Orissa High Court
Amulya Sikandar vs Registrar on 26 June, 2025
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.21729 of 2024
An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India
Amulya Sikandar .... Petitioner
-Versus-
Registrar, Utkal University of .... Opposite Parties
Culture, Sanskruti Vihar,
Bhubaneswar and others
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. Asit Kumar Chaudhury, Advocate
For Opp. Parties: Mr. Anshuram Mishra, Advocate
(for O.P. Nos.1 and 2)
Mr. S.S. Das, Advocate
(for O.P. No.3)
W.P.(C) No.21727 of 2024
An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India
Prabhat Behera and another .... Petitioners
-Versus-
Registrar, Utkal University of .... Opposite Parties
Culture, Sanskruit Vihar,
Bhubaneswar and others
Page 1 of 6
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. Asit Kumar Chaudhury, Advocate
For Opp. Parties: Mr. Anshuram Mishra, Advocate
(for O.P. Nos.1 and 2)
Mr. S.S. Das, Advocate
(for O.P. No.3)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
JUDGMENT
26.06.2025
PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.
The students are knocking at the doors of Writ Court
complaining that the opposite parties are not permitting
them to take the academic examinations in the Visual Art
course and therefore they having been admitted to the
course duly and they having made all the payments, a
direction should be issued both to the University and to the
W.P.(C) Nos.21729 & 21727 of 2024 Page 2 of 6
College to regularize their course and permit them to take
the imminent examination concerned.
2. Learned panel counsel appearing for the University
opposes the petition contending that the Academic Council
of the University in question vide Resolution No.174 dated
26.03.2015 has upwardly revised the age limit to 35 years
from earlier 23 years for gaining admission to the course in
question; both the petitioners having crossed the age limit
got the admission at the hands of College in question and
therefore their admissions have rightly not been approved
by the University. He also contends that the Academic
Council being the academic body has power to prescribe
conditions of the kind and the judicial institution has to
respect the same since ordinarily it does not have academic
expertise in matters, like this.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the petition papers, we decline indulgence
in the matter inasmuch as the Resolution dated 26.03.2015
of the Council comes in the way of University approving
W.P.(C) Nos.21729 & 21727 of 2024 Page 3 of 6
admission of candidates to the course in question if they are
not within the age limit of 35 years. Admittedly, one
petitioner was 36 year old and the other 42 year old as on
the date of admission.
4. Learned panel counsel appearing for the University to
which College in question is affiliated, brings to our notice
the provision of Section 20 of the Utkal University of
Culture Act, 1999, which apparently shows power vested in
the Academic Council to prescribe inter alia the condition of
age. Added petitioners have not laid challenge to the
Resolution in question which partakes the character of a
delegated legislation/subordinate legislation in the realm of
Administrative Law.
5. The vehement submission of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners that the College having
admitted his clients to the course in question after
accepting the requisite fees, University is bound to approve
their admissions is bit difficult to countenance. Firstly,
approving authority is not the College but the University.
W.P.(C) Nos.21729 & 21727 of 2024 Page 4 of 6
Secondly, there is no estoppel against law. If College has
committed an error it is for the students to take action in
tort or otherwise seeking damages or such other relief as
the law may provide. For the fault of College, University
cannot be asked to do something which its policy does not
permit. It hardly needs to be stated that no writ can be
issued in violation of law, the word “law” being meant in its
generic sense.
6. We also examined whether the prescription of upper
age limit to 35 years is prima facie sustainable. The
prescription is by an academic body which has expertise in
matters of the kind. In prescribing such conditions, a host
of factors enter the fray and they are not amenable to
judicial evaluation. The Apex Court in B.C. Mylarappa vs.
R. Venkatasubbaiah, (2008) 14 SCC 306 has held that the
Courts should respect the decisions of expert bodies in
general and academic bodies in particular.
W.P.(C) Nos.21729 & 21727 of 2024 Page 5 of 6
In the above circumstances, both the petitions, being
devoid of merits, are liable to be dismissed and accordingly
it is, costs having been made easy.
Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to take
appropriate proceedings against the erring College in
accordance with law. All contentions in that regards are
kept over.
Dixit Krishna Shripad
Judge
Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 26th June, 2025/Jyostna/Radha
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: RADHARANI JENA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 30-Jun-2025 17:08:28
W.P.(C) Nos.21729 & 21727 of 2024 Page 6 of 6