Holding

The Vice‑Chancellor was within his emergency powers under Section 13(4) of the University of Rajasthan Act to order the University examinations, and the order is valid.

Summary

Two homoeopathic colleges, Bhartiya Homoeopathy College, Bharatpur and Yuvraj Pratap Senior Memorial Homoeopathy Medical College, Alwar, were affiliated to the Rajasthan Board of Homoeopathic Medicine and conducted B.H.M.S. examinations through the Board until 1994. The State Government, following a Supreme Court decision in Unni Krishnan, directed that all B.H.M.S. examinations be conducted by the University of Rajasthan and ordered the Board to stop its exams. The University granted provisional affiliation to the colleges from 1993‑94 onward, but this did not cover students admitted before that year. To avoid hardship, the Vice‑Chancellor, relying on emergency powers under Section 13(4) of the University of Rajasthan Act and on the recommendation of the Board of Inspection, ordered that the University conduct examinations for the second, third and final‑year students of those colleges, even though they were not yet affiliated. The Students Council of the Jaipur Homoeopathic College filed a public‑interest litigation challenging this order; the High Court initially dismissed it for lack of locus standi, but a Division Bench reversed that view and set aside the Vice‑Chancellor’s order. The Supreme Court held that the Vice‑Chancellor acted within his statutory emergency powers and that the order was valid, allowing the appeal and restoring the students’ right to sit for the University examinations.

Issues considered

The Vice‑Chancellor’s authority under the University of Rajasthan Act to order examinations for students of non‑affiliated colleges in an emergency.
Whether the University can confer degrees on students who have not pursued studies in its affiliated colleges.
The locus standi of the Students Council to file a public‑interest litigation challenging the order.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226, s. Article 32
Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973
University Grants Commission Act, 1956

Subjects

affiliationuniversity examinationsemergency powerslocus standihomoeopathy educationdegree awardingpublic interest litigationUniversity of Rajasthan Act

Judgment

. BHARTIY A HOMOEPATHY COLLEGE, BHARA TPUR ETC. A
.,.. v.
I
STUDENTS COUNCIL OF HOMOEPATHY MEDICAL
COLLEGE, JAIPUR AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 3, 1998
B
~ [MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]

University of Rajasthan Act, 1946 : Sections 4(2)(15), 13(4), 22-
Homoepathic Colleges conducting B.HMS. course-Affiliated to Rajasthan
Board of Homoepathic Medicine-Not affiliated to University-State c
Governments proposal that all the colleges conducting the Course to be
affiliated to the University-Applications for affiliation from 1987-88 session-
Grant of provisional affiliation from 1993-94 onwards-State Government
withholding the Board from conducting examination-Vice-Chancellor's order
directing the University to conduct examinations for students admitted prior
D
to 1993-94-0rder ratified by Syndicate-On challenge Single Judge of the
High Court holding that the Students Council has no locus standi to file
petition-However, Division Bench upholding the locus standi and setting
aside the order of Vice-Chancellor-On appeal, held, Vice-Chancellor has
•
exercised the emergency power conferred upon him under the Act-University
has power to hold examination and award degrees not only to persons who E
have passed a course of study in the University or affiliated colleges but also
to persons not belonging to affiliated colleges but who passed the
examination-Thus no illegality in the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor-
Directions issued for allowing the students to complete their course and
degrees be awarded to students qualified in the B.H.MS examination-
F
Rajasthan Homoepathic Medicine Act, 1969-Homoepathy Central Council
"l' Act, 1973-University Grants Commission Act, 1956.

Constitution ofIndia, I 950 : Articles 32 and 226-PIL-Maintainability
of

The appellants were Homoepathic Colleges affiliated to the Rajasthan
G

... r Board of Homoepathic medicine. The said Board was recognised under the
Homoepathy Central Council Act, 1973 for a Diploma in Homoepathic
Medicine & Surgery (D.H.M.S.) but not for a degree in B.H.M.S. The Board
however continued to hold examination for the degree in B.H.M.S. The State
Government wrote to the Registrar of University ofRajasthan stating that H
531
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.

