ORDER
R.S. Garg, J.
1. The petitioner working as a Lecturer with Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (for short `IGKV'), being desirous of higher studies, made an application to the respondent No. 2 that she be permitted to go for the Ph. D. Course with the respondent No. 1 Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur (for short 'JNKVV'). The petitioner made an application to the respondent No. 1, but the said application was not considered by the respondent No. 1, therefore, Dr. K. C. Gupta wrote a letter to the Directorate of Instructions of JNKVV. In response to the said letter on 10-7-98, the Director of Instructions informedsaid Dr. K. C. Gupta that in accordance with the brief information booklet, specially clause 11, a candidate having two degrees from JNKVV cannot be considered for admission to Ph. D. degree of the University and as the petitioner was already holding two degrees viz.; B. V. Sc. & A.H. and M. V. Sc. & A. H. from the University, she was not considered for admission in the Ph. D. programme of the University. Being aggrieved by the communication and non-consideration of the petitioner's candidature for Ph. D. programme, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the reliefs that paragraph 11 of the said booklet filed at Annexure P/5 be declared to be contrary to law and not affecting the rights of the petitioner, directing the respondents to allow the admission to the petitioner under Veterinary Pa-thology-Ph. D. programme. According to the petitioner, the respondents have not passed any resolution putting such an embargo or creating an impediment in exercise of the rights of the candidates/students in accordance with Section 27(9) read with Clause 56(1) of Statute No. 56, therefore, the respondents are not entitled to reject the candidature of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, it is only the Board/Academic Council of the University which according to the provisions of the Act shall have the executive authority and who subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by or under the provisions of the JNKVV Act, 1963 and the statutes exercise the powers. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that as the provisions for control of admission do not contain any restriction against the persons who have obtained two degrees from the respondent/University, the respondents are not entitled to reject the candidature of the petitioner.
2. The respondents, in their return, have submitted that Indian Council of Agricultural Research (For short 'ICAR') had issued certain guidelines on 19-7-89 vide Annexure R/l and made recommendations to all the Agricultural Universities that to avoid intellectual inbreeding, the University must observe that where a person/candidate had already obtained two degrees from one University, he should not be allowed a third degree from the same Uni versity. According to them, these recommendations were in fact in nature of mandatory instructions or mandatory directions and the respondent No. I/Universitywas bound by it. Referring to Annexure R/2, a letter dated 19-1-90, issued by the Registrar of the University to the Director of Instruction, it is sought to be contended that the recommendations dated 19th July, 89 were accepted by the Board of Management, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to be considered for Ph. D. programme. Reference was also made to Annexure R/3 to contend that vide letter dated 16-9-98, the Registrar of the University has clearly issued the instructions on the strength of some resolution passed by the Council that existing rule debarring admissions to such candidates who have two degrees from the same University should be strictly adhered to. On strength of this communication, it was contended that althrough the University authorities had been observing the said recommendations made by the ICAR. It was lastly contended that as the University has made its own rules for the purposes of admissions, the petitioner has no right.
3. In reply to the allegations made in the return and the arguments submitted before this Court, learned counsel for petitioner submits that from a perusal of Annexure R/1, it would appear that no mandatory directions were issued by that ICAR and in fact ICAR had made the recommendations only. It was further contended that the Board being the authority which has to make the rules controlling or regulating admissions was duty bound to pass a resolution in accordance with Annexure R/1, but as it has not made/passed any such resolution, it cannot be held that, the recommendations as contained in Annexure R/l were accepted or adopted by the respondent No, 1. Referring to Annexure R/2, it was submitted that the respondent No. 1 /University had simply) kept the recommendations of ICAR in their 118 th meeting and had simply said that the study leave should be granted to those teachers of JNKVV who wish to study for Ph. D. programme's in other agricultural universities. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the respondent- university had never adopted the recommendations nor hac passed any resolution, therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be held that the action of the respondent-university is in accordance with law I have heard the parties at length.
4. Section 27 of JNKVV Act provides that the Board shall be executive authority of the Vishwa Vidyalaya and shall, subject to such conditionas may be prescribed by or under the provisions of the Act the statutes exercise the powers and perform the duties as provided under Section 27. Clause (9) of Section 27 provides that the Board shall have powers to make' provisions for the control of admission, conduct and discipline of the students of the Vishwa Vidyalaya and make arrangment for promoting their health and general welfare. Statute 56 provides that the minimum f academic attainment for admission to a college of the Vishwa Vidyalaya shall be laid down by the Vishwa Vidyalaya Board as accepted under Clause (1) of Statute 57.
