# Rajiv Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 8 ILRA 154
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-12
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1745 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajiv-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46006
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - U.P. State Universities Act,
1973 - Section 2(13) - Statutes of Meerut
8 All. Rajiv Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
155
University - Clause 13.05 - Affiliation of the
Colleges - Prior Permission of Vice-Chancellor
- Observance of Clause 13.05 would be
necessary or else the application for affiliation
to the University itself would not be
considered - Every college has necessarily to
ensure its compliance - Neither sub-clauses
(a) to (d) specified in Clause 13.05 can be
altered even with the permission of the Vice
Chancellor in view of use of the expression
'shall' occurring in Clause 13.05 nor the Vice
Chancellor can be denuded of any jurisdiction
in the matter relating to change in the
constitution of management of an affiliated
college (Para 14 and 19)

Held -

## Text

154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
arise under a contract or under a
statute."

62. This decision has been followed
in Union Territory Administration,
Chandigarh and Ors. v. Mrs. Manju
Mathur and Anr., JT 2011 (3) SC 179.

63. In Hukam Chand Gupta vs.
Director General, I.C.A.R. and Ors.
AIR 2013 SC 547, the Court observed
that in order to attract doctrine of "equal
pay for equal work", assessment of the
nature and quality of duties performed
and responsibilities shouldered by the
incumbents is necessary. Even if, the two
persons are working on two posts having
same nomenclature, it would not lead to
the necessary inference that the posts are
identical in every manner.

64. Recently also the above
principles, discussed in detail, have been
reiterated and followed in S. H. Baig and
Ors. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
and Ors., (2018)10SCC621; General
Manager, Electrical Rengali Hydro
Electric Project, Orissa and Ors. vs.
Giridhari
Sahu
and
Ors.,
(2019)10SCC674; and, Steel Authority
of India Ltd. and Ors. vs. Jaggu and
Ors., (2019)7SCC658.

65. Applying above principles to
the facts of present case, it is not in
dispute that size of different Mandi
Samities in different areas are different
having different quantity of transactions
dealing different strength of people,
quantum of revenue is largely differs and,
therefore, degree and responsibility also
differs based on size and structure of
Mandi Samiti. Therefore, categorization
of Mandi Samities, per se, if not initially
bad, the offers posted looking to size of
Mandi Samiti concerned and for that
purpose categorizing in different ways
per se cannot be said to be illegal,
arbitrary, unreasonable or irrational.

66. When the question of parity in
work, performance and responsibility of
are seen in the light of above exposition of
law, atleast we have no hesitation in
holding that there cannot be any parity in
the matter of pay scale as all the four posts
cannot be equated and atleast nothing has
been brought on record to show that the
same are similar in all respect. 67. In view
of above, relief prayed by petitioners
based on principle of equal pay for equal
work to claim parity in the matter of pay
scale cannot be granted.

67. In the result, the writ petition
lacks merit. Dismissed. Interim order, if
any, stands vacated.
----------
(2020)08ILR A154
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Writ C No. 1745 of 2020

Rajiv Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri G.K. Singh, Sri Arvind Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri R.K. Ojha, Sri Krishna Pahal,
Sri Rahul Chaudhary, Sri Tejasvi Mishra

A. Civil Law - U.P. State Universities Act,
1973 - Section 2(13) - Statutes of Meerut
8 All. Rajiv Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
155
University - Clause 13.05 - Affiliation of the
Colleges - Prior Permission of Vice-Chancellor
- Observance of Clause 13.05 would be
necessary or else the application for affiliation
to the University itself would not be
considered - Every college has necessarily to
ensure its compliance - Neither sub-clauses
(a) to (d) specified in Clause 13.05 can be
altered even with the permission of the Vice
Chancellor in view of use of the expression
'shall' occurring in Clause 13.05 nor the Vice
Chancellor can be denuded of any jurisdiction
in the matter relating to change in the
constitution of management of an affiliated
college (Para 14 and 19)