A it would be desirable if all the classes of B.H.M.S. are conducted through the
University and all the Colleges conducting the said course get themselves f
affiliated to the University. Pursuant to the said proposal, the appellant-
Colleges applied for affiliation from 1987-1988 session. The State
Government advised that till a final decision on the application was taken,
B status quo may be maintained. In the meantime, for the purpose of affiliation,
inspections were carried out by the University and the inspection reports
were satisfactory. This Court in Unni Krishnan case* had held that by virtue
of the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, no educational
institution except a University was entitled to award degrees. The Central
Council, therefore, requested the State to ask the Board not to award a
C degree in B.H.M.S. henceforth.

In the meantime, pursuant to the application for affiliation made by the
appellant-Colleges, the University granted provisional affiliation for the year
1993-94 which was extended subsequently for the years 1994-95, 1995-96
and 1996-97. The affiliation, however, did not cover the students who had
D taken admission prior to 1993-94 and were in the II, III and final year of the
degree courses. ln view of the provisional affiliation, the State Government
issued order directing the Board not to conduct B.H.M.S. examination. In
order to protect the interest of the students who had taken admission prior
to 1993-94, the Vice-Chancellor on the recommendation of Board oflnspection
E allowed the University to conduct examinations of these students as per the
existing syllabus. The said recommendations and order were ratified by the
Syndicate at its meeting.

The respondent-Students Council filed a PIL challenging the order of
the Vice-Chancellor, which was dismissed by Single Judge of the High Court
F holding that the respondent had no locus standi to file the petition. However,
on appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court while holding that the
respondent had locus sta11(/i to file such a petition, set aside the order of the
Vice-Chancellor. Hence the present appeal.

G Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : I. I. The Vice-Chancellor was within his rights in passing the
impugned order. The Syndicate has, in exercise of its powers, ratified the "·
action of the Vice-Chancellor and the recommendations made by the Board
of Inspectors. The High Court, therefore, erred in holding that the Vice-
H Chancellor had no power to pass such an order.
B.H.C. v. STU. COUNCIL OF HOMOE. MEDICAL COLL. 533
!
1.2. Under Section 4, sub-section (2) of the University of Rajasthan A
Act, 1946, the power to hold examinations and to confer degrees, is given
not merely in respect of persons who have pursued a course of study in the
University or its affiliated/colleges or approved institutions, but also in
respect of persons who have not pursued a course of study in the University
or its affiliated colleges or approved institutions but who pass the examinations B
of the University. The power of University, therefore, is not confined to only
permitting students from affiliated colleges to appear for examination. The
University may permit even persons not belonging to affiliated colleges to
appear for the examination. [541-G)
2. The power to hold examination and publish results as also the power
to inspect, affiliate or approve colleges and institutions is within the Syndicate. C
The Vice-Chancellor, however, has in an emergency the power to take action
immediately in respect of any of these matters but the action so taken has
to be placed before the concerned authority, that is to say the Syndicate. The
decision of the Vice-Chancellor was placed before the Syndicate as required
under section 13(4) and the Syndicate had also approved the action of the D
Vice-Chancellor as also the recommendations of the Board of Inspectors.
[542-EJ
3. The students of the two appellant colleges who hadjoined the course
of studies offered by the two colleges leading to a B.H.M.S. degree of the
Rajasthan Board prior to the appellant colleges being affiliated with the
University of Rajasthan for the B.H.M.S. course, were permitted by the Vice- E
Chancellor by the impugned order to take the examinations for the B.H.M.S.
course of the University of Rajasthan. Looking to the situation where the
examinations of B.H.M.S. conducted by the Rajasthan Board were suddenly
required to be stopped, the students who were left stranded were thus, as a
special case, allowed by the Vice-Chancellor to appear for the B.H.M.S. F
examinations of the concerned year of the University. This was in clear
y exercise of the emergency power of the Vice-Chancellor and he had taken
the action on the recommendations of the Board of Inspectors.
[542-H; 543-A-BJ
4.1. Public interest was not, in any manner adversely affected by the G
impugned decision. There is no case that the two colleges were found to be
sub-standard. The University which had inspected these two appellant colleges
and considered the course of studies which they offered, was in a far better
position to decide whether the students who had studied for the earlier
course were fit enough to be allowed to appear for the examinations of the
University ofRajasthan. The deci.sion which was taken by the University was H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.

