Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1220 (GUJ)

R K University v. Anand Agricultural University

2018-10-30

R.SUBHASH REDDY, VIPUL M.PANCHOLI

body2018
JUDGMENT : R.Subhash Reddy, J. 1. On similar set of facts, as common issues arise for consideration, this group of matters are being disposed of by this common judgment. When the Letters Patent Appeals came up for hearing wherein interim orders passed by the learned Single Judges were assailed, in view of the request made by the learned counsel appearing on both sides, Special Civil Applications were called for and heard together. For the purpose of disposal, we treat the petition in Special Civil Application No.15065 of 2018 as a lead matter. 2. The petition in Special Civil Application is filed with the prayers which read as under: “a. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the eligibility criteria prescribed by Respondent Universities for admission in post graduate programmes through common admission process as ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; b. That pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Universities to accept the applications of Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 who have pursued their graduation studies from Petitioner No.1 for participating in the common admission process for post graduate programmes offered by the Respondent Universities directly as well as by college and institutions affiliated to the Respondent Universities....” 3. The 1st petitioner is a private University established under the provisions of the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009 (“the GPU Act” for short), having the status of nonaffiliating University. All the colleges run by the 1st petitioner – University are constituent colleges. Respondents No.1 to 4 are Agricultural Universities incorporated as teaching and affiliating universities for imparting education in agriculture and allied sciences in the State of Gujarat. The 1st petitioner University has started a new course in agriculture leading to educational qualification of B.Tech (Agriculture Engineering) from the academic year 2014-15. It is the case of the 1st petitioner that as per the provisions of the All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987, it is not mandatory for any University to obtain prior permission of All India Council for Technical Education (“AICTE”) to run such course. It is the case of the 1st petitioner that as per the provisions of the All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987, it is not mandatory for any University to obtain prior permission of All India Council for Technical Education (“AICTE”) to run such course. Further, it is the case of the 1st petitioner University that its students in Agriculture Engineering are eligible for admission into postgraduate course in Agriculture Engineering conducted by any institute affiliated to any University established under the law, including the respondent – Universities. For the purpose of admissions to post-graduate course in the respondent – Universities, a Common Entrance Test is being conducted. Petitioners No.2 to 5, who have completed their graduation in the academic year 2017-18 in Agricultural Engineering, applied on the designated portal of the respondent – Universities for participating in the common admission process for post-graduate programme in Agricultural Engineering offered by the respondent – Universities. Their applications came to be rejected with the remark “Degree from other than SAU”. It is stated in the petition that the eligibility criteria for common admission to post-graduate courses has been notified by the respondents as under: “The duration for the Master Degree Programme shall be four semesters for the students who have obtained bachelors degree from the SAUs of Gujarat or ICAR recognized/approved college/university as given below”. 4. In the petition, it is the case of the petitioners that all students who have undergone graduation studies in Agricultural Engineering in the State of Gujarat constitute a homogenous class of students and segregating students on the basis of the affiliating University of such students is a class within the class and the same is without any reasonable nexus and object. 5. It is the allegation of the petitioners that the eligibility criteria to disqualify all students who have not pursued their under-graduation studies from the respondent- Universities/recognized by Indian Council of Agricultural Research (“ICAR”) is without any basis. It is stated that ICAR itself, by public Notice dated 05.09.2017 made it clear that ICAR has no power or authority to grant permission to run University. It is alleged that if all the seats are to be reserved only for the students of Agricultural Universities of the respondent – State, it will amount to reservation of 100%, which is illegal. It is alleged that if all the seats are to be reserved only for the students of Agricultural Universities of the respondent – State, it will amount to reservation of 100%, which is illegal. It is the case of the petitioners that no classification can be arrived at by classifying the students who have completed their graduation from respondent – Universities and the other Universities like the 1st petitioner and similarly placed Universities. It is also the case of the petitioners that ICAR is not a statutory body under any legislation, as such, there is no requirement of obtaining approval/accreditation from such Society. It is further alleged that the 1st petitioner is a Private University and to establish the same, an application containing proposal and project report as contemplated by Section 6 read with Section 7 of the GPU Act was moved by the Trust as a sponsoring body within the meaning of Section 2(t) of the GPU Act and after evaluation of such report by the Scrutiny Committee and the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee, the State Government issued Letter of Intent under Section 9 of the GPU Act and accordingly after following procedure contemplated under Section 10 of the Act, the 1st petitioner University is included in the Schedule of the Universities. It is the case of the petitioners that in view of the approval granted by the respondent-State to run the University, the 1st petitioner University is incorporated and no approval is needed from any other authority or ICAR to run courses in Agriculture Engineering. 6. Affidavits are filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 and also respondent No.5 – State. 7. In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 by the Registrar of Junagadh Agricultural University, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated that the petition filed is thoroughly misconceived and is neither maintainable nor tenable in law and facts and the same is to be dismissed. It is stated that the petitioners have no legal or statutory right to seek admission in entrance test for admission to M.Tech. (Agricultural Engineering) course and the petition is filed without disclosing the necessary facts. It is stated that as per the advertisement issued by the respondents, applications are invited only from the State Agricultural University students who are of Gujarat domicile. (Agricultural Engineering) course and the petition is filed without disclosing the necessary facts. It is stated that as per the advertisement issued by the respondents, applications are invited only from the State Agricultural University students who are of Gujarat domicile. It is stated that the advertisement was issued on 12.06.2018 and present petition is filed with abnormal delay on 25.09.2018. It is stated that B.Tech. (Agriculture Engineering) degree of petitioners No.2 to 5 is not valid as the same is not obtained from recognized/approved course/college by the State of Gujarat, as such, they do not fulfill the eligibility criteria to seek admissions to M.Tech. (Agriculture Engineering) Course. It is stated that as per the Common Academic Regulations framed under Section 30 read with Section 22 (viii) of the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004, the eligibility criteria is notified and petitioners No.2 to 5 do not fit into such criteria, as such, they are not entitled to appear for the admission test. Reference is made to subsection 4 of Section 4 of the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004, which provides that “no educational institution imparting education in agriculture and allied sciences or conducting and guiding research in agriculture of conducting and guiding programs of extension education and situate within the University area shall save with the consent of the University and the sanction of the State Government, be associated in any way with, or seek admission to any of the privileges of any other University established by law”. By referring to the aforesaid provision, it is stated that the 1st Petitioner University has not obtained consent of Junagadh Agricultural University to impart education in Agricultural Engineering course and also has not obtained any sanction/approval of the State Government. Thus, in view of the above lapse, petitioners No.2 to 4 are not eligible to appear in entrance test for admission to M.Tech. (Agriculture Engineering) course. It is stated that B.Tech. (Agriculture Engineering) degree offered by the 1st petitioner University is not recognized by the ICAR which is a regulatory body as contemplated under the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009, and also an apex body for quality agricultural education in the country. (Agriculture Engineering) course. It is stated that B.Tech. (Agriculture Engineering) degree offered by the 1st petitioner University is not recognized by the ICAR which is a regulatory body as contemplated under the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009, and also an apex body for quality agricultural education in the country. By referring to Act 5 of 2004 (the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004), it is stated that the territorial jurisdiction of the University with respect to teaching of agriculture and allied science in the field of agriculture extents to the University area and the University area is defined in Schedule–I under Section 2(20), as such, any post-graduate education in Agriculture and allied sciences shall be undertaken by the Agricultural University or by such affiliated colleges in such subjects as may be prescribed in the University area. It is stated that on 30.07.2018, the petitioners No.2 to 5 were intimated that they were not eligible for admission. 