JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J.
1. These two appeals having been filed against same judgment dated 25th August, 2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 3785 of 2002, Arya Vidya Sabha Kashi and Ors. v. Banaras Hindu University and Ors., are being decided together.
2. We have heard counsel for the parties in both the appeals and by consent of parties we proceed to decide both the appeal finally.
3. Facts giving rise to these appeals, briefly, stated, are ; D.A.V. Degree College, Varanasi, is a college affiliated to Banaras Hindu University, Arya Vidya Sabha Kashi, Varanasi is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which claims to elect the managing committee of D.A.V. Degree College. Under the bylaws of the society, the Board of Trustees of Arya Vidya Sabhi Kashi, Varanasi, elects the committee of management. In the election claimed to be held by Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi, on 21st September, 1998, Sambhu Nath Pandey claimed to be elected as Manager and Shyam Lal Yadav claimed to be elected as President. Sri Anant Prasad Gupta and Indu Bhushan Shah filed Suit No. 956 of 1998 on 17th September, 1998, for permanent injunction restraining the Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Varanasi, from interfering in their functioning and from holding election of committee of management. However, no injunction was granted in the said suit. The said suit is still pending. Sri Anant Prasad Gupta and Indu Bhushan Shah had claimed that election of committee of management has already taken place on 16th August, 1998. After the election dated 21st September, 1998, office bearers of committee of management of D.A.V. Degree College were claimed to be elected on 4th October, 1998. An application was moved by respondents to the Vice-Chancellor for according recognition to the election dated 4th October, 1998. A writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 47453 of 1999 was filed which was disposed of with the direction to the University to decide the representation of the petitioners of that writ petition. The University vide its letter dated 31st December, 1999 communicated to Sri Sambhu Nath Pandey in reference to his representation dated 30th November, 1999, that since both the parties are contesting in the court of law with regard to managing committee of D.A.V. College, until a decision is made by the Court in this matter, the University is not in a position to grant a fresh recognition to either of the two managing committees. It is, however, observed that meanwhile the status quo be maintained until such time a final decision is given by the Court in the matter. Against the aforesaid letter dated 31st December, 1999, a writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 2277 of 2000, was filed which was dismissed as infructuous with liberty to file fresh petition. The writ petition giving rise to these appeals was filed praying for quashing the order dated 31st December, 1999 and further praying for according approval to the election dated 20th November, 2001. In the writ petition both, Banaras Hindu University and Anant Prasad Gupta, filed counter-affidavits. It was stated on behalf of the University that Vice-Chancellor has rightly exercised its Jurisdiction in not interfering on merits of dispute since the matter is already engaging attention of the civil court. A learned Judge of this Court after hearing both the parties allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the Vice-Chancellor as communicated vide letter dated 31st December, 1999. The Vice-Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University has also been directed to decide the dispute as raised by the parties in regard to recognition of the election of Committee of Management of D.A.V. Degree College, Varanasi within a period of three months after hearing Sri Raghuvansh Pandey and Sri Anant Prasad Gupta by means of a reasoned and speaking order. These two appeals have been filed against the aforesaid judgment.
4. Sri V.K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for the University, challenging the Impugned judgment, contended that Vice-Chancellor of the Banaras Hindu University is not clothed with jurisdiction to decide dispute of election of the committee of management between two rival managing bodies. The submission of Sri Upadhyaya is that there is no provision in Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915, Statutes and Ordinances empowering the Vice-Chancellor to decide a dispute pertaining to election of committee of management and there being no provision in the Statutes, the learned Judge of this Court erred in directing the Vice-Chancellor to decide the dispute between the parties regarding claim of election. He further submitted that with regard to colleges admitted to the privileges of the University Statute 36 only contains condition of admitting a college for being given privileges of the University and there is no jurisdiction in the Vice-Chancellor to decide the dispute.
5. Sri R.K. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for Anant Prasad Gupta contended that since suit between the parties is pending in the civil court pertaining to dispute of election, the Vice-Chancellor has rightly passed the order as communicated on 31st December, 1999. Sri Srivastava contended that there is no provision in the Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915, or in the Statutes empowering the Vice-Chancellor to decide the dispute. The provisions of Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915, cannot be interpreted in a manner clothing the Vice-Chancellor to decide the dispute. Reliance has been placed on Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and Ors., 2003 (3) AWC 2191 (SC).