A a bonafide decision after taking into account the standard of teaching offered
by the two appellant colleges. The action was also supported by the State
Government. The Central Council or Homoepathy has also recognised these Y ~
two colleges. Thus, there is no basis for alleging any harm to public interest
in allowing the students of the two appellant colleges to appear for the
B B.H.M.S. Examinations of the University of Rajasthan. [544-D-F]

4.2. The affidavit filed by the Students Council does not disclose
whether it was authorised to file the present litigation and if so by whom;
whether it has funds to indulge in the litigation and whether it had the
backing of a majority of its members for their litigation. In the absence of
C such disclosure, the students council should not be allowed to undertake
litigation in the name of public interest which can cause a lot of damage to
others. [544-G]
5. In view of the litigation the students have not been able to complete
their B.H.M.S. course for number of years. Pursuant to the interim order
D these students have been permitted to appear for examinations conducted in
the December I 996 and the results have also been declared. It is directed
that in accordance with the results so declared the students may be allowed
to continue/complete the B.H.M.S. course with the University ofRajasthan
in accordance with law and those who have qualified for the B.H.M.S. degree
as per these results be granted the degrees by the University of Rajasthan.
E [545-A-B)
*Unni Krishan J.P. & Ors. v. State ofAndhra Pradesh and Ors., [1993)
I SCC 645, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. I 6040 of
1996 Etc.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 11. I 0.96 of the Rajasthan High
Court in D.B.C.A. (Writ) No. 15of1996. '!"

Harish N. Salve, R.F. Nariman, V.C. Mahajan, C.K. Sasi, Kailash Vasdev,
Ms. Kamini iaiswal, (Ms. Nandini Gore) for Ms. M. Karanjawala, H.K. Puri,
G Ujjwal Banerjee, D.B. Vohra, Amneshwar Gupta, Manoj K. Das, S.R. Nath,
Manoj Swamp, Ms. Lalitha Kohli and Ms. Maulina Swamp for the appearing
parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J. Delay condoned.
·1
•

8.H.C. v. STU. COUNCIL OF HOMOE. MEDICAL COLL. [SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.] 535

Leave granted. A

Appeals J6040 and 16041 of 1996 arise from a common judgment of the
Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur dated I Ith of
October, 1996 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.15/J 996 against the order
dated 13. 12.1995 of the Learned Single Judge in Civil writ Petition 4882 of
1995. Civil Appeal No: 16040of1996 has been filed by Bhartiya Homoepathy B
College, Bharatpur while Civil Appeal No. 16041 of 1996 is filed by Yuvraj
Pratap Senior Memorial Homoepathy Medical College, Alwar. For the sake of
convenience we are setting out the facts in Civil Appeal No. 16041 of 1996.
Both the appeals along with appeal arising from S.L.P. (C) No. 2991/98 (cc
9 I41 /97) and Writ Petition No. 81 of 1997 have been heard together because C
they raise common questions and arise from the same judgment of the Division
Bench of the Rajasthan High Court.

In 1969 the Legislature of the State of Rajasthan enacted the Rajasthan
Homoepathic Medicine Act, 1969 (Act l of 1970). Section 3 of the Act
provides for the establishment of the Rajasthan Board of Homoepathic D
A Medicine. Section 40(1) of the said Act prescribes that the said Board shall
have the power to recognise Homoepathic educational or instructional
institutions for the purpose of affiliation. Section 40(iii) empowers the said
Board to hold examinations and to grant degrees/diplomas to persons who
shall have pursued a course of study .in an educational institution affiliated E
to the Board. Accordingly the Rajasthan Board ofHomoepathic Medicine was
set up under the said Act. It conducted examinations for the grant of B.H.M.S.
Degree as well as examinations for a Diploma in Homoepathy. The two appellant
colleges at Alwar and Bharatpur were, at the material time, affiliated to the
Rajasthan Board of Homoepathic Medicine. Their students appeared for the
B.H.M.S. examinlltion conducted by the Rajasthan Board of Homoepathic F
Medicine until about 1994.

In 1973 the Central Government enacted the Homoepathy Central Council
Act, 1973 (Act 59 of r973). Section 13 of the Homoepathy Central Council Act,
1973 provides for recognition of medical qualifications in Homoepathy granted G
by any University, Board or Medical ·Institution in India. The recognised
institutions and qualifications are listed in the Second Schedule of the Act.
In the Second Schedule, under the head "State of Rajasthan", the Rajasthan
Board of Homoepathic Medicine is recognized from 1979 onwards for a Diploma
in Homoepathic Medicine & Surgery (D.H.M.S.). The University ofRajasthan
is recognised for the degree ofB.H.M.S. from 1990. The Rajasthan Board of H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.

