The Vice-Chancellor of a university does not have the power to repeal ordinances under the emergency powers granted by Section 12(5) of the Jodhpur University Act, 1962, as the procedure for making and repealing ordinances is clearly laid out in Section 24 of the Act.

( 1 ) BOTH these special appeals are filed by the University of Jodhpur and they are directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated May 27, 1976. Since common questions of law are involved and the cases are based almost on identical facts, we propose to dispose them of by one judgment.

( 2 ) RESPONDENTS Bajrang Singh and Ramchandra Sharma appeared at the First year and Third year L. L. B. Examination of the University of Jodhpur held in the months of June. 1975. Bajrang Singh failed in paper I namely, law of Contract, by two marks, while Ramchandra was declared unsuccessful, as he could not secure the requisite number of aggregate marks prescribed by the Ordinance though he passed in all the papers Individually. Both these students applied to the University for the re-evaluation of their two papers each", but their request was turned down by the University Authorities and they were not even supplied by the University the prescribed forms for seeking re-evaluation of their answer-books. This attitude of the University was challenged by these two respondents by preferring two separate writ petitions before this Court. Those writ petitions came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge, who, by his judgment dated May 27, 1976, quashed the notification issued by the Vice-Chancellor dated 24/25-4-1975, whereby the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of the powers vested in him under Section 12 (5) of the Jodhpur University Act, 1962, repealed the Ordinances governing the re-evaluation and re-assessment of answer-books, and declared that the petitioners Bajrang Singh and Ramchandra sharma were entitled to get their answer-books re-evaluated under Ordinance no. 368.

( 3 ) MR. Agarwal, appearing on behalf of the appellant-University, has urged that the learned Judge has erred in quashing the impugned notification including the declaration of the University that a scheme of double evaluation system of answer-books was introduced from the examination of 1975 in all the faculties except B. E. I, II and III (First Semester) Examination of 1975. According to Mr. Agarwal the University has power to introduce any system of evaluation of answer book and that system cannot be challenged by the students. In the instant case it is contended by Mr. Agarwal that the students did not actually challenge the system of double evaluation of answer-books introduced by the university, nor was there any prayer sought for questioning such a system still the learned single Judge quashed that part of the impugned Notification which related to the introduction of the system of double evaluation of answer-books. He also argued that the Vice-Chancellor has been clothed by the Legislature with the emergency powers to meet the need of the emergency and it was in the exercise of that power under Section 12 (5) of the Jodhpur University Act that the Ordinance relating to the re-evaluation and re-assessment of answer books was repealed by him. In these circumstances, according to Mr. Agarwal, students cannot pray for the re-evaluation of their answer-books after the ordinance No. 368 was repealed by the Vice-Chancellor by issuing the impugned notification under Section 12 (5) of the Act.

( 4 ) MR. Bhargava, appearing on behalf of the students, on the other hand pleaded that the Vice-Chancellor under the Emergency power of Section 12 (5)of the Act, cannot exercise the legislative function of enacting or repealing the ordinances for which an elaborate procedure has been prescribed by the jodhpur University Act, 1962 (hereinafter called the Act ). He, therefore, argued that the repeal of Ordinance No. 368 by issuing the impugned notification dated 24/25-4-1975 is obviously ultra vires the powers of the Vice Chancellor and in such circumstances, the students could demand the re-evaluation of their answer-books in the two papers each, because the Ordinance 368 was not properly repealed by the authorities mentioned in the Act. Mr. Bhargawa, howeve