http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF MEERUTCOLLEGE, MEERUT & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VICE CHANCELLOR, MEERUT UNIVERSITY,MEERUT & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT31/03/1983

BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) TULZAPURKAR, V.D. VARADARAJAN, A. (J)

CITATION:  1983 AIR 1146            1983 SCR  (2) 622  1983 SCC  (2) 397        1983 SCALE  (1)312

ACT:      Uttar Pradesh  State Universities  Act, 1973-Proviso to s.   39-Interpretation   of-Proviso   saves   ’teachers’from disqualification contained  in s.  39 but not ’relatives’ of teachers.

HEADNOTE:      Under s.  39 of  the Uttar  Pradesh State  Universities Act, 1973  a person  is disqualified  from being chosen as a member of  the Management  of an affiliated college if he or his relative  accepts any  remuneration for any work in such college. However,  the proviso  to that  section states that nothing in  the section shall apply to the acceptance of any remuneration by a teacher as such. The expression ’relative’ as defined in the explanation to the section includes within its meaning a ’brother’.      The election  of appellant-3  as Honorary  Secretary of the Executive  Committee of  an affiliated  college was  set aside by respondent-1 on the ground that he was disqualified from being  chosen as such, as his brother was a lecturer in that college.  The writ  petition filed against the order of respondent-1 was dismissed by the High Court.      Counsel for  appellants contended  that cases  in which remuneration is  accepted by a relative in his capacity as a teacher are  exempted from  the operation of s. 39 by virtue of the  proviso thereto  and since appellant-3’s brother was accepting  remuneration   as  a   teacher  in  the  college, appellant-3 was  not disqualified  from being  chosen  as  a member of  the management  of the  college. It  was  further contended that  s. 39  is prospective  in operation  in  the sense that  if a person was a teacher prior to the date when the  Act   came  into  force,  his  relative  would  not  be disqualified even  if he  is elected  after the  coming into force of the Act.      Dismissing the appeal, ^      HELD: By  reason of  the proviso,  the disqualification provided for  by s.  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

reason 623 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 in which the person elected to the Executive  Committee of  the college  is not  himself  a teacher but  whose relative  is a teacher. The proviso, thus interpreted, will give meaning to the provision contained in cl. (b)  of Statute  13.05 of  the Meerut  University  First Statutes, 1977  which provides  that  25  per  cent  of  the Members of  the Management  of a  college shall be teachers. Granting protection  to relatives  of teachers is foreign to the very  object of  the proviso, the reason being that such relatives should  not become a handy medium for distributing favours and patronage to the teachers. [626 B-H; 627 A-C]      Judgment dated  August 26,  1981 of  the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 11147 of 1980, approved.      In the  instant case,  appellent-3 is  not protected by the proviso; the disqualification is incurred by him because his brother,  who is a teacher, accepts remuneration for the work done by him for the college. [626 E]      (b) The mere circumstance that s. 39 uses a verb in the present tense,  namely,  "accepts",  will  not  justify  the conclusion that  the section  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  be  chosen  as  a  member  of  the Management of  the college. While interpreting a statute one must  have  regard  to  the  substance  of  the  matter  and hypertechnical  considerations  should  be  ruled  out.  The interpretation should,  as far  possible, further the object of the statute. [627 D-F]      Judgment dated  August 12,  1981 of  the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 8647 of 1980, overruled.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISCIDTION : Civil Appeal No. 3222 of 1982.      Appeal by  Special leave  from the  Judgment and  Order dated the  5th May, 1982 of the Allahabad High Court in C M. Writ No. Nil of 1982.      S.N. Kacker,  E.C. Agrawala  and V.K.  Pandita for  the Appellants.      M.C. Bhandare and Mrs. S. Dikshit for the Respondent. 624      M.N. Phadke, A.K. Gupta and Brij Bhushan Sharma for the Intervener.      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  Allahabad, dismissing  the Writ  petition filed by the appellants  against an order passed by Respondent 1, the Vice-Chancellor, Meerut  University, Meerut.  In an election held on  May 10,  1981 to  the Executive  Committee  of  the Meerut College,  Appellant 3, Shri J.D. Singhal, was elected as an Honorary Secretary. That election was set aside by the Vice-Chancellor on  the  ground  that  Shri  J.D.  Singhal’s brother, Shri  A.P  Singhal,  was  a  lecturer  in  the  Law

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

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,  10 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 had 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  has 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 1973,  the State  Legislature passed  the Uttar Pradesh State Universities  Act, 10 of 1973, in order to consolidate the  various   statutes  which   applied  to  the  different Universities in  the State. The Act regulates the affairs of the University  and its affiliated and constituent Colleges. It provides,  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 college and will be responsible for  its maintenance  and upkeep.  Section 39 of the  Act,   which  is   directly  in   point  provides   for ’disqualification for  membership of  management’. It  reads thus:      "39. A  person shall  be disqualified  for being chosen      as, and  for being,  a member  of the  Management of an      affiliated or  associated college (other than a college      maintained exclusively  by the  State Government  or by      local 625      authority)  if   he  or   his  relative   accepts   any      remuneration for any work in or for such college or any      contract  for  the  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      examination conducted  by the college or for any duties      as Superintendent  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 relation to the      college.           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) father, wife’s (or husband’s) sister, brother’s son  and brother’s  daughter.  Section  6  of  the Companies Act, 1956 provides:           A person  shall be  deemed to  be  a  relative  of      another if, and only if-(a) they are members of a Hindu      undivided family;  or (b) they are husband and wife; or      (c) the  one is  related to  the other  in  the  manner      indicated in Schedule 1A."      Schedule 1A  contains  a  list  of  twenty-two  persons amongst whom 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

section, no  person  can  be  chosen  as  a  member  of  the management of  an affiliated or associated college if either he or  his relative accepts any remuneration for any work in such  college.  It  is  common  ground  that  a  brother  of Appellant 3  has been  working as  a  Lecturer  in  the  Law Department of the Meerut College since July 10, 1972 and has been drawing  remuneration in that capacity. Whatever may be the resulting  inconvenience to Appellant 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 Department of the College. 626      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  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 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. 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 by the proviso.      The proviso, thus interpreted, will give meaning to the provisions of  Statute 13.05  of the Meerut University First Statutes, 1977, which were Published by a Notification dated April 20, 1977. Those statutes were framed by the Government of U.P.  in exercise  of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) 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)". 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  persons,  who accept remuneration  for the  work done  for a  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 reforms in the 627 sphere  of   education  lay  considerable  emphasis  on  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

association of  teachers with the management of institutions whose success  depends largely  upon their performance. That is why  the proviso  to section  39 gives  protection to the teachers and  Statute 13.05  makes  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  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 distributing favours and patronage to the teachers.      We find  that by a judgment dated August 26, 1981 given in Civil  Misc. Writ No. 11147 of 1980, N D. 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 in  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 relative 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 hypertechnical 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 section 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 be  chosen as  a member  of  the  management  of  the college. The  judgment dated  August 12,  1981 rendered by a Division Bench  of the  Allahabad High  Court in Civil Misc. Writ No.  8647 of  1980 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 Allahabad  High Court has taken a view of the proviso to section 39  contrary to  that of  Ojha J. Counsel urges that the Vice-Chancellor  and Chancellor  of the  University were bound by the ruling of the 628 Division Bench.  We are  not sure that there is any contrary judgment 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  date in  accordance  with  the provisions of the Act and the Statutes. H.L.C                                      Appeal dismissed. 629