Judgment , J. 1. This petition seeks a direction for treating the petitioner liable for admission to M.Tech (Information Technology) in Guru Nanak Dev University, respondent No. 1. 2. Case of the petitioner is that she was enrolled with the Principal Academy of Higher Education (Deemed University) for Master of Information Technology (MIT) Degree. On 2004, she was given consolidated statement of marks and was degree in MIT. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for admission to M.Tech. (Information Technology). Though, she was allowed to take entrance test, she has not been treated to be eligible, though she obtained third rank in overall merit under the general category. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 1 University has not approved MIT (Under Distance Education) Degree of Manipal Academy of Higher Education (Deemed University) as equivalent to MIT Degree of respondent No. 1 University. Reference has been made to the prospectus for the year 2007 laying down the eligibility conditions to be as under "M. Tech. (IT) B.Tech in any branch of Engineering/Technology from Guru Nanak Dev University with atleast 60% marks in aggregate or any other examination recognised as equivalent thereto, Or MCA or equivalent of Guru Nanak Dev University or any other examination equivalent thereto with atleast 60% marks in aggregate; Or MA/M.Sc. in Computer Science/Information Technology/Mathematics/Statistics/Physics/Operations Research from Guru Nanak Dev University or any other examination recognised as equivalent thereto with atleast 55% marks in aggregate. Admission will be made exclusively on the basis of the merit of the candidate in the entrance Test to be conducted by the Head of the department." It was further stated that MIT Degree was equal to M.Sc as per circular of the UGC dated 1.6.2001, Annexure P.3. The said circular is as under : "The Commission having examined and deliberated the issue in detail, resolved that the degrees-BIS, BIT, MIS and MIT be not specified by the Commission and as such no University be allowed to award a degree with nomenclature of BIS (Bachelor of Information Science/Systems), BIT (Bachelor of Information Technology), MIS (Master of Information Sciences/Systems and MIT (Master of Information Technology). The Commission further resolved that the universities instead be advised to award degree of B.Sc and M.Sc respectively of three and two year duration in place of BIS/BIT and MIS/MIT which may well be in subjects of Information Science/systems and Information Technology. The Commission further resolved that the universities instead be advised to award degree of B.Sc and M.Sc respectively of three and two year duration in place of BIS/BIT and MIS/MIT which may well be in subjects of Information Science/systems and Information Technology. In view of the interests of the students already pursing the degrees of BIS, BIT, MIS and MIT, the Commission decided to permit recognition of BIS, BIT, MIS and MIT only to the already enrolled students in these degrees upto the last academic session i.e. 200-2001 and directed that henceforth, no new enrolment in any University be made in the degrees of BIS, BIT, MIS and MIT." 3. The Equivalence Committee recommended that the petitioner be treated as equivalent to the qualification for eligibility for M. Tech. admission, which was also approved by the Dean, Academic Affaris on 23.6.2007, Annexure P. 4 but later, the petitioner was not considered to be eligible vide Annexure P. 9 dated 11.7.2007. The note dated 23.6.2007 is as under : "The case of equivalence of MIT (3 years) Course of Maniple Academy of Higher Education was cleared by the Equivalence Committee and the file is yet to be approved by the Vice Chancellor. If allowed, the candidate can be provisionally allowed to appear in the enterance test at her own risk and responsibility subject to the orders of the Vice Chancellor. Submitted please. Dean, Academic Affairs. Sd/- 23.6.2004 HOD. Approved. Sd/- 23.6.2004." 4. According to the reply filed by respondent No. 1, the degree relied upon by the petitioner was by Distant Education Programme and not as a regular course and this vitz, information is not been disclosed in the writ petition. The degree was not equivalent to the degree awarded by respondent No.l. As per Rule 15 framed by respondent No. 3 University, standard of attainment must be equivalent. The course undertaken by respondent No. 1 was akin to regular course and regular classes had to be attended at the associate institutions, whereas in the course conducted by the Manipal University, only study material was sent by post and no regular classes or practical sessions were conducted. Provisional Roll Number was issued on her request pending further consideration. The course undertaken by respondent No. 1 was akin to regular course and regular classes had to be attended at the associate institutions, whereas in the course conducted by the Manipal University, only study material was sent by post and no regular classes or practical sessions were conducted. Provisional Roll Number was issued on her request pending further consideration. The Vice Chancellor after examining the matter held that the course not being identical, the degree obtained by the petitioner could not be treated as equivalent to the degree awarded by respondent No. 1. Further affidavit dated 6.8.2007 was field by the Vice Chancellor, inter-alia, stating : "It was also significant to mention, whether in professional courses like MIT of the Manipal Academy of Higher Education, the sufficient personal contract programme and practical input has gone into the study. In similar courses in GND University even under distance education mode 12 to 14 hours for practical work per week has been prescribed at par with the regular mode which is not possible under distance education courses like those of Manipal Academy of Higher Education. It was in this context that the Equivalency of personal contract programme and practical work which is the essence of such courses has not been established and therefore, equivalency could not be recommended to the Academic Council. All cases regarding equivalency of diploma and degrees of other universities in relation to the diplomas and degrees of the Guru Nanak Dev University are placed before the Equivalence Committee which is constituted as per ordinate available at page 3 of the GNDU Calendar Vol. IV, 1999 to make recommendations. 