A Homoepathic Medicine is not recognised for the degree of B.H.M.S. under the
Second Schedule to the Homoepathy Central Council Act, 1973. The Rajasthan f
Board of Homoepathic Medicine, however, continued to hold examinations for
the degree of B.H.M.S. The Rajasthan University also conducted a degree
course in Homoepathy for the degree of B.H.M.~J"he Homoepathy Medical
College at Jaipur was affiliated to the Rajasthan University for the B.H.M.S.
B degree course.

On 31st of March, 1987 the State .Government, Medical and Health
Department, wrote to the Registrar of the University of Rajasthan stating that
after consultation with the Rajasthan Board of Homoepathic Medicine and the
C Board of Indian Medicine Rajasthan, the State Government considered it
desirable that examination, inter alia, in respect of all the classes of B.H.M.S.
should be conducted thorough the University of Rajasthan in respect of
students studying in the colleges which should get themselves affiliated to
the University. The letter mentioned three colleges which were conducting
courses leading the B.H.M.S. These were the two appellant colleges - one at
D Bharatpur and the other at Alwar, and the Homoepathic Medical College at .
Jaipur. The State conveyed to the University that it would be better if the
University agrees to conduct all the examinations ofB.H.M.S./B.U.M.S. degree
courses in respect of all the years right away so that the respective Boards
may wind up their examination work and the State would be in a position to
E reshape or dissolve these Boards of the registration work of chikitsaks etc.
This proposal was considered at a meeting of the Academic Council of the
University of Rajasthan at its meeting of 13.6.1987. In the minutes of the
meeting it is recorded that in respect of Homoepathy, the said three colleges
had sought affiliation from 1987-88 session. It was decided to recommend
acceptance of the State Government's proposal subject to certain conditions
F which are recorded there. There does not seems to have been any further
progress regarding affiliation of the appellant colleges to the university of
Rajasthan for the B.H.M.S. course. For the academic session 1988-89, the
State of Rajasthan, Medical and Public Health Department, by its letter dated
21.7.1988 advised the two appellant colleges that until a final decision on the
G application of these colleges for affiliation is taken by the University, status
quo may be maintained and the affiliation of the two appellant colleges may
be continued with the Rajasthan Homoepathic Medicine Board. The State
Government also advised the Board that it will not be proper to stop admissions .
till the matter regarding affiliation is finally decided by the University. In the
meanwhile, for the purpose of affiliation to the Rajasthan University inspections
H were carried out by the University of Rajasthan and we are infonned that the
B.H.C. v. STU. COUNCIL OF HOM OE. MEDICAL COLL. [SUJA TA V. MANO HAR, J] 537
~
inspection reports were satisfactory. A
T
In the year 1993 the judgment of this Court in Unni Krishnan, J.P. and
Ors. v. State ofAndhra Pradesh and Ors., [1993] l SCC 645 was pronounced.
As a result, the Central Council of Homoepathy, by its letter dated 18.8.1993
addressed to the Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Department of Health
and Family welfare, Jaipur, as well as to the Registrar, Rajasthan Board of B
~
Homoepathic Medicine, stated that this Court, in the judgment in the above
case, had held that by virtue of the provisions of the University Grants
a
Commission Act, no educational institution in this country except University
is entitled to award degrees. The Central Council, therefore, requested the
State of Rajasthan that the State Board of Homoepathic Medicine should be .
c
asked not to award a degree qualification in Homoepathy henceforth.

- In the meanwhile, the Central Council recognised the appellant college
at Alwar for the year 1993}4 and this recognition has been extended
subsequently for the years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97.

