Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.)
1. Heard Shri G.K. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Sankalp Narain for the petitioner and Shri Shashi Nandan, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Chandan Sharma appearing for the respondent no. 3-University.
2. The petitioner no. 1 is stated to be the Principal, Ewing Christian College, Allahabad and the petitioner no. 2 is the Committee of Management of Ewing Christian College. They have filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the order dated 31.7.2018 whereby the Registrar of the University has informed him that the petitioner no. 1 has retired from service, therefore, the College should fill up the vacancy of the post of Principal in the College at the earliest.
3. Briefly stated the facts as narrated in the writ petition are that the Ewing Christian College is a constituent college of the Allahabad University governed by the ordinances of the Allahabad University and being a college established and administered the Christian minority community is recognized as a minority Institution. It is stated that the petitioner no. 1 was appointed in the college as Principal on 1.7.2001 and has continued to function as such till date. It is stated that on 8.12.2008 the Dy. Secretary UGC issued a letter providing that the age of retirement of Teachers of the University and its constituent colleges shall be enhanced from 62 years to 65 years. It is further stated that this letter was issued in pursuance of the letter of the Dy. Secretary, Government of India dated 7.11.2008. The case of the petitioner is that the question of re-employment of Principals and Teachers in pursuance of the letter of the Government of India dated 7.11.2008 can be considered upto the age of 70 years if the candidate is found suitable after due scrutiny on completing the age of 65 years. The condition ofcourse would be that the Principal would continue teaching during the period of such re-employment in addition to the discharge of the Principal's functions. It is stated that the petitioner no. 1 was due to retire on 15.7.2018 on completing the age of 65 years and therefore he raised a claim for his extension/re-employment in terms of the UGC guide lines dated 8.12.2008 and the letter of the Government of India dated 7.11.2008. It is stated that the petitioner no. 2 approached the Vice Chancellor, Allahabad University through its application dated 21.9.2017 for permission to evaluate the performance and achievements of the petitioner no. 1 as per the provisions of Section 4.1 (B) of the UGC Regulations 2010 alongwith his teaching capabilities. It is stated that the permission was granted by the Vice Chancellor on 2.11.2017 and in pursuance thereof a Selection Committee was constituted which met on 17.11.2017 and after interviewing the petitioner no. 1, recommended for his re-employment and a letter dated 7.12.2017 in this regard was also forwarded to the Vice Chancellor, Allahabad University informing that the Governing Body of the College has accepted and approved the recommendation of the Selection Committee. It is however stated that instead of granting approval to the re-employment of the petitioner no. 1, the Registrar, Allahabad University has passed the impugned order.
4. Shri Shashi Nandan, learned senior counsel appearing for the University submitted that the case of the petitioner has to be considered in the light of the Regulations framed by the UGC, namely, UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standard in Higher Education 2010 (in short referred to as the Regulations, 2010) and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for re-employment as he does not have the requisite API score since Principals are required to teach in accordance with the guide lines as may be prescribed by the UGC and in any case the term of appointment of a Principal is 5 years plus one additional term of 5 years. Thus a total of only 10 years, whereas the petitioner no. 1 has remained Principal for 17 years from 2001 till 2018.
5. Shri G.K. Singh, learned senior counsel referred to the letter of the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development Department of Higher Education dated 7.11.2008, Annexure-2 to the writ petition which provides that the age of Teachers in centrally funded Institutions in Higher Education under the purview of this Ministry was enhanced from 62 years to 65 years with a provision for re-employment up to the age of 70 years subject to guide lines prescribed for the purpose. It has further been provided that the retirement age of Principal shall be 65 years and he may also be considered for re-employment upto the age of 70 years where necessary if found suitable after a screening at the age of 65 years in accordance with the guide lines as may be prescribed by the UGC subject to the condition that the Principals would continue teaching during the period of such re-employment in addition to the discharge of Principal's function.
