Chandrachud, C. J. - (1.) This appeal arises out of a judgment dated May 5, 1982 of a learned single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants against in order passed by Respondent 1, the Vice-Chancellor, Meerut University, Meerut. In an election held on May 10, 1981 to the Executive Committee of the Meerut College, Appellant 3, Shri J. D. Singhal, was elected as an Honorary Secretary. That election was set aside 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 S. 39 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 10 of 1973, hereinafter 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 had not asked for a reference to the Chancellor of the University against the decision of the Vice-Chancellor, under S. 68 of the Act. That point does not survive any longer as the Chancellor has confirmed the decision of the Vice-Chancellor.
(2.) The Meerut College, which is a post-graduate institution, is affiliated to the Meerut University. In the year 1973, the State Legislature passed the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 10 of 1973, in order to consolidate the various statutes which applied to the different Universities in the State. The Act regulates the affairs of the University and its affiliated and constituent colleges. It provides, inter alia, for the constitution of Committees of Management. Section 37 of the Act, which deals with the affiliation of colleges, provides by sub-sec (4) that the management of an affiliated college will have the power to manage and control the affairs of the college and will he responsible for its maintenance and upkeep. Section 39 of the Act, which is directly in point provides for 'disqualification for membership of management'. It reads thus: "39. A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Management of an affiliated or associated college (other than a college maintained exclusively by the State Government or by local authority), it he or his relative accepts any remuneration for any work in or for such college or any contract for the 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 examination conducted by the college or for any duties as Superintendent 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 relation to the college. Explanation - The term 'relative' shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Explanation to S. 20." According to the Explanation to S. 20, 'relative' means the relations defined in S. 6 of the Companies Act, 1956, and includes the wife's (or husband's) brother, wife's (or husband's) father, wife (or husband's) sister, brother's son and brother's daughter. Section 6 of the Companies Act, 1956 provides: "A person shall be deemed to be a relative of another if, and only if - (a) they are members of a Hindu Undivided Family; or (b) they are husband and wife; or (c) the one is related to the other in the manner indicated in Schedule 1A". Schedule 1A contains a list of twenty-two persons amongst whom the brother is mentioned at serial No. 19.
(3.) The provisions of S. 39 of the Act seem to us quite clear and they do not admit of any doubt. By that section, no person can be chosen as a member of the management of an affiliated or associated college if either he or his relative accepts any remuneration for any work in such college. It is common ground that a brother of Appellant 3 has been working as a Lecturer in the Law Department of the Meerut College since July 10, 1972 and has been drawing remuneration in that capacity. Whatever may be the resulting inconvenience to Appellant 3, the language of S. 39 leaves no room for doubt that he is disqualified from being chosen as a member of the management of the Meerut College, because his brother receives remuneration for the work done by him as a Lecturer in the Law Department of the College.;