liable to be dis missed. 11. In the result the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26298 of 1997, Committee of Management v. Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Vishwavidyalaya, Agra &anr. , as well as the writ petition giving rise to the Special Ap peal is dismissed. The Special Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 12. The parties shall bear their own costs. Petitions dismissed. .