Kerala High Court
Vijayakumar V vs The Kannur University on 9 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 18TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 18406 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
1 VIJAYAKUMAR V
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNAN.V., MEMBER SENATE, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, THAVAKKARA ,
CIVIL STATION P.O., KANNUR-670 002, RESDING AT NAYAIKUTTIPARA HOUSE,
PULLUR P.O., ANANDHASHRAM VIA, KASARGOD DISTRICT
2 DR.SHINO.P.JOSE,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. JOSE, MEMBER, ACADEMIC COUNCIL (MANAGEMENT STUDIES), KANNUR
UNIVERSITY, THAVAKKARA , CIVIL STATION P.O., KANNUR-670 002, RESIDING
AT PALAKKAL HOUSE, RAJAPURAM P.O., KASARGOD DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
NISHA GEORGE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, THAVAKKARA, CIVIL STATION P.O.,KANNUR-
670 002
2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
KANNUR UNIVERSITY, THAVAKKARA , CIVIL STATION P.O., KANNUR-670 002
3 THE CHANCELLOR,
KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KERALA RAJ BHAVAN, KERALA GOVERNOR'S CAMP P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009, E-MAIL:[email protected]
4 THE SYNDICATE,
KANNUR UNIVERSITY, THAVAKKARA , CIVIL STATION P.O., KANNUR-670
002,REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR
5 MAHESH.T.
(CHAIRPERSON), ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NAM
COLLEGE, KALLIKKANDY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 693
6 SANTHOSH.C.,
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT BRENNEN
COLLEGE, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 101
WP(C) NO. 18406 OF 2021
2
7 HARIDAS.K.V.,
DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR , SBI, (RETD) ELAMBACHI P.O.,
THRIKKARIPUR, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671 310
8 SOJI.M.SEBASTIAN,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, E.K.NAYANAR
MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT COLLEGE, ELERITHATTU, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671
314
9 SEENA.P.C.
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT COLLEGE,
MANANTHAWAD, WAYANAD DISTRICT-670 645
10 JINCE JOSEPH
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, E.K.NARAYANAR
MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT COLLEGE, ELERITHATTU, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671
314
11 AMUTHA.R.,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, SREE NARAYANA
COLLEGE, THOTTADA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670 007
12 ANIL CHANDRAN.S.,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, P.R.N.S.S.COLLEGE,
MATTANUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 702
13 GEETHA.C.,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, MAHATMAGANDHI
COLLEGE, IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 703
14 MIDHUN KRISHNANP.B.,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, P.R.N.S.S.COLLEGE,
MATTANUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 702
15 BABU.P.V.,
(CHAIRPERSON, P.G.BOARD), ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT BRENNEN COLLEGE, THALASSERY, KANNUR
DISTRICT-670 101
16 SAJITHKUMAR.P.,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, GOVINDA PAI
MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT COLLEGE, MANJESHWAR , KASARGOD DISTRICT-671
323
17 RAVIDRAN.K.V.,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT BRENNEN
COLLEGE, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 101
WP(C) NO. 18406 OF 2021
3
18 DR.K.ABUL SALAM
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT COLLEGE,
MANANTHAWADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT-670 645
19 DR.SAJITH .M.,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT COLLEGE,
MANANTHAWADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT-670 645
20 JAYANTHY.K.C.,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, P.R.N.S.S.COLLEGE,
MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 702
21 BHUPESH.T.K.,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, SREE NARAYANA
COLLEGE, THOTTADA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670 007
22 REJITHA.P.R.
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, SREE NARAYANA
COLLEGE, THOTTADA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670 007
23 DR.SREEJESH.S.
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT, INDIAN
INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, IIMK CAMPUS P.O., KUNNAMANGALAM,
KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT-673570
24 SHAJI.E.V.,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, ,P.R.N.S.S.
COLLEGE, MATTANUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670702
25 SUMERSH.P.C.
(CHAIRPERSON, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT
STUDIES, SREE NARAYANA COLLEGE, THOTTADA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-