6. Sri R.S. Maurya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, contended that Vice-Chancellor has ample jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties. He further contended that the election of respondent-writ petitioners was held under the supervision of the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi in pursuance of the judgment of this Court dated 21st October, 1997, passed in Writ Petition No. 31668 of 1995, hence the said election was liable to be recognised by the University. He contended that in Suit No. 956 of 1998 filed by Anant Prasad Gupta and his supporters, no injunction order has been passed, hence the election conducted by Assistant Registrar is a valid election, which is liable to be recognised, Sri Maurya contended that respondent-writ petitioners are validly elected committee of management but has not yet been recognised by the University on account of frivolous dispute raised by Anant Prasad Gupta and others.
7. We have considered the submissions of counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
8. The main issue, which has arisen in this appeal is as to whether the Vice-Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University has jurisdiction to decide the dispute between two rival claimants who are claiming themselves to be elected as committee of management of D.A.V. Degree College and further as to what is the nature and scope of jurisdiction to be exercised by the Vice-Chancellor with regard to recognition of the election.
9. For considering the above issue, it is necessary to consider the scheme of Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915 and the Statutes with regard to colleges admitted to the privileges of the University. D.A.V. Degree College is admittedly a college admitted to the privileges of the University. Section 2(b) of the Act defines 'college' which is extracted as below:
"2 (b) "College" means a college or teaching institution (other than a secondary, primary or infant school or pathshala) maintained by or admitted to the privileges of the University ."
10. Under Section 4A of the Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915, the University has power to hold examinations and to grant diplomas and certificates, and confer degrees and, other academic distinctions to any person who have pursued a course of study in the University or in college, or who are teachers of the University or any college.
11. Section 15 of the Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915, provides for maintenance and admission to the privileges of the colleges, which is quoted below :
"15 (1) The Central Hindu College, (Banaras) shall from such date as the Governor-General in Council may by notification in the Gazette of India, appoint in this behalf, be deemed to be a college maintained by the University, and the University may found and maintain other colleges and institutions including High Schools, within a radius of fifteen miles from the main temple of the University for the purposes of carrying out instruction and research :
(a) The University may also found and maintain (within or beyond the aforementioned limits) special centres and laboratories for research in Humanities, Science and Technology, Education, Medicine and other professional subjects and in other spheres of learning and knowledge.
(b) With the approval of the Academic Council and the sanction of the visitor, and subject to the Statutes and the Ordinances the University may admit colleges and institutions including High School, within the aforementioned limits to such privileges of the University, subject to such conditions, as it thinks fit :
Provided that new college or institution started after the commencement of the Banaras Hindu University (Amendment) Act, 1966, shall be admitted to any such privilege of the University."
12. Section 17 of Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915, provides that subject to the provisions of this Act, the Statutes may provide for all or any of the matters enumerated in the section. Section 17(1)(l) is quoted as below ;
"17 (1) (l) The classification and the manner of appointment of teachers in the University and the colleges."
13. Section 18 of Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915, provides that subject to provisions of the Act and Statutes, the Ordinances may provide for all or any of the matters as mentioned therein. Section 18(1)(m), which is relevant in the present case, is quoted as below :
"18 (1) (m) The supervisions and inspection of colleges and other institutions admitted to privileges of the University under Sub-section (2) of Section 15."
14. From the aforesaid provisions of the Act, it is clear that University would admit to its privileges any college and regulate manner of appointment of teachers of the colleges by Statutes or may make ordinances providing for supervision and inspection of the colleges.
15. Statute 36 is a statute dealing with admission of the colleges to the privileges of the University. Statute 36 which has been referred to by counsel for the appellants, is extracted below :
"36. (1) Colleges and other institutions within a radius of fifteen miles from the main temple of the University may be admitted to such privileges of the University as the Executive Council may decide on the following conditions, namely :
(i) every such college or institution shall have a Managing Body constituted in accordance with the rules relating to the society or association establishing the college or institution consisting of:
(a) two persons nominated by the University ;
(b) the Principal ;
(c) two teachers to be nominated in accordance with the Ordinances ;
(d) such number of other persons as may be specified in the rules :
Provided that the previous approval of the Executive Council is obtained for the appointment of every such other person ;
(ii) every such college or institution shall satisfy the Executive Council on the following points :
(a) the suitability and adequacy of its accommodation and equipment for teaching ;
(b) the qualifications and adequacy of its teaching staff and the conditions of their service ;
(c) the arrangements for the residence, welfare, discipline and supervision of its students ; and
(d) such other matters as are essential for the maintenance of the s tandards of University education ;
and
(iii) no college or institution shall be admitted to any privileges of the University except on the recommendation of the Academic Council made after considering the report of a Committee of Inspection appointed for the purpose, by the Academic Council.
