EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF MEERUT COLLEGE, MEERUT & ORS. versus VICE CHANCELLOR, MEERUT UNIVERSITY, MEERUT & ANR.

Citation: [1983] 2 S.C.R. 622 · Decided: 31-03-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
622 
• 
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF MEERUT 
COLLEGE, MEERUT & ORS. 
v. 
VICE CHANCELLO~ MEERUT UNIVERSITY, 
MEERUT & ANR. 
March 31, 1983 
(Y.V. CHANDRACllUD, C.J., V.D. TULZAPURKAR AND 
A. v ARADA)lAJAN, JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973-ProvistJ to s. 39--lnteipretation 
of-Proviso saves 'teachers' fron1 disqualification contain?d in s. 39 but not 
'relatives' of teachers. 
Under s. 39 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 a 
person is disqualified from being chosen as a member of the Management of 
an affiliated collegt: if he or his. relative accepts any remuneration for any 
work in such college. }Jo\\·cver, the proviso to that section states that nothing 
in the section shall apply to the acceptance of any ren1uneratio11 by a teacher 
as such. The expression 'relative' as defined in 1he explanation to the section 
includes within its me~ning a 'brother'. 
The election of appellant-3 as IIonorary Sei.::re_tary of the Executive 
Com1nittee Or an affiliated college was set aside- by respondent-I on the ground 
that he was disqualified fro1n being chosen as such, as his brother was a 
lecturer in that college. The writ petition filed against the order of respon-
dent-I was dismissed by the High Cou11. 
Counsel for appellants contended that cases in which remuneration is 
accepted by a relative in his capacity as a teacher are exempted from the 
operation of s. 39 by virtue of the proviso thereto and since appellant-J's 
brother was accepting reinuneration a'i a teacher in the college, appellant-3 
was not disqualified from being chosen as a n1e1nber of the management of the 
college. It was further contended that s. 39 is prospective in operation in the 
sense that if a person was a teacher prior to th~ date when the Act came into 
force;his relative would not be disqualified even If he is elected after the 
coining into force of the Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
flELD: By reason of the proviso, the disqualification provided for 
bys. 39 will not apply "to the acceptance of any re1nuneration by a teacher 
as such". What the proviso means is that a teacher shall not be disqualified 
for being chosen as a me1nber of the Management of the college for the reason 
--·-··-
• 
" 
EXECUTIVE COMMrmE v. VICE CHANCELLOR 
623 
that he accepts remuneration from the college in his capacity as a teachel'. 
The object of the proviso is to enable the teachers of a college to become 
1nembers of the management of the college. 
The exception carved out by the 
proviso cannot apply to cases in which the person elected to the·. Executive 
Committee of the college is not himself a teacher but whose relative is a 
teacher. The proviso, thus interpreted, will give meaning to the provision 
contained in cl. (b) of Statute 13.05 of the Meerut University First Statutes, 
1977 which provides that 25 per cent of the Members of the Management of 
a co1lege shall be teachers. Granting protection to relatives or teacherS. is 
foreign to the very object of the proviso, the reason being that such relatives 
should not become a handy medium for distributing favours and patronage 
to the teachers. [626 B-H ; 627 A-C] 
Judgment dated August 26, 1981 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil 
Misc. Writ No. 11147 of 1980, approved. 
In the instant case, ·appellent-3 is not protected by the proviso; the 
disqualification is incurred by him because his brother, Who is a teacher, 
accepts remuneration for the work done by him for the college. [626 E] 
(b) The mere circumstance that s. 39 uses a verb in the present tense, 
namely, "accepts", will not justify the conclusion that the section will apply 
to those cases only wherein the remuneration is accepted by the teacher. for 
the first time after the Act came into force. The section, on its terms, must 
apply even to those cases in which a teacher has been accepting remuneration 
prior to the date on which the Act came into force with the result -that the 
relative of such a teacher cannot be chosen as a member of the Management 
of the college. While interpreting a statute one must have regard to the 
substance of the matter and hypertecbnical considerations should be ruled 
out. The interpretation should, as far possible, further the object· of the 
statute. [627 D-F] 
A 
B 
c 
.D 
E 
Judgment dated August 12, 1981 of the Allahabad High Court in 
F 
Civil Misc. Writ No. 8647 or 1980, overruled. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISCIDTION 
1982. 
Civil Appeal No. 3222 of 
Appeal 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.