A reference has also been made to the UGC model guide lines for re-employment of superannuated Teachers (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) which mentions that the Ministry of Human Resources Development vide Notification dated 23.3.2007, has extended the age of superannuation to 65 years with a provision for re-employment upto the age of 70 years in case of centrally funded Institutes. It is also stated that the model guide lines have been framed by the UGC to facilitate the implementation of the recommendations contained therein in the higher education system in the country and provides for a frame work for re-employment of superannuated Teachers at Universities and Colleges in India. Paragraph 3 of the guide lines provides the eligibility criteria meaning thereby the category of superannuated Teachers eligible for re-employment shall be:
a) Professors only in the case of University;
b) Professor, Readers and Lecturers (Selection Grade only) in the case of Colleges.
6. Paragraph 4 of the guidelines deals with Tenure of the Appointment and provides that the tenure of appointment of the superannuated Teachers shall be for a minimum of 3 years or upto such time as the Teacher attains the age of 65 years (70 years in the case of centrally funded institutes), whichever is earlier. But an Institute may make short term appointment for a period of 3 years or till such time appointment that such Teacher attains the age of 65 years/70 years, as the case may be, and in the case of centrally funded Institutions a proviso may be added that all those who superannuated after 62 years but have not attained 65 years as on 15.3.2007, the re-appointment shall be only against the sanctioned vacant post as in the case of 65 - 70 years except that the screening as per UGC guide lines need not to be mandatory.
7. The submission of Shri G.K. Singh further is that the case of one other Principal Dr. Anand Kumar Srivastava, Principal, C.M.P. Degree College, Allahabad also came up before the University and was Agenda no. 27/47 in the 47th meeting of the Executive Council. It is stated that the note of the Agenda no. 27/47 referred to the letter of the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development dated 7.11.2008 and mentioned that Principals in centrally funded Institutions may be considered for re-employment after superannuation up to the age of 70 years where necessary if found suitable after a screening at the age of 65 years in accordance with the guide lines, as may be prescribed by the UGC subject to the condition that the Principal would continue teaching during the period of such re-employment in additional to discharge of the Principal's functions. He further submitted that the Executive Council in its 48th meeting held on 2.4.2018 has resolved vide Agenda no. 30/48 to grant re-employment to Dr. Anand Kumar Srivastava, Principal, C.M.P. Degree College for a period of five years from the date of his superannuation i.e. 65 years with the condition that during his period of re-employment Dr. Anand Kumar Srivastava would continue to participate in the teaching work of the College in addition to his duties as Principal of the College. Agenda 27/47 and 30/48 read as under:
"Agenda No. 27/47 To consider the extension of Dr. Anand Kumar Srivastava, Principal, C.M.P. Degree College, Allahabad after his superannuation on 8.11.2017.
Note: As per letter No. 1-11/2007-U.II dated 07.11.2008 of Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi, "The question regarding the retirement age of Principals in such centrally funded institutions in higher and technical education under the purview of the this Ministry has been considered. It has been decided with the approval of the competent authority that in such centrally funded institutions in higher and technical education under the purview of this Ministry, where Principals are required to undertake teaching in accordance the provisions made in the relevant statutes/rules etc, the retirement age of such Principal shall be 65 years. They may also be considered for re-employment upto the age of 70 years, where necessary, if found suitable after a screening at the age of 65 years, in accordance with the guidelines, as may be prescribed by the University Grants Commission, subject to the condition that the principals would continue teaching during the period of such re-employment, in addition to the discharge of Principals' functions"
Agenda No. 30/48 To report the Letter No. DCD/341/2017 dated 08.11.2017 of Dean of College Development regarding extension of Dr. Anand Kumar Srivastava as Principal C.M.P. Degree College, Allahabad after his superannuation on 08.11.2017 in compliance of Executive Council Resolution No. 27/47 dated 28.10.2017.
Note: In pursuance of Executive Council Resolution No. 27/47 dated 28.10.2017, the Executive Council resolved to grant re-employment of Dr. Anand Kumar Srivastava, Principal, C.M.P. Degree College, for a period of five years from the date of his superannuation at the age of 65 years with the condition that during this period of re-employment Dr. Anand Kumar Srivastava would continue to participate in teaching work of the College in addition to his duties as the Principal of the College."
