EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF MEERUT COLLEGE, MEERUT & ORS. v. VICE CHANCELLO~ MEERUT UNIVERSITY, MEERUT & ANR.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

CHANDRACHUD, C.J. This appeal arises out of a judgment dated May 5, 1982 of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Allaha- B ba:d, dismissing the Writ petition filed by the .appellants against an order passed by Respondent I, the Vice-Chancellor, Meerut Univer- sity, Meerut. In an election held on May IO, 1981 to the Executive Committee of the M~erut College, Appellant 3, Shri J D Singbal, was elected as an Honorary Secretary. That election was set aside .C by the Vice-Chancellor on the ground that Shri J.D. Singhal's brother, Shri A.P Singhal, was a lecturer in the Law Department of the College and therefore the former was disqualified from being chosen as a member of the Executive Committee of the College. This disqualification is said to arise out of the provision of section 39 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, IO of 1973, herein- after referred to as "the Act". The High Court dismissed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the writ-petitioners had not exhausted their remedies, that is to say, that they bad not asked for a reference to the Chancellor of the University against the decision of the Vice-Chancellor, under section 68 of the Act That point does not survive any longer as the Chancellor bas confirmed the decision of the Vice-Chancellor.

The Meerut College, which is a post-graduate institution, is • ' affiliated to the Meerut University. In the year i973, the State Legislature passed the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 10 of 1973, in order to consolidate the various statutes which applied to the dilrerent Universities in the State. The Act regulates the affairs of the University and its affiliated and constituent Colleges. It pro- Vide&, inter alia, for the constitution of Committees of Management. Section 37 of the Act, which deals with the affiliation of Colleges, provides by sub-section (4) that the management of an affiliated college will have the power to manage and control the affairs of the <;oll!:ge and will be responsible for its maintenance and upkeep. Section 39 of the Act, which is directly in point provides for 'd.is· qualification for membership of management'. It reads thus :

"39. A person shall be disqualified for being cliosen as, and for being, a member,of the Management of an affiliated or associate.ct college (other than a college main- tained exclusively by the State Government or by local

• EXEctlTJ.VB COMMI'rT!m v. VICE CHANCELLOR (Chandrachud, C.J.) 625

authority) if he or his relative accepts any remuneration for any work in or for such college or any contract for the A supply of goods to or for the execution of any work for such college :

Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to the acceptance of any remuneration by a teacher as such or for any duties performed in connection with an examina- tion conducted by the college or for any duties as Super- intendent or Warden of a training unit or of a hall or hostel of the college or as proctor . or tutor or for any duties of a similar nature in relatioh to the college. c Explanation - The term 'relative' shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Explanation to section 20."

According to the Explanation to section 20, "relative" means the relations defined in section 6 of the Companies Act, 1956, and includes the wife's (or husband's) brother, wife's (or husband's) I) , father, wife's (or husband's) sister, brother's son and brother's

I' daughter. Section 6 of the Companies Act, 1956 provides :

A person shall be aeemed to be a relative of another if, and only if - (a) they are members of a Hindu undivi- E l • ded family; or (b) they are husband and wife; or (c) the ·~ one is related to the other in the manner indicated in~ Schedule IA."

Schedule IA cont;lins a list of twenty-two persons amongst whelm the brother is mentioned at serial No. 19.

The provisions of section 39 of the Act seem to us quite clear ' and they do not admit of any doubt. By that section, no person can '.I be chosen 'as a member of the management of an affiliated or associa- ted college if either he or his relative accepts any rell)uneration f()r any work in such college. It is common ground that a brother Of G Appellant 3 has been working as a Lecturer.in the Law Dep~rtll1ent of the Meerut College since July 10, 1972 and has been drawing remuneration in that capacity, Whatever may be the. resultlng:i11con- venience to Appeilant 3, the language of section 39 leaves ·no room for doubt that he is disqualified from being chosen as a member ·of the Management of the Meerut College, because his brother receives remuneration for the work done by him as a Lecturer in the Law Departll!ent of the College.

SUPREME COURT PEPOR'rS 11983) 2 s.c.R..