8. In a separate affidavit filed by the 5th respondent on behalf of the State of Gujarat by the Under Secretary, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated that the petition challenging the eligibility criteria prescribed by the respondent – Universities for common admission process is nothing but an attempt on the part of the petitioner - University to see that the degree course run by it is considered as valid degree for Common Entrance Test of M.Tech. (Agriculture Engineering). 9. It is stated that the Government of Gujarat has enacted Act 5 of 2004 (The Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004) to establish and incorporate teaching and affiliation for imparting education in agriculture and allied sciences in the State of Gujarat, to be known as the Anand Agricultural University, the Junagadh Agricultural University, the Navsari Agricultural University and the Sardar Krushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University. Before starting any agriculture and allied science course, it is obligatory on the part of a private University to obtain consent from the University and sanction/recognition from the State Government. It is further stated that apart from taking consent and permission from the competent authorities, the concerned University or college has to follow rules and norms of its regulatory body. In the present case, the ICAR is a regulatory body in so far as agro courses are concerned. It is stated that as the first petitioner is running B.Tech. It is further stated that apart from taking consent and permission from the competent authorities, the concerned University or college has to follow rules and norms of its regulatory body. In the present case, the ICAR is a regulatory body in so far as agro courses are concerned. It is stated that as the first petitioner is running B.Tech. (Agriculture Engineering) course without prior approval of regulatory body namely ICAR and permission from the Competent Authorities. By further referring to provisions under Section 4(d) and (q) of the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009, it is stated that a Private University has to follow the provisions of the Act before starting or running any college or course. It is further stated that even the petitioner- University has not fulfilled the requirements of Section 4(d) and (q) read with Section 35 of the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009, as per which a University is expected to follow the rules, regulations, norms, etc. of regulating bodies. Further referring to revised regulations framed under Section 30 of the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004, it is stated that as per Clause 11.1 of the common post-graduate academic regulation, it is clarified that for Master's degree programme, the duration of Master's degree shall be four semesters for the students who have obtained bachelor's degree from the State Agricultural Universities or ICAR recognized/approved college/University. Same rule is also mentioned in the State Agricultural Universities of Gujarat common admission for the post-graduate programme notified for the academic year 2018-19. It is stated in the said reply-affidavit that as much as petitioners No.1 has not taken admission, required permissions under Section 4(4) of the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004, and Sections 4(d),(p),(q) and (s) and Section 35 of the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009, as such, the degree course offered by the 1st petitioner in B.Tech. (Agriculture Engineering) is not a valid one, hence, the students of petitioner No.1 – University are not eligible for admissions to M.Tech. (Agriculture Engineering) courses in respondent – Universities. 10. We have heard Shri Dhaval Dave, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Udit N.Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri S.N.Shelat, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri D.G.Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent State Agricultural University, and Shri P.K.Jani, learned Additional Advocate General with Mr.Rohan Yagnik, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.5 – State of Gujarat. 11. 10. We have heard Shri Dhaval Dave, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Udit N.Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri S.N.Shelat, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri D.G.Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent State Agricultural University, and Shri P.K.Jani, learned Additional Advocate General with Mr.Rohan Yagnik, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.5 – State of Gujarat. 11. By referring to the background facts and other material placed on record, it is contended by Shri Dhaval Dave, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that as per the provisions of the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009, more particularly, Section 4, a private university established and incorporated under the provisions of the Act can establish, maintain and manage institutions to create, organize and disseminate knowledge in the fields of science, technology, humanities, social sciences, education, management, commerce, law, pharmacy, healthcare, etc. Therefore, the provisions of the Act have a wide import and amplitude to cover within its ambit, the discipline of agriculture. It is submitted that at the time of establishing the University, the sponsoring body is required to submit a detailed project report, after scrutiny of the same, a Letter of Intent is issued by the State Government communicating its decision in principle to establish and incorporate a private university. Thereafter only, a private university is incorporated and established. It is submitted that in absence of any restrictions while issuing the Letter of Intent prohibiting any course, it is open for the University to start any course in any discipline irrespective of whether the said discipline was made part of the detailed project report or not. 12. By relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidalaya v. State of Madhya Pradesh And Others reported in (2013)15 SCC 677, it is submitted that it is a fundamental right of a University to impart education, same cannot be interfered with or restricted to a particular discipline by a State Act or Legislature. It is submitted that as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the phrase “dissemination of knowledge” is for acquisition of knowledge in every kind of discipline and such a perception has to be maintained by the University. It is submitted that as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the phrase “dissemination of knowledge” is for acquisition of knowledge in every kind of discipline and such a perception has to be maintained by the University. In that view of the matter, the rights of the petitioner – University to run agricultural courses cannot be curtailed or interfered with by the respondents and the same would be violation of rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 13. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner itself is a University, as such, there is no requirement to obtain either prior consent from any other University or sanction/recognition from the State to run the course. 14. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the 1st petitioner – University cannot be considered as an institution running agricultural course within the area of operation of the Agricultural University, as such Section 4(4) of the Act is being misread so as to declare that the course of B.Tech (Agriculture Engineering) run by the 1st petitioner is an unauthorised and unrecognized one. It is submitted that if Section 4(4) of the Act is to be considered in the manner in which it is projected by the respondents, it would be impracticable and unworkable as much as Private Universities are not required to seek affiliation of any other University. 15. Further, it is contended that ICAR is not a statutory body under any statute, therefore, it is not obligatory on the part of the 1st petitioner to obtain recognition or accreditation from ICAR which is a society. It is contended that accreditation is a matter of choice and in absence of any statutory requirement under any law, there is no obligation on the part of the 1st petitioner University to take approval from the ICAR also. 16. It is submitted that the college in which B.Tech. (Agriculture Engineering) education is being imparted is a constituent college and integral part of the University, as such, it is not expected to take affiliation from any other University. 17. It is also contended that both the enactments, namely, the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009, as well as the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004, have genesis which could be traced to Entry 35 of List II of Schedule VII to the Constitution of India. 