670 007
26 DR.REHIN.K.R.,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, MAHATMA
GANDHI COLLEGE, IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670N703
27 GREESHMA.A.,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, MAHATMA GANDHI
COLLEGE, IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670703
28 BINDU.K.,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT BRENNEN
COLLEGE, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 101
WP(C) NO. 18406 OF 2021
4
29 INDU.P.
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT BRENNEN
COLLEGE, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 101
30 DR.SHACHEENDRAN.V.,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, GOVINDA PAI
MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT COLLEGE, MANJESHWAR, KASARGOD DISTRCT-671
323
31 ARUN.K.V.,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, SREE NARAYANA
COLLEGE,THOTTADA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670 007
32 DR.VIGI.V.NAIR,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, PAYYANNUR
COLLEGE, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 307
33 SHAMNA.K.,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, STEMS
COLLEGE, MORAZHA, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 331
34 SASHITHA.T.
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES,
TALIPARAMBA ARTS & SCIENCE COLLEGE, KANHIRANGAD, KANNUR
DISTRICT-670 142
35 DR.U.FAISAL (CHAIRPERSON,P.G BOARD)
PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, DR.JANAKI AMMA
CAMPUS, PALAYAD, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 101
36 ANISH KUMAR
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, DR.JANAKI
AMMA CAMPUS, PALAYAD , THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 101
37 DR.KRISHNA PRIYA
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, DR.JANAKI
AMMA CAMPUS, PALAYAD , THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 101
38 KARTHIKEYAN.P.,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, DR.JANAKI
AMMA CAMPUS, PALAYAD , THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 101
39 DR.M.V.SIVAKUMAR,
DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF CO-OPERATIVE MANAGEMENT,
PARASSINIKKADAVU, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 563
WP(C) NO. 18406 OF 2021
5
40 NISA JAMES,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, DR.JANAKI
AMMA CAMPUS, PALAYAD , THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 101
41 JASEELA THANIKKAD
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT COLLEGE,
MANANTHAWADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT-670 645
42 SUMI VIJAYAN
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT COLLEGE,
KASARGOD DISTRICT-671 121
43 MEERA.S.
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, DR.JANAKI
AMMA CAMPUS, PALAYAD , THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 101
44 DR.SUJESH.C.P.,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, RSM SNDP
YOGAM COLLEGE, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT-673 305
BY ADVS.
K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, COUNSEL FOR THE CHANCELLOR OF
UNIVERSITIES IN KERALA
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT M U VIJAYALEKSHMI , SRI M SASINDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.09.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 18406 OF 2021
6
JUDGMENT
The notification dated 11.8.2021, Ext.P1 promulgated by
Kannur University reconstituting the tenure of Board of Studies
for a period of two years has been challenged on behalf of two
petitioners. 1st petitioner and 2nd petitioner are stated to be an
Assistant Professors in Nehru Arts and Science College-
Kanhangad, and in St.Pius X College, Kasargod respectively,
affiliated to the Kannur University. Both petitioners are elected
member in the academic council of management studies of the
respondent university. Being members of authorities of the
University, the petitioners were equally involved and interested
in the proper administration of the University and aggrieved of
the notification Ext.P1, approached this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
2. The Board of Studies of 70 Boards of the respondent
University was reconstituted in 2018 and earlier strictly as
mandated under Statute IV Chapter XIII of the Kannur
University First Statute r/w. Section 30 of the Kannur University
Act (hereinafter called '1996 Act') for a period of two years,
WP(C) NO. 18406 OF 2021
Ext.P2. The Board of Studies of the University is required to be
reconstituted as per Ext.P2 and not by any other mode, which
would definitely warrant interference on account of the
illegalities.
3. Section 18 of the 1996 Act has identified the
authorities of the University. From the perusal of the same, it
discerned that the Senate and Academic Council as well as
Board of Studies are the important authorities of the University.
4. Section 30 of the Act deals with powers and functions
of the Board of Studies which derived from the statutes. Clause
4 of the Chapter XIII of the Board of Studies prescribes the
nomination of Chairman and Member of Board of Studies which
shall be nominated by the 'Chancellor'. The number of such
members shall not be less than 5 or more than 11. The
reconstitution of the Board of Studies by the Vice Chancellor is
ex-facie illegal and liable to be set aside as the power has been
conferred on the Chancellor.
