R. P. No. 85, 89, 88, 91, 96 and 9 of 1976

These review petitions are by the State. These petitions for review are based on the ground that the conclusion stated in Para.22 of our judgment in the writ petitions is inconsistent with the reasoning and discussion in regard to S.57 (4) of the University Act entered in Para.14 of the judgment. Discussing the vires of S.57 (4) of the Act in Para.14 of our judgment, we have stated that in view of the decision in 1969 KLT. 749 at page 772 which was confirmed on appeal in AIR. 1970 SC. 2079, which had upheld an almost similar provision, we would uphold S.57 (4). But in summarising our conclusion in Para.23 of the judgment we stated that only' sub-section (4) of S.57 is invalid. This is an obvious mistake which the State seeks to correct by these petitions. The petitions are well founded. We allow them, review our earlier judgment to this extent: that in Para.23, the concerned sentence will be substituted by a sentence to the effect that sub-section (4) of S.57 is valid. This was fairly conceded by the Counsel for the respondents (Petitioners in O.Ps) in the review petitions.

R.P.97/ 76 in OP. 387I/ 74-C and R. P. 98/76 in OP. 3801