8. Shri G.K. Singh, therefore, contended that the petitioner no. 1 was entitled to be considered for re-employment beyond the age of 65 years in the light of the Government of India letter dated 7.11.2008 and the letter of the Ministry of Human Resources Development Notification dated 23.3.2007 referred to in the model guidelines of the UGC. Referring to the Regulations as quoted in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the counter affidavit, Shri G.K. Singh submitted that the UGC Regulations, 2010 had no application to the case of the petitioner.
9. Shri Shashi Nandan, on the other hand, submitted that after coming into force of the UGC Regulations, 2010, it is these Regulations that will govern all matters relating to maintenance of standard in higher education, appointment of Teachers and other academic staff in the Universities and Colleges governed by the UGC Regulations. Referring to Regulation 2.3.2 he submitted that Teachers such as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professors only may be re-employed on contract appointment beyond the age of superannuation as applicable to the concerned University College and Institutions upto the age of 70 years. The proviso to the Regulation further lays down that all such re-employment shall be strictly in accordance with the guidelines submitted by the UGC from time to time. The word 'Principal' has not been mentioned in Regulation 2.3.2. Learned senior counsel referred to Regulation 4.2.0 which deals with the post of Principal. Reference was made to sub clause (iv) of Regulation 4.2.0 and it was submitted that one of the eligibility conditions of the post of Principal was a minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS), set out in this Regulation in Tables I to IX of Appendix III. It was therefore submitted that the Principal has to teach and must have an API score. Reference was also made to the Regulation 5.1.6 which deals with College Principal and submitted that paragraph 5 (d) of Regulation 5.1.6 prescribes the term of appointment of the College Principal and states that it shall be five years with eligibility for re-employment for one more term only after a similar Selection Committee process. Reference was also made to sub paragraph (a) which lays down the composition of the Selection Committee for the post of College Principal. Paragraph (a) of Regulation 5.1.6 reads as under:
"5.1.6 College Principal
(a). The Selection Committee for the post of College Principal shall have the following composition:
1. Chairperson of the Governing Body as Chairperson.
2. Two members of the Governing Body of the college to be nominated by the Chairperson of whom one shall be an expert in academic administration.
3. One nominee of the Vice Chancellor who shall be a Higher Education expert. In case of Colleges notified/declared as minority educational institutions, one nominee of the Chairperson of the College from out of a panel of five names, preferably from minority communities, recommended by the Vice-chancellor of the affiliating university of whom one should be a subject expert.
4. Three experts consisting of the Principal of a college, a Professor and an accomplished educationist not below the ran of a Professor (to be nominated by the Governing Body of the college) out of a panel of six experts approved by the relevant statutory body of the university concerned.
5. An academician representing SC/ST/OBC/Minority/Women/Differently-abled categories, if any of candidates representing these categories is the applicant, to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor, if any of the above members of the selection committee do not belong to that category."
10. The submission of the learned senior counsel is that the Committee which has recommended the case of the petitioner no. 1 has not been constituted in terms and the manner as prescribed in paragraph (a) of Regulation 5.1.6 as the Selection Committee which recommended the name of the petitioner no. 1 does not contain the name of any Nominee of the Vice Chancellor among other short comings.
11. Shri Shashi Nandan, then submitted that the UGC Regulations were amended by Regulation 2016 w.e.f. 11.7.2016 and submitted that clause (d) of Regulation 5.1.6 has been amended and it has been provided that the term of appointment of the College Principal shall be five years with eligibility for re-appointment for one more term only after a similar Selection Committee process.
12. The learned senior counsel also referred to the Notification dated 29.11.2016 of the UGC which provides for constitution of an External Peer Review Committee in term of clause 5.6.1 (d) of the UGC Regulations 2010 which also provides that the term of the College Principal shall be five years with eligibility for re-appointment for one more term after a similar selection. The said provision reads as under:
"The term of appointment of the College Principal shall be five years with eligibility for reappointment for one more term only after a similar Selection process which shall take into account on external peer review, its recommendations and its outcomes. The framework of the external peer review shall be specified by the UGC."
