Milap Chand Jain J.
1. A common question is involved in all the writ petitions, so it will be convenient to dispose them of by a single order. Hence, these petitions are being disposed of by this order.
2. The petitioner got admission in Five Years' Degree Course (Traditional Scheme) of the Bachelor of Engineering (Agriculture) in the College of Technology and Agricultural Engineering. The petitioner appeared in the First Year Examination, but was awarded Supplementary, as having failed in 3 Units. He appeared in the Supplementary Examination, which he cleared. Simultaneously, he was allowed to join the Second Year of the Five Years' Degree Course. In the Second Year Examination, held in August, 1984, the petitioner failed in more than three Units. So far as the failure of Second Year, Third Year, Fourth Year and Fifth Year are concerned, a scheme was introduced that the failures be admitted in First Year, Second Year, Third Year and Fourth Year of the 4-Year Degree Programme, respectively. As per this scheme, the petitioner is now required to join First Year, as he has failed in the Second Year. The petitioner has challenged the said scheme of Four-Year Degree Course.
3. Mr. M. Mridul, learned counsel for the petitioner, first of all, contended that the introduction of Four-Year Degree Course is bad, in as much as the Academic Council, was not justified to accept the recommendation of the Faculty of Technology and Agricultural Engineering. For introduction of course, the matter should be initiated in the Board of Studies and it is only on recommendation of the Board of Studies, the matter can be considered by the Academic Council. Admittedly. Board of Studies has not been constituted and the question of consideration of Four-Year Degree Course by the Board of Studies and recommendation of the Board of Studies does not arise and the Academic Council could not act on the recommendation of the Faculty. Mr. M. Mridul pointed out that the provision of constitution of the Board of Studies is a mandatory provision. Board of Studies is one of the authorities of the University, as is provided in Section 9, Clause (b), Item IV of the Udaipur University Act, 1962. Section 24 of the Act provides that the duties of the Board shall be to recommend to the Academic Council the syllabi for an integrated and well balanced course of study.
4. The reply of the University is that the functions of the Board of Studies are being discharged by the Faculty and Faculty is also an authority, as under Item IV of Clause (b) of Section 9, other authorities may also be declared by statutes to be the authority of the University. Faculties have been declared the authorities of the University under Statute 93 and under Statute 98, it is provided that the Faculty shall have all powers and perform the duties of the Board of Studies, as mentioned in the Act and the Statutes and the Regulations made thereunder. So, under Statute 98, according to the University, the Faculties can function as Board of Studies. Reference has also been made on behalf of the respondent that under Clause (a) of Section 34, it is laid down that the Statutes shall, provide for the constitution, powers and duties of the authorities of the University, except for the constitution of the Executive Committee, but this Statute making power is subject to the provisions of the Act. It is urged on behalf of the University that the Faculty is, thus competent to exercise the power and perform the functions of the Board of Studies and it is also pointed out that the Constitution of the Faculty is broad based as compared to the constitution of Board of Studies. It is also pointed out that right from very beginning, Board of Studies has not been constituted and the University is functioning without the Board of Studies and its function are being discharged by the Faculty under Statute 98.
5. In my opinion, the functioning of the University without the constitution of the Board of Studies and its functions, being discharged by the Faculty, has no warrant in law. The constitution of Board of Studies, is different from the constitution of the Faculty. The Act is supreme and the Statutes have to be in conformity with the Act. The very Section 35 lays down that Statutes may provide for matters enumerated therein subject to the provisions of the Act and there is no provision in the Act, whereby the functionof one of the authorities can be performed or discharged by another authority and such functions may be taken over by another authority under any Statutes. In the absence of such provision in the body of the Act, in my opinion, by virtue of Statute 98, the function of the Board of Studies cannot be discharged by the Faculty. Thus, the Faculty could not take up the matter for making any recommendation to the Academic Council for the abolition of the 5-Year Course and for introduction of 4-Year Course, in case of failures.
6. However, the question is, as to what is the effect of absence of Board of Studies and want of recommendation of such an authority on the decision of the Academic Council for introduction of 4-Year Course. Section 22 lays down the functions of the Academic Council. The entire responsibility and control for the maintenance of standards of instruction, education and examinations and for the requirements for the award of degree and diplomas exclusively fall within the domain of Academic Council and the Academic Council shall be in charge of the Academic affairs of the University. In the matters stated in Section 22, Academic Council is the final authority. It is nowhere provided in the Act that the Academic Council shall not, in any way, function until and unless any academic matter is first initiated in the Board of Studies and it can only act on the recommendation of the Board of Studies. The question is, whether in the absence of constitution of the Board of Studies, the Academic Council is competent to introduce the 4-Year Course In my opinion, answer to this question is in the affirmative, as there is no restriction placed on the powers and functions of the Academic Council and the Academic Council is the final authority in the matter. It is really a very sad state of affairs that the University continued to function, without the Board of Studies, contrary to the Legislative intent, which may be on account of misapprehension that by making Statute 98, the University can function without Board of Studies, I, therefore, find no substance in the contention of Mr. Mridul that the decision of the Academic Council is vitiated in the absence of any recommendation by the Board of Studies.
7. The second argument, which has been advanced by Mr. Mridul is that, failures of First Year were provided a special facility to appear in the additional or Special examination conducted by the University. The same facility should be provided to the failures of Second Year and onwards. This submission of Mr. Mridul, in my opinion, has absolutely no merit. No special or additional examination can be demanded as a matter of right. The University is within its powers to adopt a particular programme for a Course of Studies. Special Examinations may be conducted by the University, if it so likes. The scheme, which has been introduced by the University, is the scheme to change over to the Four-Year Degree Course and that change can only be effected when the failures are admitted in the lower class.
8. No other point has been pressed before me.
9. In the result, the writ petitions fail and they are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.