17. It is also contended that both the enactments, namely, the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009, as well as the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004, have genesis which could be traced to Entry 35 of List II of Schedule VII to the Constitution of India. As such, there is no requirement of any permission/recognition from any other University by the 1st petitioner – University which is permitted by the Government. 18. It is further contended by Shri Dhaval C. Dave, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that ICAR is not a statutory body, as such, the petitioner – University is not required to obtain any recognition or approval and there is no such authority for such a body to grant approval also and the same is evident from the public notice issued by the ICAR itself dated 05.09.2017. 19. Learned Senior Counsel in support of his arguments relied upon a judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of University Grants Commission v. Amity University, Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2007 SCC OnLine Del 1554 and also upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharathidasan University And Another v. All India Council for Technical Education And Others reported in (2001)8 SCC 676 . 20. By relying on the aforesaid judgments, it is submitted that once State has permitted the 1st petitioner University, it has no role to play either itself or through other Universities to interfere with the functioning of the 1st petitioner University to run courses in agricultural field. It is submitted that when valid degrees are awarded by the 1st petitioner to petitioners No.2 to 5, there is no reasonable justification in disqualifying such eligible candidates at the threshold by preventing them from appearing in the common entrance test for post-graduate courses for admission in the post-graduate agricultural engineering courses in the respondent – Agricultural Universities. 21. Per contra, Shri P.K.Jani, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State has submitted that the 1st petitioner – Private University and other such similarly situated Universities have admitted the students to the course of B.Sc. (Agriculture Science) and B.Tech (Agriculture Engineering) without authority of law and permission from the competent authorities. 21. Per contra, Shri P.K.Jani, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State has submitted that the 1st petitioner – Private University and other such similarly situated Universities have admitted the students to the course of B.Sc. (Agriculture Science) and B.Tech (Agriculture Engineering) without authority of law and permission from the competent authorities. It is submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that in view of the provisions of Section 4(4) of the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004, a private University could not have admitted the students to the courses referred above in absence of any consent from the State Agricultural Universities and approval/permission from the Government to run such courses. It is submitted that Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act of 2004 incorporates four Universities under Section 3 and such Universities are established for imparting education for agriculture and allied sciences in the State of Gujarat which are professional courses. The “university area” as defined under Section 2(20) of Schedule-I comprehends the entire area of the State of Gujarat. Section 4(4) of the Act mandates that the educational institution imparting education in agriculture and allied sciences within the university area is required to seek consent of the University and sanction of the State Government before commencing a course. The 1st petitioner University has started the course in question without adhering to the provisions of Section 4(4) of the Act and the very starting of the course is per se illegal. It is further submitted that Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004, is a Special Act which is enacted to cater to the needs of education in agriculture and is enacted in view of the power conferred under Entry 14, read with Entry 35, of the State List II to Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India, whereas the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009, is a General Act incorporated under Entry 35 of List II read with Entry 25 of the concurrent list. It is further submitted that in this view of the matter, the Special Act, i.e. Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004, would prevail over the General Act, viz. Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009. 22. It is further submitted that in this view of the matter, the Special Act, i.e. Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004, would prevail over the General Act, viz. Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009. 22. Further, it is the contention of learned Additional Advocate General that as per the definition of a “regulatory body” under Section 2(p) of the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009, itself, ICAR is deemed to be a regulatory body as per Section 35 as much as under Section 35, Private Universities are bound to comply with the rules and regulations of the regulating bodies. It is further submitted that Gujarat Private Universities Act itself provides ICAR as a regulatory body, it is not open for the University to run agriculture courses without approval from ICAR. It is submitted that as per the Scheme of the Act, it is mandatory for the Universities to fulfill minimum criteria as laid down from time to time by the UGC and other statutory bodies, therefore, it is mandatory for the Private Universities to comply with ICAR norms, being a regulatory body, and it is not open for the 1st Petitioner University to run the course without consent from the respondent – University/without sanction from the Government/without approval from the regulating body, i.e. ICAR. 23. Learned Additional Advocate General also placed on record, the downloaded copy of the professional councils notified by the UGC on its website and among such professional councils along with All India Council for Technical Education, Medical Council of India, Dental Council of India, Pharmacy Council of India, Bar Council of India, etc. Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) is also notified as a professional council. Learned Additional Advocate General has also placed on record, Notification dated 06.11.2017, issued by the Government of India, declaring under-graduate courses in agriculture and allied subjects as professional courses. In support of his argument that ICAR is a regulatory body to regulate education in agriculture sector, learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K.Ramchandra Iyer v. Union of India reported in 1984(2) SCC 141 . 24. Shri S.N.Shelat, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent – Universities has strongly placed reliance on Section 4(4) of the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004. 24. Shri S.N.Shelat, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent – Universities has strongly placed reliance on Section 4(4) of the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004. It is contended that the Act is a special legislation for the purpose of establishing agricultural universities in the State of Gujarat and as per the area covered under the Act, the entire State of Gujarat is covered by local areas of four Universities and as contemplated under Section 4(4) of the Act, no institution/university can run any course in B.Sc. (Agriculture Science) or B.Tech. (Agricultural Engineering) without consent of the University and without obtaining sanction from the State Government. 25. It is submitted that ICAR is an apex body for agricultural courses in the country and a society founded by the Government of India. Unless there is a recognition/accreditation from such body, it is not open for any university to run such courses. Learned Senior Counsel Shri S.N.Shelat, in support of his argument that ‘institution' is a word of very wide import and would include University, also has placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.Azeez Basha and another v. The Union of India reported in AIR 1968 SC 662 . He has also placed reliance on judgments in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro reported in (2018)1 SCC 468 and Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank reported in AIR 2000 SC 1535 . 26. It is further contended by learned Senior Counsel that in any event, reservation of 75% seats to the candidates of State Agricultural Universities also can be confirmed on the ground of institutional reservation, as held by this Court in the case of Yatinkumar Jasubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat And Ors. reported in 2017(4) GLR 2963 . 27. It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent – State Universities that respondents, being academic institutions, even if two interpretations are possible in interpreting Section 4(4) of the Act, the interpretation which is adopted by respondent Universities and which is in practice since long, be accepted. 28. Before we consider the submissions made by learned counsels on both sides, we deem it appropriate to refer to certain relevant provisions in the Constitution and also under the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004, and Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009. 