Shri S.N. Kacker, who . appears on behalf of the appellants, relies on the Proviso to section 39 and argues that cases in which remuneration is accepted by a relative in his capacity as a teacher are exempted from the operation of section 39 and since, Appellant 3's brother accepts remuneration from the college for the work which he does as a teacher in that College, Appellant 3 is not disqualified for being chosen as a member of the Management of the College. This B submission is only superficially attractive. By reason of the Proviso, the disqualification provided for by section 39 will not apply "to the acceptance of any remuneration by a teacher as such". What the proviso means is that a teacher shall not be disqualified for being chosen as a member of the Management of the College for the reason 0 that he accepts remuneration from the College in his capacity as a teacher. The object of the proviso is to enable the teachers of a college to become members of the Management of the college The exception carved out by the proviso cannot apply to cases like the present one in which the person elected to the Executive Committee of the college is not himself a teacher but whose relative is a teacher. D Teachers are saved from the disqualification, not their relatives. In this case, Appellant 3's brother will not incur the disqualification merely because he accepts remuneration as a teacher, He is protected by the Proviso. The disqualification is incurred by Appellant 3 because his brother, who is a teacher, accepts remuneration for the work done by him for the College. Appellant 3 is not protected E by the proviso. •

The proviso, thus interpreted, will give meaning to the provi- sions of Statute 13.05 of the Meerut University First Statutes, 1977, which were Published by a Notification dated April 20, 1977. Those F statutes were framed by the Government of U.P. in exericse of the powers conferred by sub-section (I} of section 50 of the Act. Statute 13.05 provides by clause (b) that the constitution of the Management of every college shall provide that "Twenty-five per-centum of the members of the Management are teachers (including the Principal)". '. G The Statutes ·were framed after the Act was passed and must reasonably be assumed to have been framed in furtherance of the provisions of the Act. The object of the proviso to section 39 is to exclude teachers as a class from the operation of the provision ·under which peFsons, who accept remuneration for the work done for a H college, are disqualified from being chosen as members of the Management of that college. Clause (b) of Statute 13.05 effectuates that purpose by providing that 25 percent of the members of the Management of a college shall be teachers. Recent refroms. in the

EltEctiT1VE coMMITTEE v. VICE CHA~lcELLOR (Chandrachud, C.J.) 62'1

sphere of education Jay consider~ble emphasis on the association of teachers with the management of institutions whose A success depends largely upon their· performance. That is why the proviso to section . 39 gives protection to the teachers al).d Statute 13.0S'Jilakes it obligatory that 25 percent of the members • of Management of a College shall be teachers. 'Granting protection to relatives of teachers, as canvassed by the appellants, is foreign to the very object of the proviso. Teachers can and ought to be on B .· _the _management bodies of educational institutions. Their 'relatives' are disqualified from being so chosen or appointed, the reason being that such relatives should not become a handy medium for distribut- ing favours and patronage to the teachers.

We find that by a judgment dated August 26, 1981 given in c Civil Misc. Writ No 11147 of 1980, ND. Ojha, J. of the Allahabad High Court has taken the same view as we have, of the proviso to s.39. We affirm that view.

We do not also see any substance iu the appellants' submission that section 39 of the Act is prospective in its operation in the sense that if a person was a teacher prior to the date when the Act came into force, his relativ; will not be disqualified even if he is elected after the coming into force of the Act. While interpreting a statute, we must have regard to the substance of the matter and hypertechni- cal considerations should be ruled out. Then again, the interpretation should, as far as possible, further the object of the statute. The mere circumstance that section 39 uses a verb in the present tense, namely, "accepts", will not justify the conclusion that the 1ection will apply to those cases only wherein the remuneration is accepted by the teacher for the first time after the Act came into force. The section, on its terms, must apply even to those cases in which a teacher has been accepting remuneration prior to the date on which the Act came into force, with the result that the relative of such a teacher cannot ' l be chosen as a member of the management of the college. The judg- ment dated August 12, 1981 rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 8647 of 1980 G which takes the view that section 39 is prospective in operation in the sense projected by the learned counsel for the appellants is, with respect, not correct.

We are informed by Shri Kacker that a Division Bench of the II Allahabad High Court has taken a view of the proviso to section 39 contrary to that of Ojha J. ·counsel urges that the Vice-Chancallor and Chancellor of the University were bound by the ruling of the

--·lli""-"'':!lt:f,;I""--'

.628 SUPJJ.EM\l COURT REPORTS (1983] 2 s.c.a. Division Bench. We are not sure that there is any contrary judgment A of the High Court on the interpretation of the Proviso. If there is any such judgment, it is not good law.

For these reasons we dismiss the appeal. Parties will bear their own costs We hope that the vacancy caused by the disqualification • incurred by appellant 3, Shri·J.D. Singhal, will be filled at an early · B date in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Statutes_.

H.L.C Appeal. dismissed.