Pursuant to the application for affiliation made by the appellant college
D
A_
at Alwar to the University of Rajasthan for B.H.M.S. degree course, the
University , by its letter dated 23.1.1994, granted a provisional affiliation for
B.H.M.S, degree course to the appellant college at Alwar for the session 1993-
94 in preparation for its first B.H.M.S. examination 1994, second B.H.M.S.
examination 1995, third B.H.M.S. examination 1996 and fourth B.H.M.S. E
examination 1997 subject to the fulfilment of conditions laid down in that
letter. The students of this college who were admitted to the !st year B.H.M.S.
course in 1993-94 thus became entitled to appear in the examinations of the
Rajasthan University leading to the degree of B.H.M.S. Subsequently, on
6.4.1995 the University of Rajasthan granted provisional affiliation to the
appellant college at Alwar for the academic session 1994-95 in similar terms F
y and by a letter of 2nd of April, 1996 it again granted provisional affiliation to
the said college for the academic session 1995-96 also. This affiliation, however,
did not cover students of the appellant college who had taken admission prior
to 1993-94 in the said college and who were required to appear in different
>,
years ofB.H.M.S. examinations in 1993-94 and thereafter. However, in view of G
the provisional affiliation granted to the appellant colleges by the University
'' ~- of Rajasthan in January, 1994 the State of Rajasthan issued an order dated
20th of June, 1994 directing the Rajasthan Board of Homoepathic Medicine
not to conduct B.H.M.S. examinations.

This order was challenged in a writ Petition filed before the High Court H
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.

A of Rajasthan. We are, however not concerned with those proceedings here.
Thereafter the State Government addressed a letter dated 16th of August,
r
1994 to the Registrar, University of Rajasthan with regard to the B.H.M.S.
examination which were, upto then, conducted by the Rajasthan Homoepathic
Medicine Board. The letter referred to the Central Council for Homoepathy's
B letter of 18th of August, 1993 and the decision of this Court in Unni Krishnan
v. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra). It also referred to the opinion of the Law
Department that the Rajasthan Homoepathic Medicine Board cannot issue
degrees in Homoepathic Medicine. The letter recorded that keeping in view
the above position, the State Government suspended the examination for
B.H.M.S. degree course being conducted by the Rajasthan Homoepathic
C Medical Board and had also directed that no admissions will be made by the
appellant colleges for the B.H.M.S. degree course of the Rajasthan
Homoepathic Medicine Board. The letter went on to say, "As the examination
for degree course cannot be conducted through Rajasthan Homoepathic
Medical Board, therefore, now this question is under active consideration
before the State Government that the students who had taken admission for
D degree course in Alwar college and Bharatpur college and who are in the
second, third and final year of the degree course how their future may be
saved and through whom their examination shall be conducted."

"It was discussed on the above reference with the committee and Vice
E Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan on 24.6.1994 .... During the period of
discussion, this proposal was also discussed that the examination of students
of the Bharatpur and Alwar Homoepathetic College should be got conducted
through University of Rajasthan. For this purpose, the students of Bharatpur
and Alwar should be migrated to Rajasthan Homoepathic College, Jaipur
which is affiliated to the University of Rajasthan." The letter concluded by
F saying that the students of Bharatpur and Alwar Homoepathetic Co.lieges in
11, lII and final years of B.H.M.S. Course shall migrate to the Rajasthan
Homoepathic College, Jaipur which is affiliated to the University ofRajasthan
and their examination shall be got conducted by the University of Rajasthan.
It seems that pursuant to this decision, some of the students of the appellant
G colleges were allowed to migrate to the said college at Jaipur. However, a large
number of students in this category continued with the two appellant colleges.

Looking to the unforeseen situation in which these students were
placed on acco.unt of the Rajasthan Homoepathic Medicine Board not being
in a position to conduct the B.H.M.S. Degree examination, the Vice-Chancellor
H of the University ofRajasthan passed on order dated 13th of May, 1995 which
B.H.C. v. STU. COUNCIL OF HOM OE. MEDICAL COLL. [SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.] 539
is the subject-matter of challenge in these proceedings. The order of 13th of A
May, 1995 has been passed pursuant to the recommendation made by the
Board of Inspection of the University of Rajasthan as per Resolution No.16
passed at its meeting held on 12th and 18th of December, 1994. The Vice-
Chancellor by the order of 13th of May, 1995. has ordered that "the examinations
of Il, III and final year· B.H.M.S. students admitted in the Homoepathic B
College, Bharatpur and Homoepathic College, Alwar be conducted by the
University, without granting affiliation for these examinations, as per the
existing syllabus of the University prescribed for these examinations in order
to avoid hardship to the students and also keeping in view the fact that the
Rajasthan Homoepathy Board which was conducting examinations of these
two colleges has now been rendered ineligible for conducting examinations C
and awarding Degrees."

