M.M. Kumar; C.J.:- The instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment and order dated 13.12.2013 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court, holding that the appellant was not eligible for admission in M.A. Persian because she lacked the eligibility qualification of BA. 2. The basic issue raised in these proceedings is, whether the appellant possessed a valid B.A. qualification because the stand of the respondent-University has been that she has failed to qualify Environmental Science at B.A. 2nd year level which is mandatory. It is appropriate to mention that the appellant did not qualify six months module course of studies introduced by the University Grants Commission (for brevity the UGC) and the resolution of the standing Committee of the respondent-University dated 30.05.2012, therefore, the BA certificate produced by the appellant has been regarded as incomplete. 3. It is appropriate to mention that the UGC has introduced Six Months Module Syllabus for Environmental Studies for Under Graduate Courses. The aforesaid initiative by the UGC was inspired by the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, directing the UGC to introduce the basic course on environmental science at every level in College education. Accordingly the matter was considered by the UGC and it was decided that a six months compulsory core module course in environmental studies may be prepared and compulsorily implemented in all the Universities/Colleges of India. In pursuance of the aforesaid resolution of the UGC, the respondent-University also adopted the Environmental course and laid down that the degree was treated to be complete if a candidate has passed the environmental studies module course. The degree was to be reckoned from the date of passing of the said module course and who have not qualified the environmental studies module course would be shown to have re-appear in environmental studies in the 3rd year marks certificate. Therefore, the Writ Court held that in the absence of a complete degree of BA, the appellant could not be considered eligible for admission to any MA course. 4. Mr. Nissar Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellant has preferred to argue that the resolution does not have any force of law and cannot be implemented. Therefore, the Writ Court held that in the absence of a complete degree of BA, the appellant could not be considered eligible for admission to any MA course. 4. Mr. Nissar Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellant has preferred to argue that the resolution does not have any force of law and cannot be implemented. The aforesaid argument was also raised before the learned Writ Court and the same was rejected on the ground that there is no challenge to the constitutional validity of the resolution dated 30.05.2012 and, therefore, the appellant cannot be heard to say that the resolution should be set aside by declaring the same is illegal. There is no answer to the aforesaid reasoning adopted by the learned Writ Court for the simple reason that the resolution passed by the respondent-University is based on the directions issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. It may be mentioned that the issue concerning introduction of Six Months Module Syllabus for Environmental Studies for Under Graduate Courses, came up for consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 382 . In direction no. 4 at page 383 issued on 22.11.1991 it was observed as under:- 4. The principle that through the medium of educational awareness of the environment and its pollution problems should be taught as a compulsory subject at every level of education. University Grants Commission should prescribe a course on environment is a graded manner as a compulsory subject in college education. The compliance of this requirement be done in the next academic year. 5. However, the directions were not carried which resulted in issuance of further directions on 18.12.2003 by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. The order dated 18.12.2003 passed by their Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reads as under:- Shri M.C. Mehta, Petitioner-in-person requested the Court to first consider the steps taken by the respondents-States in regard to the 4th direction issued by this Court as per its order dated 22nd November, 1991 and consider other directions separately on any other subsequent date. The direction No. 4 issued by this Court reads thus: "We accept on principle that through the medium of education awareness of the environment and its problems related to pollution should be taught as a compulsory subject. The direction No. 4 issued by this Court reads thus: "We accept on principle that through the medium of education awareness of the environment and its problems related to pollution should be taught as a compulsory subject. Learned Attorney General pointed out to us that the Central Government is associated with education at the higher levels and University Grants Commission can monitor only the under graduate and post graduate studies. The rest of it, according to him, is a state subject. He has agreed that the University Grants Commission will take appropriate steps immediately to give effect to what we have said, i.e. requiring the Universities to prescribe a course on environment. They would consider the feasibility of making this a compulsory subject at every level in college education. So far as education upto the college level is concerned, we would require every State Government and every Education Board connected with education upto the matriculation stage or even intermediate colleges to immediately take steps to enforce compulsory education on environment in a graded way. This should be so done that in the next academic year there would be compliance with this requirement." It is seen that as per this direction this Court has directed the respondents-States and other authorities to create environmental awareness amongst the students through the medium of education. Accepting the suggestion made by the then Attorney General, this Court required the State Governments and other authorities connected with the education to introduce compulsory education on environment upto matriculation stage or even in intermediate stage in a graded way. Though belatedly, we notice from the replies filed by the respondents, some steps have been taken by the States and other authorities concerned to comply with the said directions issued by this Court. However, Shri M.C. Mehta contends that the steps taken by the various States and other authorities are insufficient and not in conformity with the spirit and object of the above order of this Court. He submitted that the States and other authorities concerned should prescribe a suitable syllabus by way of a subject on environmental awareness, not only in the primary level of education but also in the higher courses leading upto even post graduate level. He submitted that the States and other authorities concerned should prescribe a suitable syllabus by way of a subject on environmental awareness, not only in the primary level of education but also in the higher courses leading upto even post graduate level. He submits that the University Grants Commission, NCERT and AICTE who are some of the apex bodies in prescribing and controlling educational standards should be directed to work out a proper syllabus to be taught at different levels uniformly all over the country. In the absence of such uniform prescribed syllabus in the educational institutions in various States, different institutions are adopting different methods some of which are only basic which do not fulfil the requirements of the directions issued by this Court. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and bearing in mind the burden that may be imposed on the students by introducing an additional subject, we think for the present the steps taken by the respondents as indicated in their affidavits could be accepted pending further consideration in this regard. However, to make sure that these steps taken by the concerned states are implemented without fail, we direct all the respondents-States and other authorities concerned to take steps to see that all educational institutions under their control implement respective steps taken by them and as reflected in their affidavits fully, starting from the next academic year, viz., 2004-2005 at least, if not already implemented. The authorities so concerned shall duly supervise such implementation in every educational institutions and non-compliance of the same by any of the institution should be treated as a disobedience calling for instituting disciplinary action against such institutions... (Emphasis added) 6. It was in pursuance of the directions issued from time to time by their Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which led the University Grants Commission to issue DO letter No. F.13-1/2000 (EA/ENV/COS-I) dated 31.07.2003. On the basis of the aforesaid letter of the UGC the respondent-University issued notification dated 28.04.2004. The matter was also taken up by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, Higher Education Department and sanction was accorded for inclusion of Module on Environment in the second year of three years degree course of the Colleges of general education in the State with effect from the academic session 2004-05 vide Government Order no. 108 of 2004 dated 11.04.2004. The matter was also taken up by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, Higher Education Department and sanction was accorded for inclusion of Module on Environment in the second year of three years degree course of the Colleges of general education in the State with effect from the academic session 2004-05 vide Government Order no. 108 of 2004 dated 11.04.2004. The respondent-University also passed a resolution to this effect and the minutes were confirmed on 02.09.2004. The Standing Committee of Academic Council on 30.05.2012 vide item No. 21 resolved that the degree shall be treated as complete after the candidate has passed the Environmental Studies Module Course and those who remained unable to pass the course were to be placed in re-appear in Environmental Studies. Therefore, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the argument that the resolution does not have any force of law and cannot be implemented. In any case the directions issued by their Lordships of the Supreme Court are law which is binding under Article 142 of the Constitution. 7. Mr. Kawoosa, learned counsel for the respondent-University has brought to our notice that the appellant has been making attempts even after dismissal of her writ petition but has not been able to qualify the same till date. 8. As a sequel to the above discussion the appeal does not warrant admission and the same is hereby dismissed. ___________