Holding

The proviso to section 39 protects only teachers, not their relatives; therefore the appellant is disqualified from membership of the college management.

Summary

The Executive Committee of Meerut College elected Shri J.D. Singhal as Honorary Secretary, but the Vice‑Chancellor set aside the election on the ground that Singhal was disqualified under section 39 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 because his brother, a lecturer in the college, received remuneration. The appellants argued that the proviso to section 39, which exempts teachers from disqualification, should also protect relatives of teachers and that the provision was prospective. The Supreme Court held that the proviso only shields teachers themselves, not their relatives, and that section 39 applies irrespective of when the teacher began receiving remuneration. Consequently, Singhal was disqualified and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the proviso to section 39 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 extends the exemption to relatives of teachers.
Whether section 39 operates prospectively with respect to relatives of teachers who were already in service before the Act came into force.
Interpretation of the term 'relative' as defined in the explanation to section 20 and the Companies Act, 1956.

Legislation cited

Companies Act, 1956s. 6
Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973s. 20, s. 39

Subjects

disqualificationsection 39Uttar Pradesh State Universities Actproviso interpretationrelatives of teachersstatutory constructionuniversity management

Judgment

622 •
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF MEERUT
COLLEGE, MEERUT & ORS.

v.

VICE CHANCELLO~ MEERUT UNIVERSITY,
B MEERUT & ANR.

March 31, 1983

(Y.V. CHANDRACllUD, C.J., V.D. TULZAPURKAR AND
A. vARADA)lAJAN, JJ.]
c
Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973-ProvistJ to s. 39--lnteipretation
of-Proviso saves 'teachers' fron1 disqualification contain?d in s. 39 but not
'relatives' of teachers.
•
Under s. 39 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 a
D person is disqualified from being chosen as a member of the Management of
an affiliated collegt: if he or his. relative accepts any remuneration for any
work in such college. }Jo\\·cver, the proviso to that section states that nothing
in the section shall apply to the acceptance of any ren1uneratio11 by a teacher
as such. The expression 'relative' as defined in 1he explanation to the section
includes within its me~ning a 'brother'.

E The election of appellant-3 as IIonorary Sei.::re_tary of the Executive
Com1nittee Or an affiliated college was set aside- by respondent-I on the ground
that he was disqualified fro1n being chosen as such, as his brother was a
lecturer in that college. The writ petition filed against the order of respon-
dent-I was dismissed by the High Cou11.

F 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-J's
brother was accepting reinuneration a'i a teacher in the college, appellant-3
was not disqualified from being chosen as a n1e1nber 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 th~ date when the Act came into
G force;his relative would not be disqualified even If he is elected after the
coining into force of the Act.

Dismissing the appeal,

H flELD: By reason of the proviso, the disqualification provided for
bys. 39 will not apply "to the acceptance of any re1nuneration by a teacher
as such". What the proviso means is that a teacher shall not be disqualified
for being chosen as a me1nber of the Management of the college for the reason

' --·-··-
EXECUTIVE COMMrmE v. VICE CHANCELLOR 623

that he accepts remuneration from the college in his capacity as a teachel'.
The object of the proviso is to enable the teachers of a college to become A
1nembers 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 co1lege shall be teachers. Granting protection to relatives or teacherS. is
B
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. c
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,
.D
" 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 E
of the college. While interpreting a statute one must have regard to the
substance of the matter and hypertecbnical 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 F
Civil Misc. Writ No. 8647 or 1980, overruled.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISCIDTION Civil Appeal No. 3222 of
1982.

Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated G
the 5th May, 1982 of the Allahabad High Court in CM. Writ' No.
Nil of 1982.

S.N. Kacker, E.C. Agrawala and V.K. Pandita for the Appel• H
!ants.

M.C. Bhandare and Mrs. S. Dikshit for the Respondent.
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (I 983j 2 S. C.R.

MN. Phadke, A.K. Gupta and Brij Bhushan Sharma for the
A 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 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 H
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,
A 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
D
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 E
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 F
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.

•

•.