5. A juxta pose reading of Section 27 with Statute 56 would clearly show that the Board has absolute powers to make regulations for admissions and regulate the admissions. Submission of learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that ICAR being the Apex Body is entitled to issue instructions cannot be accepted. A university is a creation of a statute. It is controlled and governed by the provisions of law, the statutes made and the regulations provided for. Unless ICAR has some controlling power over the Universities in the country or this State, it cannot make regulations controlling admissions for the universities. From Annexure R/l, it would clearly appear that ICAR knowing well its limitations and bounds did not issue any mandatory directions or instructions. The opening words of Annexure R/l clearly provide that the ICAR Review Committee headed by Dr. G.V.K. Rao has made certain recommendations. Had ICAR certain powers either in its own constitution or under the Universities Act, then instead of making the recommendations, it could have straight way issued the directions to the authorities/universities. The recommendations as contained in Annexure R/1 read as under:-
'The Committee learns that a large number of graduates and post-graduates in Agriculture have acquired degrees from one University and arc also employed by the same University. This has led to a tremendous amount of intellectual inbreeding. In the view of the Committee, this should be avoided. The committee, therefore, recommends that the SAUs should encourage their students and teachers to obtain at least one of the degrees from other Agricultural Universities. The SAUs may also reserve 25% of the seats in post-graduate programmes for candidates fromoutside the State. The ICAR should also encourage the candidates to obtain a post-graduate degree from a University other than the one where a candidate had obtained the under-graduate degree or the post-graduate degree.'
6. The letter further reads that the recommendations has been accepted for implementation with the approval of the Union Minister of Agriculture who is the President of ICAR Society. According to letter, a request was made to the university to review and revise suitably the admission policy of the SAU under the control of respondent so that the recommendations could be implemented. From the letter, it would clearly appear that the ICAR was making the recommendations with a request to review and revise the admission policy. The ICAR did not exercise its statutory authority, but simply gave a parental advise so that the intellectual inbreeding could be avoided. Annexure R/2, the letter written by the Registrar of the University to the Director of: Institutions does nowhere say that the recommendations made by the ICAR were ever accepted by the University or a resolution in conformity with the said recommendations was passed by the Board. The letter in the first part refers to the recommendations made by the ICAR and further says that the said recommendations were placed for consideration in 118th meeting of the Board. According to letter, the Board was of the opinion and had resolved that the study leave should be granted to those teachers of JNKVV who were to study for Ph. D. programme in the agricultural universities other than JNKVV. The submission of the respondents that the recommendations made by the ICAR were adopted by them or a resolution in relation to the same was made is not to be found in letter dated 19-1-90. Nothing prevented the university from producing a copy of resolution by which the recommendations made in R71 were accepted and adopted or resolved. Non-filing of such a resolution would simply show that no such resolution was ever passed by the Board of the University. The second part of the letter Annexure R/2 is a matter of policy in JNKVV itself. It cannot control the other universities. According to resolution, the University was of the opinion that if their teachers wanted study leave for higher studies, then study leave could be granted to them if they were to go for Ph. D. programme in any other agricultural university. Even otherwise JNKVV is not entitled under the law to make any resolution for any other university. It cannot control the respondent No. 2 by saying that respondent No. 2 should not grant study leave to the petitioner.
7. Annexure R/3 is a letter issued by the Registrar of the University to the Director of Instructions. In para 2, it states that the Council further emphasized that the existing rule debar ring admission to such candidates who have two degrees from the same Vishwavidyalaya should be strictly adhered to.
8. It is to be seen from the documents that Annexure P/6 was sent to the petitioner's father on 10-7-98 and almost after two months of the said communication, Annexure R/3 came into existence. Be that as it may, but the respondent No. 1 is not relieved of its duties to satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court that some resolution in accordance with the recommendations was made by respondent No. 1. The reference to the anxiety of the Council in Annexure R/3 would not cut much ice because the Council could make a recommendation in accordance with the resolutions made by it. If the Council or the Registrar issues certain instructions which are not in accordance with the resolutions or have no legal foundation, then it may at best be an anxiety for development or creation of the good academic character, but such anxiety would not bo equivalent to a legal direction. In the present case, the respondents have nowhere said that the Bo ard of the University/Academic Council ever adopted the recommendations. If the said recommendations were not adopted, then the recommendations are only paper instructions and cannot b e used against the petitioner. From Annexure R'2, it would only appear that keeping in view the recommendations made by ICAR, the Board of Management of the University decided that the study leave should be granted to those teachers of JNKVV who wish to prosecute their studies for Ph. D. programmes in some other university. It appears that the respondent No. I/ university instead of adopting the recommendations in full, simply observed and in accordance with their understanding passed the resolution that study leave should be given only if the teacher employed with JNKVV wants to go for Ph. D. programme in some other university. The submission of learned counsel for respondentsthat in accordance with their resolution, they were entitled to reject the candidature of the petitioner is contrary to law. The respondents are not entitled to reject the candidature of the petitioner nor can refuse to consider her application for admission in Ph. D. programme.
9. The petition deserves to and is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for her admission to Ph. D. programme in the subject offered by her. They are further directed to take their decision and communicate the same to the petitioner within four weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs.
10. C. C. within a week, if applied on urgent charges.