5. Even on examination of persons nominated will
abundantly demonstrate the deviation of requirements of law.
WP(C) NO. 18406 OF 2021
Statute 5 of Chapter XIII prescribes that there is a statutory
prohibition in appointing persons as a member of Board of
Studies unless he/she is a 'teacher' of, or has special knowledge
in the subject or one of the subjects with which the Board is
concerned.
6. In support of the aforementioned contentions, para 7
of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in
Raju K.Thomas and Another v. Union of India (2017 KHC
4851) and similar lines in Joseph v. Bar Council of Kerala
(2017 (4) KLT 514) have been relied. 11.57
7. On the contrary, Adv.M.Sasindran learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Kannur University opposed the
aforementioned contentions by raising following objections.
1. Locus standi of the petitioners by relying upon
Section 3 of the Kannur University Act as the
Chancellor, Pro-Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, Pro-
Vice-Chancellor and members of the Senate,
Syndicate and the Academic Council shall constitute a
body corporate by the name the 'Kannur University'.
WP(C) NO. 18406 OF 2021
Therefore, the petitioner being a member of the
Senate, cannot challenge the action of the University.
2. The Board of Studies has been constituted strictly
as per the provisions of sub clause (xvi) of Section 25
of 1996 Act where the Syndicate has been authorized
to appoint the members to the Board of Studies.
3. Regulation emphatically relied upon by the
petitioners would not have a pervasive effect on the
applicability of the statutory provisions as they are
carved out by exercising the powers under Section 37,
Chapter V of 1996 Act. The statute can provide for all
or any of the following matters, namely the powers
and duties of the officers of the University, not
specifically provided for in this Act etc.
4. The procedure for making statutes has been
envisaged under Section 38 of 1996 Act. It is settled
law that the bye laws would not have a statutory
favour, if there is a conflict between the statute and
subordinate legislation. In support of the
WP(C) NO. 18406 OF 2021
aforementioned contentions, the following judgments
have been relied upon:
a. Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants Co-
op. Bank Ltd. (1984 KHC 14) [Para: 15]
b. Veena Kumari Tandon v. Neelam Bhalla and
Others (2007 KHC 4139) [Para: 12]
c. Jagdish prasad Sharma and Others v. State of
Bihar and Others (2013 KHC 4564) [Para: 57,
64]
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
appraised the paper book. Before dealing with the rival
contention of the parties, it would be expedient to extract
certain provisions of the Act and Regulations. Section 3(1) and
sub clause (xvi) of Section 25 of 1996 Act reads thus:
3.The University:- (1) The Chancellor, the Pro-Chancellor, the
Vice-Chancellor, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor and the members of the
Senate, the Syndicate and the Academic Council, for the time being,
shall constitute a body corporate by the name the 'Kannur
University'.
Section 25. Powers of Syndicate:- Subject to the provisions of this
Act and the Statues, the executive powers of the University,
including the general superintendence and control over the
institutions of the University, shall be vested in the Syndicate and
subject likewise the Syndicate shall have the following powers,
namely:-
WP(C) NO. 18406 OF 2021
xxxxx
1.xvi. to appoint members to the Boards of Studies;
On perusal of the same, it is evident that petitioners are the
elected senators of the University and therefore cannot espouse
the grievance on the basis of the alleged cause of action
challenging the action of the University as they are the part of
the University. Clause 4 of the Chapter XIII of the Board of
Studies carved out from the statutes of the University reads
thus:
4. Nomination of Chairman and Member of Board of
Studies:- The Chairman and Members of the Boards of Studies
shall be nominated by the Chancellor. The number of such
members shall not be less than 5 or more than 11.
On plain and simple reading of the aforementioned
provisions of the Statutory Act ie., sub clause (xvi) of Section
25, it is the Syndicate of the University which would have power
to appoint members to the Boards of Studies. The gist of Ext.P1
notification is as follows:
Sub: Reconstitution of 71 Boards of Studies and Constitution of
the new Board of Biochemistry & Bioinformatics (U.G.) - Reg.