28. Before we consider the submissions made by learned counsels on both sides, we deem it appropriate to refer to certain relevant provisions in the Constitution and also under the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004, and Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009. Entry 14 of List II (State List) to the 7th Schedule of the Constitution relates to subject of agriculture, including agricultural education and research; protection against pests and prevention of plant diseases. Entry 32 relates to incorporation, regulation and winding up of corporations, other than those specified in List I, and universities; unincorporated trading, literary, scientific, religious and other societies and associations; co-operative societies. Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions is governed by Entry 66 of List I. Education, including technical education, medical education and Universities, subject to provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65, and 66 of List I, vocational and technical training of labour are governed by Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, i.e. List III of Schedule VII to the Constitution of India. 29. Prior to the enactment of the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004, there was only one Agricultural University in the State of Gujarat at Dantewada called the Gujarat Agricultural University. As is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the Act, it appears that the spread of education in agricultural is slow on account of the fact that there was only one agricultural university in the State of Gujarat and in order to give fillip to the state of education in agriculture, the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004, was brought in. In the said Act, it was proposed to establish four Universities in place of one existing agricultural university, i.e. one each in every zone of four zones, to be known as Anand Agricultural University, Junagadh Agricultural University, Navsari Agricultural University and Sardar Krushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University. It is also stated that bringing such four universities covering the university area of the entire State of Gujarat will enable each university to efficiently monitor education of agriculture in its area. The Statement of objects and reasons of the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004, reads as under: “There is at present only Agricultural University in the State at Dantiwada called the Gujarat Agricultural University, functioning in four zones into which the State is divided. The Statement of objects and reasons of the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004, reads as under: “There is at present only Agricultural University in the State at Dantiwada called the Gujarat Agricultural University, functioning in four zones into which the State is divided. On account of there being only one Agricultural University, the spread of education in Agriculture is rather slow. In order to give fillip to the spread of education in agriculture, it is proposed to establish four Universities in place of the existing University, one each in every zone to be known as the Anand Agricultural University, the Junagadh Agricultural University, the Navsari Agricultural University and the Sardar Krishinagar, Dantiwada Agricultural University. This will enable each University to efficiently monitor education in agriculture in its area. The establishment of four Universities would encourage healthy competition amongst them not only in imparting education in agriculture but also in research in agriculture and extension education. There is need to have decentralization and that need would be fulfilled by establishment of four Universities as aforesaid. It is necessary to impart such education in agriculture and undertake such research in agriculture and extension education as to enable the agriculture in the State to meet the challenges of global competition. There is need to have center of excellence in each area and faculty of advance and higher education in agriculture for students in the State. The establishment of the Universities in the State will assist the State Government in organizing agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines as envisaged in one of the directive principles of State Policy laid down in the Constitution.” 30. The Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009, was brought into force by the State of Gujarat with a view to providing qualitative and industry relevant higher education in the State of Gujarat. From the objects and reasons of this Act and other provisions of the Act, it transpires that it is a general legislation to promote private universities on self-finance basis run by trusts or private bodies registered under the relevant laws. 31. From the objects and reasons of this Act and other provisions of the Act, it transpires that it is a general legislation to promote private universities on self-finance basis run by trusts or private bodies registered under the relevant laws. 31. From a reading of the preamble of the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004, it is clear that such piece of legislation is enacted to establish and incorporate teaching and affiliating Universities for imparting education in agriculture and allied sciences, in the State of Gujarat to be known as the Anand Agricultural University, the Junagadh Agricultural University, the Navsari Agricultural University and the Sardar Krushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University. The “university area” is defined under sub-section (20) of Section 2 of the Act which reads as under: “University area” means the area of the Anand Agricultural University, the Junagadh Agricultural University, the Navsari Agricultural University and the Sardar Krushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University respectively specified in Part I, II, III and IV of Schedule I”. Schedule I as per Section 2(20) reads as under: “Schedule I (See clause (20) of section 2) PART I The Anand Agricultural University 1 Anand District 2 Ahmedabad District 3 Vadodara District 4 Dahod District 5 Panchmahal District 6 Kheda District 7 Mahisagar District 8 Chhotaudepur District 9 Botad District Part II The Junagadh Agricultural University 1 Amreli District 2 Bhavnagar District 3 Jamnagar District 4 Junagadh District 5 Porbandar District 6 Rajkot District 7 Surendranagar District 8 Morbi District 9 Gir Somnath District 10 Devbhumi Dwarka District Part III The Navsari Agricultural University 1 Bharuch District 2 Dang District 3 Narmada District 4 Navsari District 5 Surat District 6 Valsad District 7 Tapi District PART IV The Sardar Krushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University 1 Bansakantha District 2 Gandhinagar District 3 Kutch District 4 Mehsana District 5 Patan District 6 Sabarkantha District 7 Arvalli District 32. Section 4 of the Act, deals with territorial jurisdiction and the territorial jurisdiction of the respective agricultural universities extend to the area as notified in the Schedule. Section 4 of the Act reads as under: “4. (1) With respect to teaching of agriculture and allied sciences at the University or college level and research and extension education programme in the field of agriculture, the territorial jurisdiction and responsibility of the University shall extend to the University area. Section 4 of the Act reads as under: “4. (1) With respect to teaching of agriculture and allied sciences at the University or college level and research and extension education programme in the field of agriculture, the territorial jurisdiction and responsibility of the University shall extend to the University area. (2) The University may assume responsibility for the establishment and maintenance of all institutions imparting terminal training including training of field extension staff such as State agricultural schools, Gramsevak training centers and stockmen training classes, at all levels of education in agriculture. (3) All colleges, research and experimental stations or other institutions coming under the jurisdiction and authority of the University shall consist of constituent units of the University under the management and control of the University. (4) No educational institution imparting education in agriculture and allied sciences or conducting and guiding research in agriculture or conducting and guiding programmes of extension education and situate within the University area shall, save with the consent of the University and the sanction of the State Government, be associated in any way with, or seek admission to any of the privileges of, any other University established by law.” 33. It is clear from a reading of Section 4(4) of the Act that no educational institution imparting education in agriculture and allied sciences or conducting and guiding research in agriculture or conducting and guiding programmes of extension education and situate within the University area shall, save with the consent of the University and the sanction of the State Government, be associated in any way with, or seek admission to any of the privileges of, any other University established by law. It is thus clear from the language envisaged under Section 4(4) of the Act that no educational institution imparting education in agriculture and allied sciences shall run the courses without obtaining consent of the University and sanction of the State Government. 34. Mainly, it is the case of the petitioners that the 1st petitioner itself is a University under the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009, as such, it has no obligation to take either the consent or sanction from the Government to run courses in agriculture and allied sciences. 