A. K. MATHUR, J. - (1.) - The petitioners, by this writ petition, have prayed that the respondent University may be directed to accept the fees for pursuing the studies of M. B. A. Course and allow the petitioners to avail the admission granted to them by making necessary arrangements for imparting instructions to them for grant of a Post-graduate degree of M. B. A. It is further prayed that orders be issued to the respondent University to produce the orders whereby the selections have been cancelled and declare such orders to be invalid and may be quashed.
(2.) THE applications were invited for admission to the prestigious course ' known as Master of Business Administration (for short M. B. A) in July 1990. THE petitioners applied for the same. A written test was held on 24/9/1990. THEreafter, the candidates were called for Group Discussion and interviews were held on 25th and 26. 09. 1990. THEreafter on 26/9/1990 the petitioners were selected and they were provision-ally admitted to the said course and it was stipulated that in order to pursue this course of study you have to with draw your admission from other courses of study in this University or other educational and training institutions. It was also stated that in case you are in service/employment you will produce a certificate categorically stating that you have been relieved from your duties and granted leave of absence for two years or till you complete this course of study which ever is later. In pursuance of this some of the petitioners, namely Nimit R. Chowdhary and Mahipal Singh who were in employment tendered their resignation. It was also stated that the petitioner Nimit R. Chowdhary, was also called for interview at Vishakhaparam Steel Plant for the purpose of employment in the said Institute. THErefore, on account of his selection to the M. B. A. he did not avail this opportunity. Likewise, the petitioner Miss Gunjan Sharma, who was admitted to MCA. gave up this admission. THE petitioner Shyam Lal also resigned from the service held by him. It is alleged in the writ petition that some complaints were received including from the President of the Jodhpur University Students Union regarding irregularities committed in the selection. THErefore, Shri U. S. Bhargava a retired District & Sessions Judge was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquiry into the matter. It is alleged that father of one Miss Aysha, Shri Umar Daraj, and some more persons made applications that they may be heard or that they may be afforded an opportunity, but the same was not given to them. It is alleged that the Enquiry Officer after making enquiries submitted his report. THE petitioners and some of their parents met the Registrar on 8. 12. 1990 and the Registrar told them some irregularities have been com-mitted and on account of that the selections are not going to be given effect to and fresh selections will be held on and from 30. 12. 1990. It is alleged that the Enquiry Officer's report was not sent to the Syndicate and a decision has been taken by the Vice Chancellor on his own without refering the matter to the Syndicate. In these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed. A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent University and the respondent University filed its reply to the show-cause notice. The respondent University in its return has not disputed the fact of complaints being received regarding the irregularities committed in the conduct of the selections and appointment of a District & Sessions Judge as Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry. It has been stated in the return that the Enquiry Officer was appointed by the University and that report of the Enquiry Officer has been received and it was pointed out by the Enquiry Officer that irregu-larities have been committed in the conduct of the selections. The Vice-Chancellor invoked his power under Section 12 (5) of the Jodhpur University Act, 1962 (referred to herein after as 'the Act' ). As the situation was emerged therefore, in exercise of this power he cancelled the selection and directed the conduct of a re-test. The copy of the order dated 8. 12. 1990 has been placed on the record as Annex. 7 by the petitioner along with the rejoinder as well as a letter dated 10. 12. 1990 (Annex. 9) has also been submitted whereby it has been notified that the University having received a spate of complaints about irregularities alleged to have been committed in this test, got an inquiry conducted by a Retired District Judge. After due consideration of the report the Vice-Chancellor had reason to believe that the said test was not fair due to cer-tain irregularities pointed out by the Enquiry Officer, hence the vice-chancellor has cancelled this test conducted on 259. 1990 and has ordered for Re-test It has now been decided to hold Re (Entrance Examination) Test for admission to M. B. A. for the year 1990-91. The Entrance Examination will now beheld only for those candidates who were found eligible and appeared on 25. 9. 1990 except those who were provisionally allowed to appear on that day. However, they may be allowed to appear if they are now found eligible on all counts for M. B. A. Ret Entrance Examination) test. It was also laid down that the eligibility of candidates to appear at the test shall be they have secured at least 50% marks in case of general category, and 46% marks in case of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates in the aggregate at the Graduate or Post-Graduate examination They will be required to submitted documentary evidence of their having secured aforesaid eligibility percentage of marks before they are permitted to take up the examination. It was further stipulated that the candidates should bring with them all the marks sheets in original along with spare photo-stat copies duly attested relating to all the examinations they have passed for verification of past academic record. Verification will be done before the commencement of the written test and also prior to their phrticipation in the Group Discussion and personality assessment test i. e. interview. It was directed that the M. B. A. Re (Entrance Examination Test will be held on 10-12-1990 at 11 A. M. in the Faculty of Engineering, M. B. M. Engineering College Campus, Jodhpur. In this back-ground, the contentions raised by Mr. Mridul, learned counsel for the petitioners, shall be examined. Mr. Mridul learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of the power under section 12 (5) of the Act is wholly illegal as there was no emergency whatsoever. In this connection, learned counsel submitted that the meeting of the Syndicate was scheduled to be held on 15. 12. 1990, therefore, he should have waited for that meeting or he should have called an urgent meeting of the Syndicate in terms of Regulation 58 (a) and he should have also been got the matter approved through the Academic Council under Regulation 64-A. Learned counsel submitted that the action of the Vice-Chancellor in issuing the order dated 8. 12. 1990 in exercise of the powers under sec. 12 (5) of the Act is wholly illegal and deserves to be quashed. As against this, Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent University, submitted that as per the report was submitted before the Vice-Chancellor on 27. 1. 1. 199. 0 and after going through the report, the Vice-Chancellor felt satisfied that grave irregularities have been committed in the conduct of the selections and the situation warrant an emergent action in the matter, therefore, he cancelled the examination and directed the re-test. Learned counsel submitted that the situation was urgent, therefore, the Vice-Chancellor exercised his powers of emergency provided under section 12 (5) of the Act. It is further submitted that in the meeting of Syndicate held on 15. 12. 1990 the Vice-Chancellor apprised the Syndicate of all the facts and also reported the action taken by him in this regard. An affidavit to this effect of the Registrar has also been filed that the matter was reported to the Syndicate and the Syndicate was apprised of the facts of the matter and thereafter the Syndicate hasnoted the report as well as the action taken and there was no dissensions whatsoever. It was further stated in the affidavit that the Syndicate fully approved and ratified the action of the Vice-Chancellor passed under Section 12 (5) of the Act.
(3.) I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel. The question as to when the Vice-Chancellor should exercise his emergency power under Section 12 (5) of the Act also came up for consideration before this Court in Bajrang Singh Shekhawat Vs. University of Jodhpur (1) and in University of Jodhpur vs. Ramchandra Sharma (2) and in Virendra Kapur vs. University of Jodhpur (3 ). In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the learned counsel fop the parties, it will be necessary to reproduce Section 12 (5) of the Act, reads as under:- "125.In any emergency, when, in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor, immediate action is required, the Vice-Chancellor shall take such action as he may deem necessary and shall at the earliest opportunity report the action taken to the officer, authority, or body who or which in the ordinary course would have dealt with the matter, but nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to empower the Vice-Chancellor to incur any expenditure not duly authorised and provided for in the budget. " ;