N.D.Ojha, J. - (1.) A post-graduate College known as Janta Vadic College, Baraut (hereinafter referred to as the College) and an intermediate college are run by Jat Siksha Sabha, Baraut, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Society). This Society has its bye law. A true copy of these bye-law has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. In a meeting of the general body of the Society held on 20-8 1978 the petitioner was elected as President of the Society for a period of three years. One Ravindra Kumar, brother's son of the petitioner, was appointed as a lecturer in the Botany Department on 3-12 1979. Respondent no. 2 in his capacity as Vice-President of the Managing Committee of the two institutions referred to above and respondent no. 4 in his capacity as a member of the Society instituted suit no. 553 of 1980 in the court of the Civil Judge, Meerut, for a mandatory injunction restraining the petitioner from functioning as president of aforesaid Society. It was asserted by respondents 3 and 4 in their suit that on the appointment of the Ravindra Kumar as a lecturer in the Botany Department the petitioner automatically ceased to be the president of the Society in view of bye-law no. 14 (d) of the bye laws of the said Society The said bye-law provides that no relative of an employee in any of the educational institution run by the Society shall be entitled to be a member of the Society. It also provides that if any relative of a member was appointed in any of the educational institutions referred to above such member shall cease to be a member of the Society. Respondents 3 and 4 further stated that notwithstanding two letters being addressed to the petitioner on 28-1-1980 and 21-2-1980 by respondent no. 3 requiring him to vacate the office of the president in view of bye-law 14 (d) the petitioner paid no heed. In the said suit an application was also made by respondents 3 and 4 for a temporary injunction, restraining the petitioner from functioning as president of the Society. The application was opposed by the petitioner but was allowed by the 1st Civil Judge, Meerut, respondent no. 2. The petitioner preferred an appeal against that order which was dismissed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Meerut, respondent no 1. Aggrieved he has instituted this writ petition with a prayer to quash these two orders.
(2.) It was urged by counsel for the petitioner that bye-law no 14 (d) relied on by the respondents was not applicable inasmuch as it stood superseded by Section 39 of the U P. State Universities Act, .973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Reliance for this submission was placed on bye.law no 35 (a) which inter alia provides that in the event of any inconsistency between the bye-law and-the Act, statutes or the ordinances of the University the bye-laws to the extent of such inconsistency will be deemed to have been amended so as to make them consistent with the Act, statutes and ordinances of the University.
(3.) Having hear counsel for the parties I find it difficult to accept the submission made by counsel for the petitioner. It has not been disputed by counsel for the petitioner that Ravindra Kumar is a relative of the petitioner within the meaning of bye-law 14 (d) as also within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 39 of the Act. Considerable emphasise has, however, been placed on the proviso to Section 39. In order to appreciate the submission made by counsel for the parties in respect of the proviso it would be useful to extract Section 39 of the Act at this place. It reads:- "39. Disqualification for membership of management - 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), if 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 the execution of 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 unifliifr of a hall or hostel of the college or as proctor or tutor or for any duties, of a sihailar nature in relation to the college. Explanation - The term- "relative" shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Explanation to Section 20." The submission made by counsel for the petitioner is that since Ravindra Kumar was a teacher in the College and was getting remuneration from the College as a teacher the case was covered by the proviso to Section 39 and the disqualification laid down in Section 39 Was not applicable to the petitioner. On this very basis it was also urged that bye-law 14 (d) which made no distinction bet-tween a teacher and the other employees was inconsistent with Section 39 and-will be deemed to have been amended so as to bring it in conformed with Section 39. On a conspectus of the relevant provisions in the Act and First Statutes of the Meerut University to which the College is affiliated it is clear that the said proviso is not inconsistent with be leave 14(d) Statute 13.05 of the Fir Statutes provides for the constitutions the management of affiliated colleges. According to clause (d) of the said Statute 25 per cent of the members of the management ate to be teachers including the principal and according to clause (c the teachers (excluding the principal) are to be members for a period of one year by rotation in order of seniority. The proviso to Section 39, in my opinion, any safeguards the interest of such teachers who may be members of the management in accordance with clauses (b) and (c) of Statute 13 05. The proviso was cent to ensure that what was given to the teachers by one hand viz by clauses (b) and (c) of Statute 13 05 may not be taken away by the other, viz by Section 39 of the Act Had the proviso not been there the teachers who become members of the management under Statute 3.05 would have become disqualified to continue as members by virtue of Section 39 on the ground that they were accepting remuneration for work done in the College. The proviso accordingly applies only to such a teachers who was also a member for the time being of the management of the college under Statute 13.05. It does not apply to a teacher who is a relative oi a member of the management.;