34. Mainly, it is the case of the petitioners that the 1st petitioner itself is a University under the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009, as such, it has no obligation to take either the consent or sanction from the Government to run courses in agriculture and allied sciences. It is not in dispute that the 1st petitioner University has not obtained any consent from the State University or sanction as required under Section 4(4) of the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004, from the Government to run courses in agriculture and allied sciences. Precisely, the question for consideration by this Court is whether an educational institution mentioned in subsection (4) of Section 4 of the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004, will include a University which is in the nature of the 1st petitioner. From the reading of objects of the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009, it is clear that the said Act itself is brought into force to promote private Universities on selffinance basis run by the trusts or private bodies registered under the relevant laws. It is also to be noticed that the 1st petitioner – University is a University without any power for affiliating any other institutions except to run the constituent colleges run by the University itself. The basic difference between an institution and a university is, whereas, a university, running courses through colleges, itself confers degrees in the name of such university, an institute which is imparting courses can confer degrees on students only from the university with which it is affiliated to. An institution is an establishment, organization or an association established either by law or authority. Keeping in mind the objects and provisions of the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009, and further scope and ambit of the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004, we are of the view that the educational institutions as envisaged under Section 4(4) of the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act includes the 1st petitioner which is termed as university. A private university constituted under the Act of 2009 is to be distinguished from other conventional universities controlled and regulated by the Government. A private university constituted under the Act of 2009 is to be distinguished from other conventional universities controlled and regulated by the Government. Where the conventional universities have power of affiliation to the colleges/institutions in the area of operation of such university, private universities incorporated under the provisions of the Act of 2009 are nothing but institutions with an extra feature of empowering themselves to award the degrees rather than to recommend degrees to other universities. 35. It is also evident from the material placed on record by learned Additional Advocate General that as per the Notification dated 06.11.2017, the course in agriculture and allied science is recognized Professional Degree Course and professional courses are nothing but courses which are specially oriented towards professionals wanting to enhance skills usefully for their specific work environment. The professional courses are supposed to be those which take more of an application oriented approach to the subjects at hand, preparing students to go for a job ready after they finish those courses. All professional courses in India have been given standards and norms by the apex bodies. So far as agricultural courses are concerned, ICAR is considered to be the apex body and even universities which are running courses in agriculture and allied sciences are regulated by norms prescribed by Indian Council of Agricultural Research. Though it is the case on behalf of the petitioners that ICAR cannot be regarded as a statutory apex body which we shall deal later, but at the same time, it is not in dispute that ICAR is a society which is recognized by the Government of India and the same is run through the funds provided by the Ministry of Agriculture and it is considered to be an apex body for agriculture and allied sciences. Having regard to the fact that the course in agriculture is a professional course covered by the provisions under the special legislation, namely the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004, which covers university area of the entire State of Gujarat in four zones, it appears that a specific provision is made under Section 4(4) of the Act, so that any educational institution which wants to start agricultural and allied sciences course is started only with the consent of the State Agricultural University and sanction of the Government, otherwise such college shall not be allowed run. It appears that having regard to the importance of course, and to regulate its standards in agriculture and allied sciences which is considered as a professional course, such a safeguard is made. Though the 1st petitioner is a permitted Private University, but for all practical purposes, it has to be considered as an ‘institution’ only within the meaning of Section 4(4) of the Act and any other interpretation or meaning attributed to 1st petitioner would destroy the very object and purpose of the legislation in Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004. Though learned Senior Counsel Shri Dhaval C. Dave, appearing for the petitioners has placed reliance on a judgment in the case of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidalaya v. State of Madhya Pradesh And Others reported in (2013)15 SCC 677 (supra), we are of the view that having regard to local legislations in the State and area of dispute concerning the course relating to agricultural education, covered by Entry 14 of List II of 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India, the aforesaid judgment would not render any assistance to support the case of the petitioners. In the aforesaid judgment, while interpreting the provisions of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1995, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under in Paragraphs – 107 and 110 of the judgment. “107. In our considered opinion, Section 12 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 would encompass apart from determining the course contents with reference to which the standard of teaching and its maintenance is to be monitored by the University Grants Commission, would also include the infrastructure that may be made available, either in the University or in other campuses, such as the centers, in order to ensure that such standard of education, teaching and examination, as well as research are maintained without any fall in standards. Therefore, while upholding the conclusion of the Division Bench that it is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature to stipulate any restriction, as regards the conduct of the courses by getting the approval of the State Government, in the same breath, such lack of competence would equally apply to the running of the centers as well. … … … 110. … … … 110. In the light of the said reasoning also, it will have to be held that the running of centers by the appellant University would fall within the exclusive realm of Entry 66 of List – I, which would in turn be governed by Section 12 of the University Grants Commission Act and consequently the State Government to that extent should be held to lack the necessary legislative competence to meddle with such centers set up by the appellant University.” But as we discussed above, that as the dispute relates to a college running an agricultural course which is exclusively covered by List II of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India and having regard to the provisions as contained in the Gujarat Private Universities Act and the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, we are of the view that the said judgment would not render any assistance to the case of the petitioners. 36. For similar reasons as referred above, the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of University Grants Commission v. Amity University, Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2007 SCC OnLine Del 1554, also would not render any assistance to the case of the petitioners. In the judgment, Delhi High Court has held that incorporation of the University is in the domain of the State Government but the moment the University is incorporated and established, it develops existence of its own and that UGC has been vested with the power to ensure coordination and maintenance of standards set down by it for higher educational institutions and universities. There cannot be any dispute on the said proposition but the lis in this batch of cases having regard to the subject that, whether the 1st petitioner University, a private University, can run a college without consent from the State Agricultural University and approval from the ICAR and also sanction from the Government is an issue, we are of the opinion that the said judgment would not support the case of the petitioners. 37. 37. In the judgment in the case of Bharathidasan University And Another v. All India Council for Technical Education And Others reported in (2001)8 SCC 676 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that prior approval of AICTE is not required for any university to start a technical course, every university is obliged to conform to the standards and norms laid down by AICTE. By applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, even assuming that the 1st petitioner University is entitled to run a technical course of B.Sc. in Agriculture or B.Tech (Agriculture Engineering) without approval from AICTE, but having regard to the provisions of Section 4(4) of the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004, it is obligatory on the part of the 1st petitioner University to take consent of the State Agricultural University concerned and also sanction from the State Government in addition to approval and accreditation from ICAR. In view of the same, even said judgment would not render any assistance in support of the case of the petitioners. 