The recommendations of the Board of Inspection and Vice-Chancellor's
order of 13.5.1995 were ratified by the Syndicate at its meeting held on 20/
21.5.1995.
D
The Students' Council of the Homoepathic College at Jaipur filed a
public interest litigation challenging the order of the Vice-Chancellor permitting
the students in II, III and final year B.H.M.S. classes of the appellant colleges
to appear at the examinations being conducted by the University of Rajasthan.
The petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High E
Court holding that the Students' Council of the Jaipur College had no locus
standi to file a public interest litigation In appeal, however, the Division
Bench of the High Court has set aside the order of the Vice-Chancellor and
has upheld the locus of the Students' Council of the Jaipur College to file
such a petition. The preseni appeals before us are from this judgm~nt and
order of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur. F

From the above narration of facts, it is clear that the order of the Vice-
Chancellor was issued after extensive consultations with the State Government
and after the Board of Inspection of the Rajasthan University approved of the
students belonging to the two appellant colleges appearing for the concerned G
B.H.M.S. examinations. The students who had taken admission' in the two
' ;... appellant colleges for the B.H.M.S. course had done so under a bona fide
belief that the B.H.M.S. examination conducted by the Rajasthan Board of
Homoepathic Medicine was an examination which was conducted by the
Board in accordance with law and that the two appeliant colleges who were
affiliated to the Rajasthan Board of Homoepathic Medicine were entitled to H
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.

A send their students for the B.H.M.S. examinations conducted by the Rajasthan
Board of Homoepathic Medicine. It was on account of the judgment of this
Court in the case of Unani Krishnn, JP. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (supra)
and the correct legal position being pointed by the Central Counci 1 of
Homoepathy in its light, that the State Government had to take a decision to
B close down the B.H.M.S. degree examinations conducted by the Rajasthan
Board of Homoepathic Medicine. The State itself recognised that the sudden
closing down of the degree examination of the Rajasthan Board would lead
to a complete disruption of the studies of the students who had already taken
admission for the B.H.M.S. degree course in the two appellant colleges,
through no fault of theirs. In order to see that the future of these students
C was not jeopardised, the State Government had requested the University of
Rajasthan to accommodate these students and permit them to appear for the
B.H.M.S. examinations for different years being conducted by the University
of Rajasthan. The University had satisfied itself through the Board oflnspection
that the two appellant colleges were imparting education in Homoepathy in
a satisfactory manner. The University also took into account the fact that
D students of the !Ind, lllrd and final year B.H.M.S. courses in the two appellant
colleges were left without any remedy because of the. sudden scrapping of
the degree examination of the Rajasthan Board of Homoepathic Medicine.
Therefore, in view of the emergency which had arisen, the Vice-Chancellor
permitted the students of Ilnd, Illrd and final year degree courses in the two
E appellant colleges to appear for the University examinations for the Ilnd, Illrd
and final years of the B.H.M.S. course without granting affiliation to these
two colleges for the concerned previous relevant years.

It is necessary to note that the University had granted affiliation to both
these colleges provisionally from the academic year 1993-94 onwards. As a
F special case, the Vice-Chancellor permitted the students of these colleges who
had taken admission prior to 1993-94 in the B.H.M.S. degree course also to
appear for the examinations as set out in the order of the vice-Chancellor. This
order has been ratified by the Syndicate also. The only narrow question
which we have to consider is whether the Vice-Chancellor had foe power to
G do so under the Rajasthan University Act of 1946.

The relevant provisions of Section 4 of the University of Rajasthan,
Act, I 946 which deals with the powers of the University are as follows:

"4: The University shall have the following powers, namely:-

H (!) .............. .
B.H.C. v. STU. COUNCIL OF HOM OE. MEDICAL COLL [SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J] 541

(IA)............. . A
(IB) ............. .
(2) to hold examinations and to confer degrees and other academic
distinctions upon-

(a) persons who have pursued a course of study in the University or B
its affiliated colleges or approved institutions and appeal at and pass
the examinations of the University, under conditions laid down in the
Ordinances and Regulations:

(b) persons who have not pursued a course of study in the University
or its affiliated colleges or approved institutions but appear at and C
pass the examinations of the University as non-collegiate students
under such conditions as may be prescribed by the University from ·
time to time:

Provided that such students have been residing within the State D
of Rajasthan for such period as may be prescribed by the University
in the Ordinances and Regulations."