(2) Every appointment of a teacher in such college or institution shall be made on the recommendation of a Selection Committee which shall consist of :
(a) the Principal, unless the post to be filled is that of the Principal ;
(b) one representative of the University nominated by the Executive Council ;
(c) two persons nominated by the Managing Body ;
(d) two persons not connected with the college or institution who have special knowledge of the subject with which the person to be appointed will be concerned to be nominated by the Executive Council.
(3) Every such college or institution shall be inspected at least one every year by a committee appointed by the Academic Council, and the report of that committee shall be submitted to the Academic Council which shall forward the same to the Executive Council with such recommendation as it may deem fit to make. The Executive Council, after considering the report and the recommendations, if any, of the Academic Council, shall forward a copy of the report to the Managing Body of the college or institution with such remarks, if any, as it may deem fit, for suitable action.
(4) The Executive Council may, after consulting the Academic Council, withdraw any privileges granted to a college or institution if at any time it considers that the college or institution is not fulfilling the requisite conditions :
Provided that no such privileges shall be withdrawn until the Managing Body of the college or the institution, as the case may be, has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to the college or the institution.
(5) Subject to the conditions set forth above, the Ordinances may prescribe any other conditions which may be considered necessary and also the procedure for the admission of colleges and institutions to the privileges of the University and for the withdrawal of those privileges."
16. From the scheme of the Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915 and the Statutes, it is clear that there is no specific provision in the Act or the Statutes empowering the Vice-Chancellor to decide a dispute of election between two rival claimants claiming themselves to be the committee of management of the college. The statutory provisions, however, do provide that University has to Interact with college in several manners. Statute 36 (1) (i) clearly provides that every such college or institution shall have a Managing Body constituted in accordance with the rules relating to the society or association, the above is one of the condition of which college is to be admitted to the privileges of the University. The provision as contained in Statute 36 (1) (i) is to be incorporated in the rules of the college. The above statutory provision read with rules also contemplates that in the Managing Body two persons is to be nominated by the University. The Managing Body which is contemplated to be constituted in accordance with the Rules is to be consisted of among others two persons nominated by the University. The nomination of two members by the University in the Managing Body constituted in accordance with the Rules indicate that University can Implicitly find out as to which is the Managing Body constituted in accordance with the Rules. Further Statute 36 (2) provides that every appointment of a teacher in the college shall be made on the recommendation of the selection committee which shall consist of one representative of the University nominated by the Executive Council and two subject experts nominated by the Executive Council. Sub-clause (c) of Statute 36 (2) also provides that in the selection committee two persons has to be nominated by the Managing Body. The aforesaid provisions clearly indicate that for effectively exercising the jurisdiction given in Sub-section (2) of Section 36 of the University has to know as to which is the Managing Body. For effectively exercising the conditions incorporated in Statute 36 on which college is admitted to privileges of the University, the University has to know the Managing Body of the college. The scheme of Statute 36 Indicates a continuous interaction of the University with the college and such Interaction does not come to an end once college is admitted to the privileges of the University. Further Statute 36 (3) contemplates for forwarding a copy of the report by the Executive Council to the Managing Body of the college. Statute 36 (4) provides for withdrawal of privileges granted to a college after giving a reasonable opportunity of showing cause to the Managing Body. All these provisions clearly show that University is to deal with the Managing Body for exercise of statutory functions as provided in the Statutes and for exercising the aforesaid statutory functions, the University has to know who is Managing Body of the college.