The Notification further provides that constitution of the External Peer Review Committee shall be as under:
(I) Nominee of the Vice-Chancellor of the affiliating University (II) Nominee of the Chairman, University Grants Commission.
The nominees shall be nominated from the Principals of the Colleges with Excellence/College with Potential for Excellence/Autonomous Colleges/NAAC A+ accredited Colleges and further provides that the report of the above Peer Review Committee shall be the main basis for re-appointment of the Principal.
13. We have considered the submission of the respective Senior Counsel and also perused the documents on record.
14. The thrust of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, Government of India vide its letter dated 7th November, 2008 referring to earlier letter of the Ministry dated 23.03.2007 had stipulated that the retirement age of the Principal shall be 65 years and they may be considered for re-employment upto the age of 70 years, if found suitable, after a screening at the age of 65 years, in accordance with the guidelines, as may be prescribed by the University Grants Commission, subject to the condition that the Principals would continue teaching during the period of such re-employment, in addition to the discharge of principals' functions. The provisions, therefore, leave absolutely no doubt that even the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, Government of India had in the matter of re-employment of Principal beyond the age of 65 years given primacy to the Guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission.
15. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the Regulations, 2010 framed by the University Grants Commission would apply only in cases of direct recruit Principal and not the Principal who have been appointed earlier even prior to the Allahabad University being declared a Central University would therefore hold no water. It is not disputed between the parties that the Allahabad University was declared a Central University in 2005 and therefore, the Guidelines and Regulations framed by the University Grants Commission would become applicable to the said University. Clause 3.2.0 of the Regulations, 2010 provides that the minimum qualifications required for posts of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, Professors, Principals, Assistant Directors of Physical Education and Sports, Deputy Directors of Physical Education and Sports, Directors of Physical Education and Sports, Assistant Librarians, Deputy Librarians, Librarians will be those as prescribed by the UGC in these Regulations.
Clause 3.2.0 of the Regulations, 2010 reads as under:
"3.2.0. The minimum qualifications required for posts of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, Professors, Principals, Assistant Directors of Physical Education and Sports, Deputy Directors of Physical Education and Sports, Directors of Physical Education and Sports, Assistant Librarians, Deputy Librarians, Librarians will be those as prescribed by the UGC in these Regulations.
16. Clause 2.3.2 of the Regulations, 2010 provides that subject to the availability of vacant positions and fitness, teachers such as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor only may be re-employed on contract appointment beyond the age of superannuation, as applicable to the concerned University, College and Institution, up to the age of 70 years.
Clause 2.3.2 reads as under:
"2.3.2. Subject to the availability of vacant positions and fitness, teachers such as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor only may be re-employed on contract appointment beyond the age of superannuation, as applicable to the concerned University, College and Institution, up to the age of Seventy years.
Provided further that all such re-employment shall be strictly in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by the UGC, from time to time."
Proviso to the said Regulation dispels all doubt that all such re-employment shall be strictly in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by the UGC, from time to time.
17. Clause 4.2.0 of the Regulations, 2010 which deals with the qualification of a Principal, inter alia provides that the candidates for the post of Principal must have a minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS), as set out in this Regulation in Appendix III for direct recruitment of Professor in Colleges.
Clause 4.2.0 is as follows:
"4.2.0. PRINCIPAL i. A Master's Degree with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) by a recognized University.
ii. A Ph.D Degree in concerned/allied/relevant discipline (s) in the institution concerned with evidence of published work and research guidance.
iii. Associate Professor/Professor with a total experience of fifteen years of teaching/research/administration in Universities, Colleges and other institutions of higher education.
iv. A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (ABAS), as set out in this Regulation in Appendix III for direct recruitment of Professor in Colleges."
Clause 5.1.6 with regard to the College Principal lays down the mode of selection and constitution of the selection committee and paragraph (d) thereof provides that the term of appointment of the college principal shall be 5 years with eligibility for re-appointment for one more term only after a similar selection committee process.