Under sub-section (4), the University can confer degrees, diplomas and other
academic distinctions on and provide teaching, instruction and training for
external students, in the manner prescribed by the Statutes, Ordinances and E
Regulations. Under sub-section (4A), the powers of the University include
the power to admit colleges and institutions to the privileges of the University
and to withdraw such privileges. under sub-section (7), the University can
inspect affiliated colleges and approved institutions and take measures to
ensure that proper standards of teaching, instruction and training are maintained
in them. F

Under Section 4, sub-section (2), therefore, the power to hold
examinations and to confer degrees, is given not merely in respect of persons
who have pursued a course of study in the University or its affiliated .colleges
or approved institutions, but also in respect of persons who have not pursued G
a course of study in the University or its affiliated colleges or approved
institutions but who pass the examinations of the University. Under Section
4, sub-section (15), the University has the power to do all such other acts,
whether incidental to the powers aforesaid or not, as may be requisite in order
to further the object of the University as an educational body, and to cultivate
and promote the arts, science and other branches of learning. H
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) l S.C.R.

A The powers of the Vice-Chancellor are laid down in Section 13. 'Jnder
Section 13(1), the Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal executive and academic r''
officer of the University. Under sub-section (2). It shall be the duty of the
Vice-Chancellor to see that this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances are
faithfully observed and he shall have all powers necessary for this purpose.
Under sub-section (4) it is provided as follows:
B -'
"13(4)(a): He may take action in any emergency, which, in his opinion, ~
calls for immediate action. He shall, in such a case, and as soon
as may be thereafter, report his action, to the officer, authority
or other body who or which would ordinarily have dealt with the
matter.
c
The powers and functions of the Syndicate are laid down in Section 22.
Under Section 22(i), the Syndicate, subject to the Statutes, has to inspect and
affiliate, recognise or approve colleges and hostels or institutions, and to
withdraw affiliation, recognition or approval from them. Under sub-section 0),
it has to arrange for the holding of examinations and publishing results
D (
thereof. Under sub-section (k), it has to maintain proper standards of teaching
and examination in consultation with the Academic Council. The power,
therefore, to hold examinations and publish results as also the power to
inspect, affiliate or approve colleges and institutions is with the Syndicate.
The Vice-Chancelk,r, however, has in an emergency the power to take action
E immediately in respect of any of these matters but the action so taken has
to be placed before the concerned authority, that is to say the Syndicate.

Statute 37 of the ·university of Rajasthan deals with inspection· and
recognition ofa college. Under Statute 37(1), a college applying for affiliation,
whether for the first time or for extension in the period to temporary/provisional
F affiliation, or in additional subjects, or for additional courses of study, or for
permanent affiliation, shall make a written application to the Registrar for the
purpose in the manner provided in the Statute and the Syndicate shall have
the power to recognise or withdraw recognition. Under Statute 37A, a Board
of Inspection is required to be constituted for the inspection of colleges as
G set out in that Statute. - ~

In the present case, the students of the two appellant colleges who had ~ '
~
joined the course of studies offered by the two colleges leading to a B.H.M.S.
degree of the Rajasthan Board prior to the appellant colleges being affiliated )

with the University of Rajasthan for the B.H.M.S. course, were permitted by
H the Vice-Chancellor by the impugned order to take the examinations for the
B.H.C. v. STU. COUNCIL OF HOMOE. MEDICAL COLL. [SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.] 543

B.H.M.S. course of the University of Rajasthan. Looking to the situation A
' - ''<- where the examinations of B.H.M.S. conducted by the Rajasthan Board were
suddenly required to be stopped, the students who were left stranded were
thus, as a special case, allowed by the Vice-Chancellor to appear for the
B.H.M.S. examination of the concerned year of the University. This was in
clear exercise of the emergency power of the Vice-Chancellor. But he had B
taken this action on the recommendations of the Board of Inspectors. The
decision of the Vice-Chancellor was placed before the Syndicate as required
under Section 13(4) and the Syndicate had also approved of the action of the
Vice-Chancellor as also the recommendation of the Board of Inspectors.

