Admission policy power includes prescribing entrance tests, and prior Academic Council approval was not mandatory.

The Admissions Committee was validly constituted under the Vice-Chancellor's urgent-action power because immediate action was necessary and the university authority could not then act. Its statutory power to lay down admission policy, read with the provisions on admission criteria and methods, was broad enough to include prescribing an entrance test for degree courses. Prior approval by the Academic Council was not required, and the absence of prior Executive Council approval did not invalidate the resolution. The challenge therefore failed, the quashing order was set aside, and the University was directed to proceed with admissions for the immediate year.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Admissions Committee was validly constituted under the urgent-action power of the Vice-Chancellor; (ii) whether the Admissions Committee had authority to prescribe an entrance test for admission to degree courses; (iii) whether the resolution was invalid for want of prior proposal or approval by the Academic Council and Executive Council.

Issue (i): Whether the Admissions Committee was validly constituted under the urgent-action power of the Vice-Chancellor.

Analysis: The emergency power under section 13(6) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 was available where immediate action was necessary and the competent university authority could not act. The absence of an existing Executive Council did not negate the power to act, and the committee so constituted had functioned for many years without challenge. The circumstances recorded in the constituting order furnished sufficient justification for the original constitution of the Admissions Committee.

Conclusion: The Admissions Committee was validly constituted.

Issue (ii): Whether the Admissions Committee had authority to prescribe an entrance test for admission to degree courses.

Analysis: Section 28(3) empowered the Admissions Committee, subject to the superintendence of the Academic Council, to lay down the principles or norms governing the policy of admission. Read with section 28(4), which refers to criteria or methods of admission, the power was broad enough to include prescription of an entrance test. Sections 45(1)(b), 51(2) and 52(2) were construed harmoniously and did not exclude such action by the Admissions Committee.

Conclusion: The Admissions Committee had authority to prescribe an entrance test.

Issue (iii): Whether the resolution was invalid for want of prior proposal or approval by the Academic Council and Executive Council.

Analysis: The statutory scheme did not require the Admissions Committee's action to await prior approval by the Academic Council. The Academic Council retained supervisory power and could take appropriate action if it wished, including proposing an ordinance. The Executive Council could act by ordinance on the Academic Council's proposal, but that did not deprive the Admissions Committee of its original power to prescribe admission policy within its sphere.

Conclusion: The resolution was not invalid on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the entrance-test resolution failed, the High Court's quashing order was set aside, and the writ petition stood dismissed, with the University directed to proceed with admissions for the immediate year and the Academic Council left free to act for future years.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute confers on the Admissions Committee the power to lay down admission policy subject to the Academic Council's superintendence, that power includes prescribing an entrance test, and the action is not invalid merely because the Academic Council or Executive Council has not first approved it.

---