Clause 5.1.6 reads as under:
"5.1.6. College Principal
(a) The Selection Committee for the post of College Principal shall have the following composition:
1. Chairperson of the Governing Body as Chairperson.
2. Two members of the Governing Body of the college to be nominated by the chairperson of whom one shall be an expert in academic administration.
3. One nominee of the Vice Chancellor who shall be a Higher Education expert. In case of Colleges notified/declared as minority educational institutions, one nominee of the chairperson of the College from out of a panel of five names preferably from minority communities, recommended by the Vice-Chancellor of the affiliating university of whom one should be a subject expert.
4. Three experts consisting of the Principal of a college, a Professor and an accomplished educationist not below the rank of a Professor (to be nominated by the Governing Body of the college) out of a panel of six experts approved by the relevant statutory body of the university concerned.
5. An academician representing SC/ST/OBC/Minority/Women. Differently-abled categories, if any of candidates representing these categories is the applicant, to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor, if any of the above members of the selection committee do not belong to that category.
(b) At least five members, including two experts, should constitute the quorum.
(c) All the selection procedures of the selection committee shall be completed on the day of the selection committee meeting itself, wherein, minutes are recorded alongwith the scoring proforma and recommendation made on the basis of merit with the list of selected and waitlisted candidates/Panel of names in order of merit, duly signed by all members of the selection committee.
(d) The term of appointment of the college principal shall be FIVE years with eligibility for reappointment for one more term only after a similar selection committee process."
When the regulations referred to above are read conjointly what emerges is that a Principal necessarily would have to be a Professor; his term/tenure as Principal shall be 5 years and if re-appointed it would be for one more term of 5 years meaning thereby a total of 10 years only. The Principal being a Professor/Associate Professor would also have to be a Teacher with teaching experience of 15 years of teaching/research under Universities, Colleges and other Institutions of Higher Education and he is also be required to have a minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) as per the provisions of Regulation of clause 4.2.0 of the Regulations, 2010.
18. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that clause 2.3.2 of the Regulations, 2010 do not prescribed any age of retirement and clause 2.3.2 applies only to Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors and not to Principals is misconceived particularly when the eligibility for the post of Principal is the same as prescribed by the UGC in these Regulations as per clause 3.2.0. Besides the University Grants Commission Regulations further provide that the Principal on attaining the age of 65 years would, if necessity arises, have to be considered for re-appointment by a Screening Committee. The University Grants Commission Notification dated 11th July, 2016 which amends the Regulations and is known as the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) (4th Amendment) Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations, 2016) introduces an amendment in para (d) of clause 5.1.6 and provides that the term of appointment of the College Principal shall be five years with eligibility for re-appointment for one more term only after a similar Selection Committee process which shall take into account an external peer review, its recommendations and its outcomes. The framework of the external peer review shall be specified by the UGC.
Clause 5.1.6 (d) as amended reads as under:
Unamended Amended the term of appointment of the College Principal shall be FIVE years with eligibility for re-appointment for one more term only after a similar Selection Committee process.
the term of appointment of the College Principal shall be five years with eligibility for re-appointment for one more term only after a similar Selection Committee process which shall take into account an external peer review, its recommendations and its outcomes. The framework of the external peer review shall be specified by the UGC.
19. From the documents on record, we find that the petitioner was considered for re-appointment by a Selection Committee of the Ewing Christian College Society, Allahabad comprising the following members:
1. The Rt. Rev. Collin C Theodore
2. The Rev. R.A.K. Joseph
3. Prof. Dr. Alexander Lall
4. Prof. S. Victor Babu
5. Prof. D.P.Jayapandian
6. Dr. John Patterson
7. Dr. Mrs. G.S. Zamen
20. The Notification dated 29.11.2016 of the University Grants Commission provides for the constitution of the External Peer Review Committee which shall be as follows:
(i). Nominee of the Vice-Chancellor of the Affiliating University
(ii).Nominee of the Chairman, University Grants Commission;
and further provides that the nominees shall be nominated from the Principal of the Colleges with Excellence/College with Potential for Excellence/Autonomous Colleges/NAAC 'A+' accredited Colleges and states that the report of the External Peer Review Committee shall be the main basis for reappointment of the Principal.