5. That the deponent submits that it was in view of the aforestated reasons the equivalency of the degree obtained by the petitioner MIT could not be approved." 5. In the replication filed, it has been stated that the petitioner did attend classes of MIT conducted by the Manipal Academy of Higher Education at its Chandigarh Centre and thus, Rule 15 of the equivalence Book stood duly complied. In the replication filed, it has been stated that the petitioner did attend classes of MIT conducted by the Manipal Academy of Higher Education at its Chandigarh Centre and thus, Rule 15 of the equivalence Book stood duly complied. Alongwith the replication, letter dated 16.9.2006, Annexure P.10 written by Manipal Academy of Higher Education to respondent No. 1 has also been field, inter-alia, stating : "The distance education scheme followed by University was unique in that the student not only provided the study material by University but also imported with inter-action classes through VSNL by the University and proper class level teaching imparted through qualified faculties of study centres." 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that Distance Education students should be treated at par with regular students for admission to higher courses. He made reference to Manual of UGC schemes, page 390. He further submitted that Distant Education Programme was conducted as per UGC guidelines and regular classes were held in addition to study material being supplied. 8. The question for consideration is whether the decision taken by respondent No. 1 University of not treating the degree obtained by the petitioner under Distant Education Programme as equivalent to MIT degree of respondent No. 1 university, can be held to be arbitrary ? Even though, it has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that in the Distant Education Programme undertaken by the petitioner class level teaching was also impprted through malfied faculties of study centre, there is no material to show who are the faculty members and where the class level teaching was record. According to the affidavit of the Vice-Chancellor, pendency of personal contract programme and practical work not established. In absence of adequate material, we are unable bid that the finding recorded by the Vice Chancellor is (sic). On the material before the Court, it is not possible to give finding that the petitioner was imparted studies in classes qualified facilities. In these circumstances, we are unable to set aside the finding recorded by respondent No. 1 University. 9. We may also refer to recent judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Kurmanchal Institute of Degree & Diploma v. Chancellor, M.J.P. Rohilkhand University, (2007)6 SCC 35 : [2007(4) SLR 601 (SC).J, herein it was observed : "18. In these circumstances, we are unable to set aside the finding recorded by respondent No. 1 University. 9. We may also refer to recent judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Kurmanchal Institute of Degree & Diploma v. Chancellor, M.J.P. Rohilkhand University, (2007)6 SCC 35 : [2007(4) SLR 601 (SC).J, herein it was observed : "18. ......Each university in the country which is recognised under the University Grants Commission Act must have their own territorial jurisdiction save and except for the Central Universities or specified in the legislative or parliamentary Act. 19. The submission of the learned counsel that for the purpose of running a distance education course, exraterritorial activities must be carried out may not be entirely correct. It is one thing to say that the university takes recourse to the correspondence courses for conferring degrees or diplomas but it would be another thing to say that study centres would be permitted to operate which requires close supervision of the university. In a study centre, teachers are appointed, practical classes are held and all other amenities which are required to be provided for running a full-fledged institution or college are provided. Such an establishment, in our opinion, although named as a study centre and despite the fact that the course of study and other study materials are supplied by the university cannot be permitted to be established beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the universities. Nainital is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the University. In fact it is not situated in the State of U.P. and, thus, is beyond the provisions of the Act. 20. The submission of the learned counsel that the UGC Regulations, 1985 provide for study centres of this nature cannot be countenanced. The UGC Regulations being a subordinate legislation must be read with the principal Act. The subordinate legislation will be ultra vires if it contravenes the provisions of the principal Act. (See Vasu Dev Singh v. Union of India, 2006 (12) SCC 753). A statutory authority, it is well known, must act within the four corners of the statute. A fortiori it has to operate within the boundaries of the territories within which it is to operate under the statute. Such territorial jurisdiction of the universities must be maintained as otherwise chaos would be created. A statutory authority, it is well known, must act within the four corners of the statute. A fortiori it has to operate within the boundaries of the territories within which it is to operate under the statute. Such territorial jurisdiction of the universities must be maintained as otherwise chaos would be created. If distance education of such a nature is to be encouraged, the only course would be to suitably amend the provisions of the Act." 10. In the present case, the University is at Manipal and the centre wherein the petitioner has studied, is at Amritsar. The territorial jurisdiction highlighted in the judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be ignored. 11. In above circumstances, we do not find any ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. The writ petition is dismissed.