Ref. The Resolution of the Meeting of the Syndicate held on 11-
6-2021. vide Item No.2021.321
It is hereby notified for the information of all concerned that the
Syndicate of Kannur University is pleased to reconstitute the
Seventy One Boards of Studies and to constitute a new Board of
WP(C) NO. 18406 OF 2021
Studies in Biochemistry and Bioinformatics (U.G.) of Kannur
University by appointment under Section 25 (Clause xvi) of the
Chapter IV of the Kannur University Act, 1996
The tenure of the reconstituted Boards of Studies and the newly
constituted Board of Studies in Biochemistry & Bioinformatics
(U.G.) will be two years w.e.f. 11-6-2021 (the date of entering
upon office). The List, showing the details of the Chairmen &
Members of the various Boards appointed, is attached herewith
and the same is available on the official website of the
University (www.kannuruniversity.ac.in) also.
On perusal of the same, it is evident that Syndicate of the
University reconstituted 71 Boards of Studies as per the
provisions of sub clause (xvi) of Section 25 of the 1996 Act for a
period of two years with effect from 11.6.2021. Reliance to para
7 of the judgment in Raju K. Thomas (supra) as well as
Joseph v. Bar Council of Kerala (supra) on behalf of the
petitioners would not come to the rescue as there is no
repugnancy in the provisions of the Act for the simple reasons
the Act would have a statutory force and not the statutes by
deriving the power under Sections 37 and 38 of the Act. Section
38 deals with the procedure for making statutes which also
vested to the Syndicate. Sub Section (1) of Section 38 of the
1996 Act reads as under:
1.38. Procedure for making Statutes:-
(1) The Syndicate may of its own motion take into
WP(C) NO. 18406 OF 2021
consideration the draft of a Statute. [Provided that in any such
case, before a statute is passed the syndicate shall obtain and
consider the opinion of the Academic Council, where necessary,
on academic matters]
9. The law on powers of the statute viz-a-viz Rules is no
longer res integra in view of the findings rendered in
paragraphs 15, 12, 57 and 64 of the judgments cited above at
Sl.Nos.a, b and c on behalf of the respondents. The same reads
thus:
Para 15[Babaji (supra)]: Sec. 73B provides a legislative
mandate. Rule 61 has a status of subsidiary legislation or
delegated legislation. Bye-law of a co-operative society can at
best have the status of an Article of Association of a company
governed by the Companies Act, 1956 and as held by this Court
in Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. and others v. Additional
Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh and Others the bye-laws of
a co-operative society framed in pursuance of the provision of
the relevant Act cannot be held to be law or to have the force of
law. They are neither statutory in character nor they have
statutory flavour so as to be raised to the status of law. Now if
there is any conflict between a statute and the subordinate
legislation, it does not require elaborate reasoning to firmly
state that the statute prevails over subordinate legislation and
the bye-law if not in conformity with the statute in order to give
effect to the statutory provision the rule or bye-law has to be
ignored. The statutory provision has precedence and must be
complied with. Further the opinion of the Deputy Registrar as
expressed in his circular dated February 1, 1979 and his letter
dated June 4, 1979 has no relevance because his lake of
knowledge or misunderstanding of law as expressed in his
opinion has no relevance. The High Court relying upon the
aforementioned two documents observed as under:
"There is no inconsistency between Section 73B and the bye-
laws because even the Government has construed Section 73B in
such manner that even though the bye- laws are not amended
WP(C) NO. 18406 OF 2021
and reserved seats remain unfilled by election the same can be
filled up by co-option."
With respect, we find it difficult to subscribe to this untenable
approach that a view of law or a legal provision expressed by a
Government Officer can afford reliable basis or even guidance in
the matter of construction of a legislative measure. It is the
function of the Court to construe legislative measures and in
reaching the correct meaning of a statutory provision, opinion of
executive branch is hardly relevant. Nor can the Court abdicate
in favour of such opinion.