17. Prior to Insertion of Section 16A (7) in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act there was no specific provision for recognising the committee of management of the Institution. A Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management and Anr. v. The District Inspector of Schools, Meerut and Anr., 1978 AWC 125, had occasion to consider the nature of jurisdiction of District Inspector of Schools to recognise a committee of management of the college with whom it has to interact for discharging various statutory functions. Relying on earlier Division Bench judgment, following was held in paragraph 2 :
"2. Having heard counsel for the parties, we are of opinion that Impugned order cannot be sustained. It is true that neither under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act nor under any other statutory provision the District Inspector of Schools has been given the power to adjudicate upon the claims of the rival contending managing committees but it is equally clear that under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act as also under the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, the District Inspector of Schools has to deal with the committee of management of a recognised educational institution in respect of various affairs of the institution, i.e., granting of approval as contemplated by Sub-section (3) of Section 16G of the Act and dealing with the managing of such an institution under Section 5 of the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, etc. In Writ Petition No. 12725 of 1975, Committee of Management of A.V. Inter College v. District Inspector of Schools, decided on 24th November, 1977, a Division Bench of this Court held :
"Under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act as well as the High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, the District Inspector of Schools has to perform various administrative functions of statutory character in collaboration with the management of High Schools and Intermediate Colleges. These duties cannot be discharged by the District Inspector of Schools unless he is in a position to find out on an administrative level as to who are the real office bearers of the college. For this limited purpose the District Inspector of Schools must of necessity satisfy himself as to who, according to him, are validly elected office bearers of the institution. If any party feels dissatisfied with the administrative decision taken by the District Inspector of Schools he is at liberty to file a suit against the rival claimants for adjudication of their rights either as office bearers or as members of the managing committee. In the event of a decree being obtained by such a party there can be little doubt that the District Inspector of Schools, in case he has taken a wrong decision, will alter his decision and will recognise that party in whose favour decision has been given judicially................................
18. Our view that Vice-Chancellor has implied power to find out as to who is Managing Body of an affiliated college is fully buttressed by the above judgment of this Court. The Vice-Chancellor exercises various express jurisdiction and power granted under the Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915, as well as implied powers. The Apex Court had occasion to examine the question of Jurisdiction of Vice-Chancellor under Marathwada University Act, 1974 in Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan, AIR 1989 SC 1582. The Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment held that the Act confers both express and implied power on the Vice-Chancellor. Following was laid down in paragraph 18 by the Apex Court in the aforesaid Judgment :
"18. The Vice-Chancellor in every University is thus the conscious keeper of the University and constitutional ruler. He is the principal executive and academic officer of the University. He is entrusted with the responsibility of overall administration of academic as well as non-academic affairs. For these purposes, the Act confers both express and implied powers on the Vice-Chancellor. The express powers included among others, the duty to ensure that the provisions of the Act, Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations are observed by all concerned (Section 11 (3)).........."
19. Section 7C of the Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915, enumerates the express powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor. Section 7C(3) provides as under :
"7C (3) It shall be the duty of the Vice-Chancellor to see that the provisions of this Act, the Statutes, the Ordinances and the Regulations are duly observed."
20. In above view of the matter, we are of the view that Vice-Chancellor has implied power to find out as to who is the Managing Body of the college with whom the University has to deal with In exercise of its various statutory functions. It is, however, clear that Act or Statutes do not contain any provision for adjudication of a dispute or providing any forum in the Vice-Chancellor for adjudication of rival dispute of the election of the committee of management. The learned Judge of this Court in the impugned judgment has also noted that there is no provision in Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915, akin to Section 2 (13) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, read with Statute 13.04 (f) and Statute 13.34 of the First Statutes of the University. The implied power of the Vice-Chancellor to know as to who is the Managing Committee is only an administrative power which is to be exercised by the Vice-Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor while finding to know who is the Managing Body has to look into as to who is the Managing Body constituted in accordance with the rules of the society or association. The Vice-Chancellor being not a forum to decide a dispute, any decision by a competent authority under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, has to be taken into consideration by the Vice-Chancellor. It is not obligatory for the Vice-Chancellor to give a hearing to the parties while proceeding to find out as to who is the Managing Body with whom the University may deal with. The jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor is not like of an election Tribunal to decide dispute of election.
21. The direction of the learned Judge of this Court to the Vice-Chancellor to decide the dispute as raised by the parties after hearing both the parties cannot be sustained. The Vice-Chancellor was neither required to give hearing to both the parties nor decide the disputed questions as raised by the parties in support of their respective elections. He, however, only administratively is to find out that who is the Managing Body with which the University may deal with for exercise of its various functions. The Vice-Chancellor not being forum to decide a dispute, the direction of learned Judge of this Court to hear both the parties cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed.
22. In above view of the matter, we dispose of these appeals by only directing the Vice-Chancellor to take a decision after considering the representation submitted by the parties on administrative level as to which of the party or whether any of the parties can be recognised by the University as the Managing Body with whom University may deal with in exercise of its various statutory functions. The judgment of learned single Judge is modified to the above extent.
23. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
No orders as to costs.