Held -
23. In light of discussions and deliberations
made above, it is held that obtaining of prior
permission from the Vice Chancellor before
affecting any change in constitution of
management of an affiliated college would be
impermissible in law. Consequently, the
amendment made in the constitution of
management on 11.11.2016 is not liable to be
sustained and is quashed.
B.
Interpretation
of
Statute
-
Expression 'Shall' used in statute -
Meaning - Directory or Mandatory - Clause
13.05
of
First
Statutes
provides
that
constitution of management of every college
shall provide for matters specified in sub
clauses (a) to (d) - As is clear from language
of Clause 13.05 of Statutes constitution of
every college shall incorporate the conditions
as are enumerated under sub clauses (a) (b)
(c) (cc) & (d) and since the word 'shall' has
been used, therefore, it is mandatory and not
directory - These conditions are to be there
in the constitution of the management and
they obviously cannot be amended or
deleted. (Para 16 and 18)
Writ Petition allowed (E-1)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J.)

1. Short question that requires
consideration in this case is as to whether
the expression ''the said constitution'
occurring in Clause 13.05 (e) of First
Statutes of Meerut University requires
prior permission of Vice-Chancellor
before incorporating any change in the
constitution of management of every
college or is it restricted to Clause 13.05
(a) to (d) alone? Learned Senior Counsels
for the rival parties submit that above
being a pure question of law can be
decided by this Court without formally
calling of counter affidavit.

2.

Kisan
Degree
College,
Simbhaoli, (hereinafter referred to as the
''College')
is
college
affiliated
to
Chaudhary Charan Singh University,
Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the
''University). The University is regulated
by the provisions of Uttar Pradesh State
Universities
Act,
1973
(hereinafter
referred to as the ''Act of 1973'). Section
2(13) of the Act of 1973 defines
management in following terms:-

"2(13) 'management' in relation to
an affiliated or associated college, means the
managing committee or other body charged
with managing the affairs of that college and
recognised as such by the University :

[Provided that in relation to any
such college maintained by a Municipal
Board or a Nagar Mahapalika, the
expression
'management'
means
the
education committee of such Board or
Mahapalika as the case may be and the
expression 'Head of the Management'
means
the
Chairman
of
such
committee;]"

3. Management of College is
regulated by ''Bye-laws of Kisan Degree
College, Simbhaoli' (hereinafter referred
to as the ''bye-laws'). Clause 4 of the bye-
156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
laws defines committee of management
in following terms:-

"Committee of Management:
The authority to manage and conduct the
affairs of the college shall vest in the
Managing Committee in accordance with
the provisions of the bye-law of this
college and the statutes and regulations
of the Agra University Hand Book for
affiliated colleges."

4. Clause 5 of the bye-laws
provides for constitution of committee of
management.
As
per
bye-laws,
committee of management shall have
fifteen members in all including the
office-bearers, ex-officio and ordinary
members, who are all defined in the byelaws. Clause 6(2)(a) of the bye laws
would be relevant for the present
purposes and is extracted hereinafter:-

"Seven members to be elected
by the delegates of seven constituencies
as defined by the Cane Development
Union, Simbhaoli Ltd."

5. The bye-laws as it originally
stood are alleged to have been amended
on 11.11.2016, and Clause 6(2)(a) stands
substituted with a new clause providing
for ''eleven members to be elected by the
general body from its members'. SubClause (5) is also added in Clause 5(b) of
the
bye-laws,
thereby
including
a
category of life members who deposit Rs.
1000/- with the college, and duly
received by Principal and Secretary of
managing committee. These changes,
apart from others in bye-laws of college
are the bone of contention between
parties.

6. According to petitioner, who
claims to be a delegate from Cooperative Cane Development Union
Simbhaoli and thereby a member of
General Body of College, the amendment
is invalid as procedure contemplated in
Clause 25 of bye-laws read with other
clauses, that specifies procedure for any
modification therein, have not been
followed. It is also urged that aforesaid
amendment in bye-laws is also invalid as
Vice-Chancellor has not granted prior
permission before making such changes
in the constitution of management of
college concerned. Reliance is placed
upon Clause 13.05 of Statutes of
University,
which
is
reproduced
hereinafter:-

"13.05. The constitution of the
Management of every college shall
provide that -

(a) the Principal of the College
shall be ex-officio member of the
Management;

(b) twenty five per centum of
the members of the Management, are
teachers (including the Principal);

(c) the teachers (excluding the
Principal) referred to in clause (b) are
such members for a period of one year by
rotation in order of seniority;

(cc)
one
member
of
the
Management shall be from the nonteaching class III employees of the
College selected for a period of one year
by rotation in order of seniority;

(d) subject to the provisions of
clause (c) no two members of the
Management shall be related to each
other
within
the
meaning
of
the
Explanation to Section 20;

(e) no change in the said
constitution shall be made except with
8 All. Rajiv Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
157
the prior permission of the ViceChancellor;

(f) if any question arises
whether any person has been duly chose,
as, or is entitled to be a member or
office-bearer of the Management or
whether the Management is legally
constituted, the decision of the ViceChancellor shall be final;

7. (g) the college is prepared to
place before any person or persons
authorised by the Vice-Chancellor or
before the Panel of Inspectors appointed
by the University all original documents
pertaining to income and expenditure of
the college including the accounts of the
Society. Trust, Board or Parent body
under which may be operating.

(h)
the
income
from
the
Endowment Funds referred to in Statute
13.06
shall
be
available
for
the
maintenance of the College."

8. The amendment in bye-laws
appear to have been acknowledged by the
Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies &
Chits, Meerut. These amended bye-laws
also appear to have been followed in the
last elections conducted to constitute
committee of management of the college.
Petitioner has approached this Court for
issuing necessary directions to authorities
to act as per Statutes and has also
challenged the amendments made in the
bye-laws as same are alleged to have
been
made
without
following
the
procedure contemplated under Clause
13.05 (e) of the First Statutes of
University.

9. I have heard Sri G.K. Singh,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Arvind Kumar for petitioner, Sri R.K.
Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Sri Rahul Chaudhary for respondent nos.
4 & 5. Sri Tejasvi Mishra holding brief of
Sri Krishan Pahal has been heard for the
University while Standing Counsel has
been heard for State authorities. With the
consent of learned counsel for parties and
also as per the provisions of Rule of
Court, this writ petition is being disposed
of at admission stage itself.

10. Sri Tejasvi Mishra holding brief
of Sri Krishan Pahal on behalf of the
University contends that expression 'the
said constitution' occurring in clause
13.05 of First Statutes of Meerut
University refers to the constitution of
the management of college and is not
restricted to sub - clauses (a) to (d) thereof. It
is submitted that Vice-Chancellor being the
Principal Executive and Academic Officer of
the University exercises general supervision
and control over affairs of the University and
a narrow interpretation is not required to be
given to the expression "the said constitution"
for the purposes of obtaining prior permission
of the Vice-Chancellor. Sri Mishra further
refers to sub clause (f) of Statute 13.05 to
submit that power of the Vice Chancellor
under said statute includes power to decide as
to whether any person has been duly chosen
as, or is entitled to be a member or officebearer of the management or whether the
Management is legally constituted. The Act
of 1973 read with First Statues clearly
contemplates vesting of authority in the ViceChancellor over its affiliated/constituent
colleges and a narrow construction suggested
by the private respondents would go against
the statutory scheme, itself.

11. Sri R.K. Ojha appearing for
private respondents however submits that
Clause 13.05(e) has to be given a literal
interpretation and the concern of ViceChancellor must be restricted to the
158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
stipulations made in sub clauses (a) to (d)
of Statute 13.05. Learned Senior Counsel
with reference to dictionary meaning of
term 'said' states that it refers to past tense
and past participle of 'say' and would be
synonymous to the expression 'aforesaid'.
It is thus contended that Statute 13.05 (e)
specifically refers to sub clauses (a) to (d)
and a composite reading of the Statute
makes it amply clear that requirement of
prior permission from Vice Chancellor is
restricted to sub clauses (a) to (d) only.

12. It is in the backdrop of above
submissions that matter needs to be
examined by this Court. Before proceeding
further it would be worth noticing that
import of Clause 13.05 of First Statutes of
Meerut University fell for consideration
before this Court in a bunch of Special
Appeals with leading Special Appeal No.
237 of 2015, decided on 24.11.2016. The
Division Bench noticed the issue, but
refused to answer it and left it open to be
decided in an appropriate case. The issue is,
therefore, now required to be examined by
this Court.

13. It is undisputed that no prior
permission of the Vice Chancellor has
been obtained before incorporating the
disputed amendment in the bye-laws of
college. Learned Senior Counsel for
petitioner points out that Educational
Society, Simbhaoli, Meerut had initially
established two educational institutions
namely Raghubir Singh Degree College
affiliated to University and Raghubir
Singh Kisan Inter College recognized
under U.P. Intermediate Education Act,
1921. With passage of time and on
account
of
various
developments
Raghubir Singh Degree College was
renamed as Kisan Degree College,
Simbhaoli i.e. the College.

14. Sub clause (e) of Statute 13.05
provides that no change in ''the said
constitution' shall be made except with
prior permission of Vice Chancellor.
Before that, Statute 13.04 provides that
before an application for affiliation is
placed before Executive Council the Vice
Chancellor
must
be
satisfied
that
provisions of Statute 13.05, 13.06 and
13.07 have been complied with. From the
scheme contained in the Statute it is
clearly discernible that observance of
Clause 13.05 would be necessary or else
the application for affiliation to the
University
itself
would
not
be
considered. The observance of the
conditions laid down in Statute 13.05 are
mandatory
and
every
college
has
necessarily to ensure its compliance.

15. By virtue of Section 2(13) of
Act 1973, read with First Statutes it is
mandatory for every College desiring
affiliation with the University to have a
management for governance of the
College. The College, once affiliated to
University is virtually an extension of the
University itself inasmuch as students of
affiliated college are given degrees by the
University
itself.
The
University,
therefore,
is
vitally
interested
in
governance of the College as per Act
1973 and the Statutes and Ordinances
framed thereunder. It is for this reason
that Vice Chancellor is conferred with the
authority under the Act to recognise
management of affiliated colleges. The
manner in which management of an
affiliated college shall be run is also of
relevance for the University. It is for
these
reasons
that
composition
of
management has to be clearly provided
for. Clause 13.05 of the First Statutes of
the University accordingly refers to the
constitution of management.
8 All. Rajiv Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
159

16. Clause 13.05 of First Statutes
provides that constitution of management of
every college shall provide for matters
specified in sub clauses (a) to (d). The use of
expression "shall" clearly indicates that
stipulations referred to in sub clauses (a) to
(d) must exist and ordinarily any change
therein would not be permissible so long as
the Statutes are itself not amended.

17.

The
constitution
of
management, however, is not specified in
the
Statutes.
The
constitution
of
management of an affiliated college will
have
to
have
various
other
clauses/conditions
for
making
the
management
of
affiliated
college
functional in addition to sub-clauses (a)
to (d). So far as other clauses/stipulations
in the constitution of management are
concerned the college will have freedom
in its formulation. It is in this context that
Clause 13.05 (e) will have to be
examined.

18. As is clear from language of
Clause 13.05 of Statutes constitution of
every college shall incorporate the
conditions as are enumerated under sub
clauses (a) (b) (c) (cc) & (d) and since
the word shall has been used, therefore, it
is mandatory and not directory. These
conditions are to be there in the
constitution of the management and they
obviously cannot be amended or deleted.

19. Sub-clause (e) of Statute 13.05
stipulates that no change in constitution
of management shall be made except
with prior permission of the Vice
Chancellor. In case argument of Sri Ojha
is accepted that aforesaid statute refers to
sub-clauses (a) to (d) only then it would
mean that sub-clauses (a) to (d) can also
be changed with the prior permission of
the Vice Chancellor and, the Vice
Chancellor will have no role to play in
change of other clauses contained in the
constitution of management. Both the
premises would go contrary to the
scheme and stipulations under Act of
1973 and the statutes framed thereunder.
Neither sub-clauses (a) to (d) specified in
Clause 13.05 can be altered even with the
permission of the Vice Chancellor in
view of use of the expression "shall"
occurring in Clause 13.05 nor the Vice
Chancellor can be denuded of any
jurisdiction in the matter relating to
change
in
the
constitution
of
management of an affiliated college,
being the Principal Executive Officer of
the University the jurisdiction of Vice
Chancellor to have a say in the change of
constitution of management cannot be
doubted.

20. Once it is found that the
constitution of management is not
restricted to the stipulations contained in
sub-clauses (a) to (d) of Statute 13.05
then, the requirement of obtaining
permission before making amendment in
the constitution of management will have
to be interpreted as referring to any
clause in the constitution of management
and not refer to sub clauses (a) to (d) of
Statute 13.05.

21. It further transpires that in
1993 also an attempt was made to
change
constitution
of
managing
committee and the Vice Chancellor
vide his order dated 30th March, 2017
found the amendment to be bad for the
reason that no prior permission was
obtained from the Vice Chancellor. It
is contended that this order has
attained finality with dismissal of the
writ petition filed against it in default.
160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

22. It further appears that the Vice
Chancellor initially stayed the elections,
but without ensuring compliance to
Statute 13.05(e) has withdrawn his earlier
orders restricting the holding of elections.
The Vice Chancellor does not appear to
have examined the implication of non
observance of clause 13.05(e) while
passing the subsequent order.

23. In light of discussions and
deliberations made above, it is held that
obtaining of prior permission from the
Vice Chancellor before affecting any
change in constitution of management of
an
affiliated
college
would
be
impermissible in law. Consequently, the
amendment made in the constitution of
management on 11.11.2016 is not liable
to be sustained and is quashed. The Vice
Chancellor,
therefore,
shall
pass
necessary consequential orders as may be
warranted in law within a period of two
months from the date of presentation of
certified copy of this order.

24. Writ petition is allowed. No
order is passed as to costs.
----------
(2020)08ILR A160
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.08.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ-C No. 24484 of 2019
Connected with
Writ -C No. 26050 of 2019 and other cases

Ansar Ali ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Abhitab Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Ishan Shishu, Sri Vikas
Budhwar

A. Constitution of India - Article 14 -
Natural Justice - Non-speaking and cryptic
order - Legality - In order to secure fairness
and to prevent miscarriage of justice, the
authorities discharging function should follow
very accurate and proceedings conforming to
the norms of natural justice - An order
without well founded reason is like skeleton
which is neither identifiable for want of a
body cover nor, enforceable for want of
character it must have in it essentially - Held,
the orders passed by the authorities are not
only non-speaking unreasoned and cryptic
one but also cannot otherwise pass test of
Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 28, 29
and 33)
Writ Petition allowed (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani
Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs
Jagdish Sharan Varshney & ors.(2009) 4 SCC
240
2. Punjab State Electricity Board & ors. Vs Jit
Singh (2009) 13 SCC 118
3. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs. Deputy
commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati &
ors.(2015) 8 SCC 519
4. Rashmi Metaliks Limited & anr. Vs Kolkata
Metropolitan Development Authority & ors.,
(2013) 10 SCC 95
5. T.P.Senkumar. IPS Vs UOI 7& ors., (2017)
6 SCC 801
6. Mangalam Organics Ltd. Vs U.O.I. (2017) 7
SCC 221

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.
 Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)