Paragraph 12. [Veena Kumari Tandon (supra)]Section 27 of
1960 Act in no unmistakable terms provides for one member -
one vote. It is one thing to say that the object behind the slogan
'one family one vote, may be otherwise laudable, but what is
necessary to be seen is as to whether the said concept has any
root in the Act. If, the Legislative Act provides for the concept of
'one person one vote', no bye-law can create another concept so
as to defeat the legislative object. Bye-law provides for a
member's right to be allotted flats in the name of his family
members; but the same would not mean that under no
circumstances more than one member of a family cannot become
member of the society. A difference between ownership of flat
and membership must be kept in mind. When one member of the
family within the meaning of Bye-Law 19
(iii) applies for allotment of another flat, he/she may be asked
to disclose the details in regard to allotment of flat in favour of
any other member of the family. But if the members of the family
have been allotted flat or admitted to the membership of the
Society, for the purpose of exercising the right to vote the
statutory provisions shall apply.
Paragraph 57 and 64 [Jagdish prasad Sharma (supra)]
57. To some extent there is an air of redundancy in the prayers
made on behalf of the Respondents in the submissions made
regarding the applicability of the scheme to the State and its
universities, colleges and other educational institutions. The
elaborate arguments advanced in regard to the powers of the
UGC to frame such Regulations and/or to direct the increase in
the age of teachers from 62 to 65 years as a condition precedent
for receiving aid from the UGC, appears to have little relevance
to the actual issue involved in these cases. That the Commission
WP(C) NO. 18406 OF 2021
is empowered to frame Regulations under Section 26 of the UGC
Act, 1956, for the promotion and coordination of university
education and for the determination and maintenance of
standards of teaching, examination and research, cannot be
denied. The question that assumes importance is whether in the
process of framing such Regulations, the Commission could alter
the service conditions of the employees which were entirely
under the control of the States in regard to State institutions.
The authority of the Commission to frame Regulations with
regard to the service conditions of teachers in the centrally-
funded educational institutions is equally well established. As
has been very rightly done in the instant case, the acceptance of
the scheme in its composite form has been left to the discretion
of the State Governments. The concern of the State
Governments and their authorities that the UGC has no authority
to impose any conditions with regard to its educational
institutions is clearly unfounded. There is no doubt that the
Regulations framed by the UGC relate to Entry 66 List I of the
Constitution in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, but it
does not empower the Commission to alter any of the terms and
conditions of the enactments by the States under Article 309 of
the Constitution. Under Entry 25 of List III, the State is entitled
to enact its own laws with regard to the service conditions of the
teachers and other staff of the universities and colleges within
the State and the same will have effect unless they are
repugnant to any central legislation.
64. We are inclined to agree with such submission mainly
because of the fact that in the amended provisions of Section
67(a) it has been categorically stated that the age of
superannuation of non-teaching employees would be 62 years
and, in no case, should the period of service of such non-
teaching employees be extended beyond 62 years. A difference
had been made in regard to the teaching faculty whose services
could be extended up to 65 years in the manner laid down in the
University Statutes. There is no ambiguity that the final decision
to enhance the age of superannuation of teachers within a
particular State would be that of the State itself. The right of the
Commission to frame Regulations having the force of law is
admitted. However, the State Governments are also entitled to
legislate with matters relating to education under Entry 25 of
List III. So long as the State legislation did not encroach upon
the jurisdiction of Parliament, the State legislation would
obviously have primacy over any other law. If there was any
WP(C) NO. 18406 OF 2021
legislation enacted by the Central Government under Entry 25
List III, both would have to be treated on a par with each other.
In the absence of any such legislation by the Central
Government under Entry 25 List III, the Regulation framed by
way of delegated legislation has to yield to the plenary
jurisdiction of the State Government under Entry 25 of List III.
The essence of the judgments cited supra, leaves no
manner of doubt that the constitution of Board of Studies do not
lack any jurisdictional error warranting any interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In paragraphs 57 and
64 of the judgment [Jagdish prasad Sharma (supra)] it was held
that the UGC Regulations would not tantamount to amending of
the statutes. Thus the regulation emphatically relied on behalf
of the petitioners cannot be read in isolation by ignoring the
provisions of clause (xvi) of Section 25 of the 1996 Act.
No ground for interference is made out. The writ petition,
is accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
sab AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
WP(C) NO. 18406 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18406/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION/ORDER
NO.ACADC/ACAD C3/8508/2019 DATEDN11.08.2021
ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER NO.ACADC/ACAD
C3/8508/2019 DATED 13.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING
NO.ACAD.C3/9992/2016 DATED 23.08.2018
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY
