R.K.AGRAWAL,J. - (1.) DISAGREEING with a decision of a co-ordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Abdul Quayum Khan v. State of U.P. and others, (1994) 1 UPLBEC 402, a Division Bench of this Court has referred the matter to a larger Bench for reconsideration of the view expressed in the aforementioned cases.
(2.) IN the case of Dr. Abdul Quayum Khan (supra), this Court has held that Section 50(1-B) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), as inserted by the U.P. State Universities (Amendment) Act, 1987 (U.P. Act No. 19 of 1987) (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act 2), has made applicable the First Statutes of the University of Gorakhpur which was in force immediately before the establishment of the Purvanchal University, to the Purvanchal University (which was established on 2nd October, 1987) and any amendments and modifications made in the First Statutes of the University of Gorakhpur subsequent to that date will not be applicable to the Purvanchal University unless and until the State Government, by notification, provides. The Division Bench while coming to the aforesaid conclusion has held that the words “as in force immediately before the establishment of the said University” have to be given full meaning and irresistible conclusion is that the First Statutes of the University of Gorakhpur as in force immediately before 2nd October, 1987 shall apply to the Purvanchal University. It further held that the expression “subject to such adaptations and modifications as the State Government may, by notification, provide” empowers the State Government to issue notification directing the First Statutes of the University of Gorakhpur subject to such adaptations and modifications as were considered proper, would apply to the Purvanchal University but a separate notification made specifically for the University will have to be issued and as no notification with regard to the Purvanchal University notifying its Statutes has been issued so far either with adaptations and modifications or without any adaptation and modification, the amendments made in the Statutes of the University of Gorakhpur on or after 2nd October, 1987 would not apply to the former University. The Division Bench while disagreeing with the decision in Dr. Abdul Quayum Khan (supra) has observed that the phrase “shall apply to it subject to such adaptations and modifications as the State Government may, by notification, provide” has been used in sub-section (1) of Section 50 in more or less the same manner as it has been used in sub-section (1-B). The educational qualification for appointment of Lecturer in the University of Gorakhpur can and should not be interpreted differently when it so as to appointment of a Lecturer in the Purvanchal University or in the College affiliated to either of these two Universities. There would be no justification for permitting the Board to relax the minimum qualifications for teachers of the Purvanchal University or any affiliated College thereof whereas those have to be adhered to for the teachers to be appointed in the University of Gorakhpur or colleges affiliated thereof and, therefore, the applicability of the aforesaid phrase must necessarily mean and govern the Statutes of the University of Gorakhpur and because the First Statutes of Purvanchal University having not yet been framed, the Statutes of the University of Gorakhpur must be held to apply to the Purvanchal University with all such adaptations and modifications as the State Government may, by notification, provide in the Statutes of the University of Gorakhpur from time to time. Further, the educational standard of Gorakhpur and Purvanchal Universities or affiliated colleges to either of these two, cannot be permitted to differently viewed vis-a-vis appointment of Lecturer in various disciplines. It further held that the proposition that separate adaptation or modification notification has to be issued by the State Government in applying the Statutes of the University of Gorakhpur to the Purvanchal University, is not warranted and it is difficult to imagine how and why such distinction is permissible particularly when there is no qualifying expression which could have made permissible such segregated applicability of the provisions. According to the Division Bench, if the Legislature would have intended that all amendments made in the Statutes of the University of Gorakhpur would apply to the Purvanchal University, it could have used several different expressions or language to convey such a meaning and to them it appears that the aforesaid phrase governs the Statutes of the University of Gorakhpur, as amended from time to time, which have to apply to the Purvanchal University and if the argument of the petitioner is accepted, the Legislature would have added the words “for its applicability on Purvanchal University” at the ends of sentence instead the Legislature has used a full stop after the word “provide”.
(3.) AS the question raised in all the three writ petitions and referred to us is common, for deciding the issue, we have treated Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25953 of 2000, Dr. Mohammad Tahir v. State of U.P. and others, as the leading case and given out the facts of the said writ petition.;