38. On the other hand, it is clear from the material placed on record by learned Additional Advocate General that the undergraduate course in agriculture and allied subject is considered Professional Course. Same is evident from Notification F.No.3-3/2017-EM issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, Government of India, dated 06.11.2017. In view of the provisions under Section 4(4) of the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004, a special legislation covering the field of agriculture as education and allied subjects, we are of the view that the 1st petitioner is covered by the provisions of Section 4(4) of the Act of 2004. At this stage, it would be fruitful to consider certain provisions of the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009, which is incorporated to promote private universities. Section 2(i) defines “ICAR” means the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Section 2(p) defines “regulatory body” means a body established by the Central Government for laying down the norms and conditions for ensuring academic standards of higher education, such as UGC, AICTE, NCTE, MCI, PCI, NAAC, ICAR, DEC, CSIR. Section 2(i) defines “ICAR” means the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Section 2(p) defines “regulatory body” means a body established by the Central Government for laying down the norms and conditions for ensuring academic standards of higher education, such as UGC, AICTE, NCTE, MCI, PCI, NAAC, ICAR, DEC, CSIR. Under Section 3(4) of the Act which pertains to establishment of University, “the Universities shall function as non-affiliating Universities and they shall not affiliate any other college or institution for the conferment of degree, diploma and for grant of certificate to the students admitted therein”. The University shall not, as per Section 3(7) of the Act, be entitled to receive any grant-in-aid or financial assistance from the State Government or Central Government. The objects of the University are mentioned in Section 4 of the Act. Under Section 4(q) of the Act, one of the objects mentioned is to ensure that the standard of the degrees, diplomas, certificates and other academic distinctions are not lower than those laid down by AICTE, NCTE, UGC, MCI and Pharmacy Council and any other similar agency established by the Central Government for regulating the standard education. As per the proviso to Section 4(s) of the Act, the University is eligible to undertake functions of disseminating of knowledge only in the fields for which the State Government has issued letter of intent or in the fields subsequently approved by the State Government. It is not in dispute that there is no specific approval by the State Government of education relating to agricultural sciences and allied subjects in the Letter of Intent issued to the 1st petitioner. Further, under Section 31 of the Act, the State Government can issue directions for the purpose of ascertaining the standards of teaching, examination and research or any other matter relating to the University. Since beginning, when it is brought to the notice of the 1st petitioner University that it has started courses in agricultural sciences without consent from the State Agricultural University and also sanction from the Government. Repeatedly, the Government has been issuing directives to the University to stop such running of the courses. In spite of the same, the 1st petitioner University has run the courses and continued to run the same. Repeatedly, the Government has been issuing directives to the University to stop such running of the courses. In spite of the same, the 1st petitioner University has run the courses and continued to run the same. Further, it is also clear from Section 35 of the Act that the University is bound to comply all the rules, regulations, norms, etc. of the regulating bodies. Section 35 of the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009, reads as under: “35. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the University shall be bound to comply all the rules, regulations, norms, etc. of the regulating bodies of Government of India and provide all such facilities and assistance to such bodies as are required by them to discharge their duties and carry out their functions.” 39. In the judgment relied on by Shri S.N.Shelat, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent - State Universities in the case of S.Azeez Basha and another v. The Union of India reported in AIR 1968 SC 662 , the Hon’ble Supreme court has held that the words “educational institution” are of very wide import and would also include a university also. Paragraph-21 of the judgment reads as under: “21. Before we do so we should like to say that the words "educational institutions" are of very wide import and would include a university also. This was not disputed on behalf of the Union of India and therefore it may be accepted that a religious minority had the right to establish a university under Article 30(1). The position with respect to the establishment of Universities before the Constitution came into force in 1950 was this. There was no law in India which prohibited any private individual or body from Establishing a university and it was therefore, open to a private individual or body to establish a university. There is a good, deal on common between educational institutions which are not universities and those which are universities. Both teach students and both have teachers for the purpose. But what distinguishes a University from any other educational institution is that a university grants degrees of its own while other educational institutions cannot. It is this granting of degrees by a university which distinguishes it from the ordinary run of educational institutions. See St. David's College, Lampeter v. Ministry of Education, 1951-1 All ER 559. But what distinguishes a University from any other educational institution is that a university grants degrees of its own while other educational institutions cannot. It is this granting of degrees by a university which distinguishes it from the ordinary run of educational institutions. See St. David's College, Lampeter v. Ministry of Education, 1951-1 All ER 559. Thus in law in India there was no prohibition against establishment of universities by private individuals or bodies and if any university was so established it must of necessity be granting degrees before it could be called a university. But though such a university might be granting degrees it did not follow that the Government of the country was bound to recognise those degrees. is a matter of fact as the law stood up to the time the Constitution time into force, the Government was not bound to recognise agrees of universities established by private individuals or bodies and gene-rally speaking the Government only recognised degrees universities established by it by law of private individual or body could before 1950 insist that the degrees of any university established by him or it must be recognised by government. Such recognition depended upon the will of government generally expressed through statute. The importance of the recognition of Government in matters of this kind cannot be minimized. This position continued even after the Constitution came into force. It is only in 1956 that by sub-s. (1) of s. 22 of the University Grants commission Act, (No. 3 of 1956) it was laid down that "the right to conferring or granting degrees shall be exercised only by a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or an institution deemed to be a University under section 3 or an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees". Sub-section (2) thereof further provided that "save as provided in sub-s. (1), no person or authority shall confer, or grant, or hold himself or itself as entitled to confer or grant any degree". Section 23 further prohibited the use of the word "university" by an educational institution unless it is established by law. It was only thereafter that no private individual or body could grant a degree in India. Section 23 further prohibited the use of the word "university" by an educational institution unless it is established by law. It was only thereafter that no private individual or body could grant a degree in India. Therefore it was possible for the Muslim minority to establish a university before the Constitution came into force, though the degrees conferred by such a university were not bound to be recognised by Government.” 40. Further, learned Senior Counsel Shri S.N.Shelat also placed reliance on judgment in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro reported in (2018)1 SCC 468 . In the said judgment, where distance learning programme in engineering were started without any prior approval from any other authorities, including UGC, AICTE and Distance Education Council, while interpreting the provisions of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, and Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the regulation framed by the AICTE do apply to “deemed to be Universities” and the deemed to be Universities were not justified in introducing any new courses in technical education without approval of AICTE. Paragraph-45 of the judgment reads as under: “45. It was laid down by this Court in Annamalai University v. