Vijayakumar V and Dr. Shino P. Jose v Kannur University and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **THURSDAY, THE 9[TH] 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.,KANNUR670 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:KERALARAJBHAVAN@GMAIL.COM 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 DISTRICT670 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. 1[st] petitioner and 2[nd] petitioner are stated to be an Assistant Professors in Nehru Arts and Science CollegeKanhangad, 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** **7** 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** ## **8** 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** **9** 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** **10** aforementioned contentions, the following judgments have been relied upon: **a. Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants Coop. 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** **11** ## 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 116-2021. 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** **12** 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** **13** 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 byelaws 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** **14** 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** **15** 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 centrallyfunded 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 nonteaching 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** **16** 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. sab Sd/- **AMIT RAWAL** **JUDGE** **WP(C) NO. 18406 OF 2021** **17** ## **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