- (1.) This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for the relief for quashing the decision by means of Resolution No. 26 dated 7-5-97 of the Executive Council (Annexure-2 to the petition), amended rules approved in its meeting dated 14-6-97 (Annexure 3 to the petition) and further for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 4, the Management Committee of the Institution to hold the entrance test for the year 1997-98 for the course of B. Sc. Agriculture I.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been made by Sri Pankaj Mittal, learned Counsel for the University that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioners have alternative remedy to approach the Chancellor of the Universities under the provisions of U. P. Universities Act, 1973 under S. 68 of the aforesaid Act. 2A . Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the alternative remedy as pointed outby the learned Counsel for the respondent is not speedy and efficacious remedy for the petitioners. Moreover, as the acts done by the respondents are contrary to the provisions of the Universities Act. They have no power or authority to pass such resolution therefore, the resolution in question is without authority and the University has no such power under the Universities Act. He has further urged that the provisions of S. 68 is not applicable to the facts of the present case and the writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable and even if there is some alternative remedy applicable to the petitioners u/S. 68 of the Act, the Court has ample power under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the petition and decide it on merit, if the authorities have gone beyond the jurisdiction given to it under the Act. Therefore, the petition is maintainable and it cannot be rejected at this stage on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.
(3.) Before going to the merit of the case it is necessary to see the relevant sections as pointed out by Sri Pankaj Mittal, the learned Counsel on behalf of the University. He placed before the Court Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act. The relevant provisions read as under :-Section 68- "Reference to the Chancellor -- If any question arises whether any person has been duly elected or appointed as, or is entitled to be, member of any authority or other body of the University, or whether any decision of any authority or officer of the University (including any question as to the validity of a Statute, Ordinance or Regulation, not being a Statute or Ordinance made or approved by the State Government or by the Chancellor) is in conformity with this Act or the Statutes or the Ordinance made thereunder the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor and the decision of the Chancellor thereon shall be final : Provided that no reference under this section shall be made-(a) more than three months after the date when the question could have been raised for the first time;(b) by any person other than an authority or officer of the University or a person aggrieved;Provided further that the Chancellor may in exceptional circumstances-(a) act suo motu or entertain a reference after the expiry of the period mentioned in the preceding proviso;(b) where the matter referred relates to a dispute about the election, and the eligibility of the person so elected is in doubt, pass such orders of stay as he thinks just and expedient.";