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department and Others, (2009)4 SCC 590 that no relaxation could be granted in regard to the basic things necessary for conferment for a degree and if a mandatory provision is not complied with by an administrative authority, the action would be void. This leads us to conclude that the permissions granted by DEC in the first instance allowing the Deemed to be Universities in question to introduce courses leading to the award of degrees in engineering were illegal and opposed to Law. The illegality in the exercise of power was to such an extent that it could not be cured by ex post facto approvals granted later. We have also seen that the exercise of grant of ex post facto approvals, as a matter of fact, was only superficial and perfunctory. Such exercise was done in the face of declared policy statements governing the field and even when specific complaints were received about concerned Deemed to be Universities. We have also seen that the exercise of grant of ex post facto approvals, as a matter of fact, was only superficial and perfunctory. Such exercise was done in the face of declared policy statements governing the field and even when specific complaints were received about concerned Deemed to be Universities. Yet, without causing any inspection such power was exercised which part is already dealt with and the exercise of power has been found by us to be suffering from illegality and infirmity. The only thing in favour of the concerned Deemed to be Universities is the fact that the Joint Committee of UGC – AICTE – DEC had endorsed the decision though such exercise was also completely flawed. That exercise was against Para 10 of the MoU dated 10.05.2007, which contemplated causing of inspections and the decision dated 11.05.2007 of the Joint Committee itself that for an Institution/University to offer distance education programmes it was mandatory to offer the same in face to face mode.” 41. Reliance is also placed by Shri S.N.Shelat, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent – State Universities on a decision in the case of Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank reported in AIR 2000 SC 1535 in support of his argument that while interpreting two legislations, one which is treated as a special statute and the other one as a general statute, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Courts cannot blur a distinction when dealing with finer points of law. In the case on hand, it is to be noticed that Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act is a special enactment covering only the field of agricultural sciences and allied subjects whereas the Gujarat Private Universities Act is a general legislation which is enacted to promote private universities. Paragraph-39 of the judgment reads as under: “39. There can be a situation in law where the same statute is treated as a special statute vis-avis one legislation and again as a general statute vis-a-vis yet another legislation. Such situations do arise as held in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. D.J.Bahadur [ AIR 1980 SC 2181 ]. It was there observed: "for certain cases, an Act may be general and for certain other purposes, it may be special and the Court cannot blur a distinction when dealing with finer points of law". Such situations do arise as held in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. D.J.Bahadur [ AIR 1980 SC 2181 ]. It was there observed: "for certain cases, an Act may be general and for certain other purposes, it may be special and the Court cannot blur a distinction when dealing with finer points of law". For example, a Rent Control Act may be a special statute as compared to the Code of Civil Procedure. But vis-a-vis an Act permitting eviction from public premises or some special class of buildings, the Rent Control Act may be a general statute. In fact in Damji Valji Shah and Anr. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. ( 1965(3) SCR 665 =AIR 1965 SC 135 already referred to), this Court has observed that vis-a-vis the LIC Act, 1956, the Companies Act, 1956 can be treated as a general statute. This is clear from para 19 of that judgment. It was observed: "Further, the provisions of the Special Act, i.e. LIC Act, will override the provisions of the general Act, viz; the Companies Act which is an Act relating to companies in general". Thus, some High Courts rightly treated the Companies Act as a general statute, and the RDB Act as a special statute overriding the general statute.” 42. We are of the view that the aforesaid judgment, supports the case of the respondents, as projected by the respondents for interpreting the provisions of Section 4(4) of the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004, keeping in mind the objectives of establishing and incorporating teaching and affiliating Universities for imparting education in agriculture and allied sciences in the State of Gujarat is to be given precedence. 43. For the aforesaid reasons, we reject the contention of the 1st Petitioner University and its students that private universities are not required to obtain any consent and prior sanction from the State Agricultural University and State respectively before commencement of the courses in the discipline of agriculture. 44. The next issue is with regard to requirement of recognition/approval from Indian Council of Agricultural Research for any institution/university for commencement of courses relating to agriculture and allied sciences. 44. The next issue is with regard to requirement of recognition/approval from Indian Council of Agricultural Research for any institution/university for commencement of courses relating to agriculture and allied sciences. Strong reliance is placed by Shri Dhaval C. Dave, petitioners’ counsel stating that ICAR itself, by a public notice dated 05.09.2017, has clarified that it is not the authority for grant of any recognition or approval to any institutions as such no institution is required to obtain any prior approval from ICAR. 45. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that ICAR is the apex and regulatory body so far as standards to be maintained by the institutions/universities running courses in agro sciences and allied subjects are concerned and the private universities are bound to provide infrastructure facilities as laid down by ICAR. 46. It is not in dispute that private universities have not approached the ICAR and are relying on communication dated 15.06.2017 to the effect that ICAR being a non-statutory body, it does not recognize or approve any university or institution. In this regard, it is to be noticed that under the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009, “ICAR” and “Regulatory Body” are defined under Section 2(i) and 2(p) of the Act. ICAR is defined as “Indian Council of Agricultural Research, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860” and “Regulatory Body” means “a body established by the Central Government for laying down the norms and conditions for ensuring academic standards of higher education, such as UGC, AICTE, NCTE, MCI, PCI, NAAC, ICAR, DEC, CSIR”. Further, under Section 4 of the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009, which pertains to objects of university, one of the objectives under Section 4(q) of the Act, is to ensure that the standard of the degrees, diplomas, certificates and other academic distinctions are not lower than those laid down by AICTE, NCTE, UGC, MCI and Pharmacy Council and any other similar agency established by the Central Government for regulating the standard education. Further, UGC itself has notified the professional councils which are responsible for recognition of courses and promotion of professional institutions etc. In the list of such professional councils, along with the councils such as AICTE, Medical Council of India, Pharmacy Council, Dental Council, Bar Council of India and others, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) is also included. Further, UGC itself has notified the professional councils which are responsible for recognition of courses and promotion of professional institutions etc. In the list of such professional councils, along with the councils such as AICTE, Medical Council of India, Pharmacy Council, Dental Council, Bar Council of India and others, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) is also included. The ICAR has declared all undergraduate courses in agriculture and allied sciences as Professional Degree Courses and the same is so declared by the Government of India through Ministry of Agriculture vide proceedings dated 06.11.2017. Further, in the case of P.K.Ramchandra Iyer v. Union of India reported in 1984(2) SCC 141 , relied on by the learned Additional Advocate General, while considering whether the Indian Council of Agriculture Research is a ‘State’ or not within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the genesis of ICAR and its functions. While drawing the distinction from Council of Scientific and Industrial research, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that ICAR came into existence as the Department of Government, even though it was registered as a Society and wholly financed by the Government and taxing power of the State was invoked to make it financially viable and to which independent research institute set up by the Government were transferred. Further, Section 35 of the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009, itself obligates that the University shall be bound to comply all the rules and regulations, norms etc of the regulating bodies of Government of India and to provide all such facilities and assistance to such bodies as are required by them to discharge their duties and carry out their functions. In view of the definition as contained in the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009, itself under section 2(i), it is a body recognized by the Government of India for the purpose of maintaining standards relating to education in agriculture and allied sciences and programmes of research in connection thereto. In view of the provisions as contained in Sections 2(i) and (p) of the Act read with Section 35 and the Notification referred to above, we are of the considered view that so far education in agriculture and allied sciences is concerned, ICAR is a body which has to approve standards for the courses to be run by the universities. 