It is, however, contended that only the students of an affiliated college C
can appear for the University examination. In this connection, the respondents
have emphasised Section 4(2) of the University of Rajasthan Act which
empowers the University to hold examination and to confer degrees on persons
who have studied in the University or its affiliated colleges or approved
institutions. It is submitted that unless the students have studied in an
·affiliated college; the University or the Vice-Chancellor or the Syndicate has_ D
no power to permit such students to appear for its examinations. This
submission ignores clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 which permits
the University to allow even persons who had not pursued a course of
studies in the University or its affiliated colleges or approved institutions to
appear and pass the examinations as non-collegiate students. The power of E
the University, therefore, is not confined to only permitting students from
affiliated colleges to appear for an examination. In a given case, the University
may permit even persons not belonging to affiliated colleges to appear for the
examination. The power to grant approval for institutions also is wide. The
approval can be for a limited purpose such as permitting appearance in an
examination over a limited period just as affiliation can be provisional or F
permanent or restricted. The University has also very wide powers under sub-
section (15) of Section 4 to do all such other acts whether incidental to the
specified powers or otherwise as may be required to further the objects of the
University as an educational body. These powers are exercised, inter alia,
through the Viee-Chancellor, the Syndicate and the Board of Inspectors. The G
Vice-Chancellor was, therefore, within his rights in passing the impugned
order of 13th of May, 1995 and the Syndicate has, in exercise of its powers,
ratified the action of the Vice-Chancellor _and the recommendations made by
the Board of Inspectors. The High Court, in our view, was not right in coming
to the conclusions that the vice-Chancellor had no power to pass such an
order. H
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.

A This is also not a case where the two colleges· were found to be sub-
standard. In fact the Central Council recognised the appellant college for the
academic year 1994-95 in May, 1994 and thereafter it has recognised the
college for the academic years 1994-95, 1955-96, and 1996-97 also. Both the
colleges are now affiliated to the University of Rajasthan. The Board of
B Inspection also approved the two colleges. The order of the Vice-Chancellor
merely takes care of those students who joined these two colleges for the
degree of the Board prior to their affiliation to the University.

The Learned Single Judge who originally dismissed the Wit Petition had
reason to doubt the Locus standi of the Students Council of the Jaipur
C College to file this so called public interest litigation. These students are
studying for the same B.H.M.S. course of the University of Rajasthan. There
can be some doubt about their bona fides in challenging the order permitting
other students of other colleges to appear for the same examination. What is
more relevant, there is no basis for alleging any harm to public interest in
allowing the students of the two appellant colleges to appear for the B.H.M.S.
D examinations -of the University of Rajasthan. The university which had
inspected these two appellant colleges and considered the course of studies
which they offered, was in a far better position to decide whether the students
who had studied for the earlier course were fit enough to be allowed to appear
for the examinations of the University of Rajasthan. The decision which was
E taken by the University was a bona fide decision after taking into account
the standard of teaching offered by the two appellant colleges. The action
was also supported by the State Government. The Central council of
Homoepathy bas also recognised these two colleges. The public interest was
not in any manner adversely affected by the impugned decision.

F The Students Council has now filed an affidavit disclosing its status
and its constitution. It does not disclose whether the Council was authorised
to file the present litigation, and if so, by whom; whether it has the funds to
indulge in this litigation and whether it had the backing of a majority of its
members for this litigation. Since on merits also we find that the action must
G fail, we are n_ot examining these questions any further except for the purpose
of indicating that such organisations, without disclosing any material regarding
their nature and functions and funding, should not be allowed lightly to
undertake litigation in the name of public interest which can cause a lot of
damage to others.

H In the present case, because of the litigation the students have not
B.H.C. v. STU. COUNCIL OF HOM OE. MEDICAL COLL. [SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.] 545
been able to complete their B.H.M.S. course for a number of years. Pursuant A
to the interim order these students have been permitted to appear for
examinations conducted in December, 1996 and the results have also been
declared. We direct that in accordance with the results so declared the
students may be allowed to continue/complete the B.H.M.S. course with the
University of Rajasthan in accordance with law and those who have qualified B
for the B.H.M.S. degree as per these results be granted the degree by the
University of Rajasthan.

The Civil Appeal Nos.16040 and 16041 of 1996 are, therefore, allowed.
The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and the
Original Writ petition filed before the High Court is dismissed with costs. C
The appeal arising from S.L.P.(C) No.2991/98 (cc 9141/97) and Writ
Petition No.81 of 1997 are also disposed of accordingly.

D

S.V.K.I. C.A. Nos. 16040 and 16041/
96 allowed C.A. No. 555/98 and E
petition 81/97 disposed of.