21. In the present case the Selection Committee which has recommended the re-appointment of the petitioner does not show that it is an External Peer Review Committee with a nominee of the Vice-Chancellor of the Allahabad University and nominee of the Chairman of the University Grants Commission, therefore such a Selection Committee was itself not a validly constituted Committee as per the University Grants Commission's Regulations and Guidelines.
22. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the Agenda No.27/47 for reappointment of one Dr. Anand Kumar Srivastava, Principal of the C.M.P. Degree College has been approved by the Executive Council of the University of Allahabad in its meeting held on 28.10.2017 and thereafter a decision was taken by the Executive Council of the University of Allahabad vide its Resolution dated 02.04.2018 at Agenda No.30/48 to reappoint Dr. Anand Kumar Srivastava and thereafter a letter dated 08.11.2017 was issued directing Dr. Anand Kumar Srivastava to take charge of the Principal of the College.
23. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents in this regard is that Dr. Anand Kumar Srivastava was appointed as Principal of the Institution one year prior to his retirement and therefore, he was granted reappointment as per the amended Regulations, 2016 whereas the petitioner had already completed more than 17 years as Principal and therefore he was not entitled for re-employment in terms of the Regulations, 2010.
So far as the appointment of Dr. Anand Kumar Srivastava is concerned, we would not like to express any opinion as regards validity or otherwise of his reappointment as Principal as we are informed by the learned counsel for the parties that the matter of re-employment of Dr. Anand Kumar Srivastava is under challenge before this Court through a writ petition in which hearing has been concluded and judgment is reserved. Even otherwise the reappointment of Dr. Anand Kumar Srivastava is not under challenge before us.
24. Here it would also be appropriate to refer to the judgment of Supreme Court in 2015 (6) SCC 363 (Kalyani Mathivanan Vs. K.V. Jeyaraj and Others) particularly paragraphs 52 and 53 which read as under:
"52. In Annamalai University vs. Information and Tourism Deptt.1 this Court observed that UGC Act was enacted by Parliament in exercise of its power under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India whereas the Open University Act was enacted by Parliament in exercise of its power under Entry 25 of List III. It was held that in such circumstances the question of repugnancy between the provisions of the said two Acts, does not arise. The Court while holding that the provisions of the UGC Act are binding on all the Universities held as follows:
"40. The UGC Act was enacted by Parliament in exercise of its power under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India whereas the Open University Act was enacted by Parliament in exercise of its power under Entry 25 of List III thereof. The question of repugnancy of the provisions of the said two Acts, therefore, does not arise. It is true that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Open University Act shows that the formal system of education had not been able to provide an effective means to equalise educational opportunities. The system is rigid inter alia in respect of attendance in classrooms. Combinations of subjects are also inflexible.
* * * *
42. The provisions of the UGC Act are binding on all universities whether conventional or open. Its powers are very broad. The Regulations framed by it in terms of clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 are of wide amplitude. They apply equally to open universities as also to formal conventional universities. In the matter of higher education, it is necessary to maintain minimum standards of instructions. Such minimum standards of instructions are required to be defined by UGC. The standards and the coordination of work or facilities in universities must be maintained and for that purpose required to be regulated. The powers of UGC under Sections 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(g) are very broad in nature. Subordinate legislation as is well known when validly made becomes part of the Act. We have noticed hereinbefore that the functions of UGC are all-pervasive in respect of the matters specified in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 12-A and clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (2) thereof."
53. The aforesaid judgment makes it clear that to the extent the State Legislation is in conflict with Central Legislation including sub-ordinate legislation made by the Central Legislation under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List shall be repugnant to the Central Legislation and would be inoperative.
25. Therefore in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Annamalai University (supra) and Kalyani Mathivanan (supra) the Regulations, 2010 and Regulations, 2016 framed by the University Grants Commission would supersede the letter of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, Government of India dated 23.03.2007 and 07.11.2008.
26. Therefore, on a conspectus of facts of the case and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, we find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 31.07.2018. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date: 13th September, 2018 o.k./N.Tiwari.