47. 47. Not only this, ICAR has notified “Minimum Requirements for Establishment of New College in Agriculture and Allied Disciplines”. The handbook released by ICAR is placed on record which is an exhaustive and elaborate one which notifies minimum requirements for establishment of new colleges in agriculture and allied sciences, including agricultural engineering. Further, the rules and bye-laws of ICAR Society are also placed on record. It is evident from the Memorandum of Association of ICAR that ICAR is established with an object to undertake, aid, promote and coordinate agricultural and animal husbandry education, research and its application in practice. The book containing the Rules and bye-laws of ICAR also notifies the Accreditation Board consisted of Chairman who is the Director General of ICAR and other members for considering accreditation of institution/university. Placed on record is also “Fifth Deans’ Committee Report” of ICAR wherein ICAR has notified minimum standards for establishing a college of agriculture engineering. It is true that the byelaws strictly cannot be construed as laws of legislations, but if these bye-laws are looked into with other material placed on record, we are of the considered view that ICAR is to be considered as a regulatory body for maintaining standards in agricultural education and allied subjects. It is also not in dispute that apart from not obtaining consent from the respondent – State Agricultural University and sanction from the State, the 1st petitioner University has also not taken any approval from the apex body i.e. ICAR which is empowered and established by Government of India for maintaining standards in agricultural education and allied subjects. 48. For the aforesaid reasons we reject the plea of the petitioners that ICAR is not a statutory body as such no approval need be taken. ICAR may not be a body created under a specific statute, fact remains that it is a body recognized and defined under Sections 2(i) and 2(p) of the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009, coupled with the provisions under Section 35 of the said Act and for all practical purposes it has to be construed as an apex body so far agricultural education and allied subjects are concerned. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the petitioners that there is no need to obtain any sanction/recognition from ICAR to run a course in agriculture science and allied subjects. 49. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the petitioners that there is no need to obtain any sanction/recognition from ICAR to run a course in agriculture science and allied subjects. 49. There is yet another contention advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, namely, that once the University is established by obtaining approval from the State, its standards are required to be monitored only by the University Grants Commission constituted under the University Grants Commission act, 1956 and no other agency in this regard. By referring to certain provisions of the UGC Act, learned Senior Counsel Shri Dhaval C. Dave has also placed reliance on the UGC (Establishment and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003. It is true that once a University is established by obtaining necessary approval to run a private university, it is entitled to run courses but at the same time, when there is a special and specific legislation covering agricultural sciences and allied subjects and four Universities are incorporated covering all the Districts in the State of Gujarat and when there is a specific provision under Section 4(4) of the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004, it is obligatory on the part of the private university to run course only by complying such statutory requirements under special law. At this stage, it is also to be reiterated that agricultural education is covered by Entry 14 of List II of 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, so far other courses are considered, while it is not open for the petitioners to run the same, but running the courses in the subjects relating to agriculture sciences and allied subjects unless it requires consent from the concerned University and sanction from the State Government under Section 4(4) of the Act, it is not open for the private universities to run such courses at all. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the State and State Agricultural Universities have no say in the matter of running courses which are being run by the 1st petitioner and similarly placed universities without permission from any of the authorities, namely, the State Agricultural University, State and also apex body like ICAR. In that view of the matter also, the argument of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. 50. In that view of the matter also, the argument of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. 50. Though it is objective of the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009, to promote private universities which are to be started by trusts, societies, etc. but at the same time, the provisions of such a statute cannot be construed in a way which will lower the standards of professional course like B.Sc. (Agriculture), B.Tech (Agriculture Engineering) etc. The rising phenomenon of private universities is a welcome step but at the same time, it should not be at the cost of the standards in education, more particularly, for the sectors like agriculture and allied sciences which have a far reaching consequences in the economy of the country. 51. Special Civil Applications No.16369 of 2016 and 16587 of 2016 are filed questioning the communication dated 06.09.2016 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Gujarat, to the Registrar of petitioner-University, directing the University to immediately stop the course in B.Sc. Agriculture run by the respective University without any sanction from the authority. These petitions are also required to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinabove. 52. Though it is argued by Shri S.N.Shelat, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State Agricultural Universities that reservation to the extent of 75% also can be sustained on the basis of institutional preference. In this regard, reliance is placed by learned senior counsel on the judgment of this Court wherein 50% institutional preference is upheld in the case of Yatinkumar Jasubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat And Ors. reported in 2017(4) GLR 2963 , but having regard to the foregoing discussion and the findings recorded by us above on other issues, we are of the view that it is not necessary to go into this issue. The plea of institutional reservation raised by learned senior counsel Shri S.N.Shelat is left open and is not decided. 53. For the reasons and discussion as made above, we are of the view that Private Universities like the 1st petitioner of Special Civil Application No.15065 of 2018 and others have started the course of B.Sc. (Agriculture)/B.Tech (Agriculture Engineering), and allied courses, on their own without any consent from the State Agricultural Universities and sanction from the State of Gujarat. 53. For the reasons and discussion as made above, we are of the view that Private Universities like the 1st petitioner of Special Civil Application No.15065 of 2018 and others have started the course of B.Sc. (Agriculture)/B.Tech (Agriculture Engineering), and allied courses, on their own without any consent from the State Agricultural Universities and sanction from the State of Gujarat. In spite of specific communications from time to time by the State to the Private Universities, they have continued the courses illegally. In that view of the matter, we do not find any illegality in the admission criteria notified by the respondent - State Agricultural Universities for the purpose of making admissions to post-graduate Agricultural Engineering and allied courses. 54. For the aforesaid reasons we to not find any merit in the Special Civil Application No.15065 of 2018. Same is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs. 55. Following the judgment in Special Civil Application No.15065 of 2018, Special Civil Applications No.12064 of 2018, 14237 of 2018, and 15072 of 2018, which are filed on similar facts and for identical reliefs, are also dismissed. 56. Further, in view of the findings recorded, Special Civil Applications No.16369 of 2016 and 16587 of 2016, also are required to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. 57. Consequently, Letters Patent Appeals No.1254 of 2018, 1255 of 2018, 177 of 2017 and 194 of 2017, arising out of interim orders passed in above writ petitions are dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs. 58. The interim orders passed by this Court in writ petitions and Letters Patent Appeals stand vacated. The connected Civil Applications stand dismissed.