JUDGMENT Mehrotra, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a direction be issued to the opposite party No. 2 the Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, quashing his order of rejection of the petitioner's nomination and further to issue a writ of mandamus to the opposite parties to accept the petitioner's nomination and permit him to contest the election. 2. The petitioner is the Principal of D. A. V. Intermediate College Lucknow. He is a sitting member of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. since 1946 from the constituency of Principals of Intermediate Colleges not maintained by the State Government under Section 3 (1) (c) of the Intermediate, Education Act, 1921. The D. A. V. College is a college not maintained by the state Government and it is maintained and managed by the Arya Samaj, Lucknow which is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act. In the year 1954 the Lucknow University permitted the society to open B. A. and B. Sc. classes in the College, and since then these classes are held in that college. According to the petitioner these classes are held as a separate and independent section of the College. A separate committee for the management of the Degree section has been constituted by the society. The staff of the Intermediate Section is also separate from the staff of the Degree section. According to the petitioner the budgets for the two sections are also separately prepared and the accounts of the two sections are separately maintained. Originally there were two Principals, one for the Intermediate Section and the other for the Degree Section; but now the present petitioner happens to be both the Principal of the Intermediate Section and the Degree Section. The Intermediate section prepares candidates for the Intermediate Education of the Board. Notice was sent by the Secretary of the Board of Intermediate Education to the Principal D. A. V. Intermediate College, Lucknow, informing him that the President had fixed the 20th of December 1956 as the date of election for four Principals of Intermediate Colleges not maintained by the State Government from among themselves. The Principal was further invited to nominate any eligible person for the said election. The Principal was further invited to nominate any eligible person for the said election. One Shri B. D. Chopra Principal of the Intermediate College, Lucknow, proposed the name of the petitioner for election to the Board from the said constituency and the petitioner consented to his nomination. By a letter dated the 13th of November 1956 the Secretary informed the petitioner that he is not eligible to contest the election under Section 3(1) (c) of the Intermediate Education Act inasmuch as the D. A. V. College has been raised to the status of a Degree College. A letter was written by Sri B. D. Chopra to the opposite party pointing out that the nomination of the petitioner had been improperly rejected. He was however informed by a letter dated the 24th of November 1956 by the Secretary that the Principal of a Degree College was not permitted to contest the election from the constituency of the Principals of non-Government Intermediate Colleges. Thereafter the petitioner took some legal advice in the matter and the present petition was filed in this Court on the 11th of December 1956. 3. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Secretary of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education. In paragraph 15 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as a teacher of Hindi in the Degree College by resolution No. 13 dated the 17th of July 1954 of the Executive Council of the Lucknow University. One of the conditions of the recognition of the College was that "there would be separate teaching staff for the B. A. and B. Com. classes and such teachers would not be given any teaching work for the Intermediate classes." The petitioner violated the resolution and discipline imposed by the Statute. He was working as a Principal of the Degree College as well as University Lecturer in Hindi since the 23rd of July 1954. It is further pointed out in the counter affidavit that one of the conditions of the recognition prescribed by the Statute of the Lucknow University is that the whole time services of the teacher shall be at the disposal of the College and that special permission must be obtained for engaging in other activities. It is further pointed out in the counter affidavit that one of the conditions of the recognition prescribed by the Statute of the Lucknow University is that the whole time services of the teacher shall be at the disposal of the College and that special permission must be obtained for engaging in other activities. On the 17th of December 1956 the Lucknow University Registrar informed the petitioner that he had not obtained any permission to work as Principal of the Intermediate College also. It is further alleged in the counter affidavit that in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Education Code a Principal of an Intermediate College must give his whole time to the services of the Intermediate College and must not take up any work unconnected with the aforesaid College without obtaining the previous sanction of the Committee. It is not in the public interest that Principal of Intermediate College should be given permission to take up any work unconnected with their College as this tends to lower the educational standards. Both the jobs held by the petitioner are whole time jobs and he has thus been occupying both the posts simultaneously in violation of the spirit and letter of the law. It is however significant to note that in the counter affidavit the fact that the two sections of the D. A. V. College are managed by separate committees and have separate teaching staff has not been denied. It has also not been denied that the petitioner is working both as the Principal of the D. A. V. Intermediate College and the Degree Section of the said College. By means of a supplementary counter affidavit it is also pointed out that on the 30th of November 1956 the office of the Board of Intermediate Education sent out ballot papers to all the Principals of Intermediate College with an intimation that the last date for the receipt of the ballot papers duly filled in was the 20th of December 1956. In paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit details have been given of the number of ballot papers duly filled in received in the office of the Board on different dates from the various teachers from all over the State of Uttar Pradesh. The ballot papers started coming in front the 3rd of December 1956. In paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit details have been given of the number of ballot papers duly filled in received in the office of the Board on different dates from the various teachers from all over the State of Uttar Pradesh. The ballot papers started coming in front the 3rd of December 1956. From the 3rd of December 1956 till the 12th of December 1956 the office had received 175 ballot papers and thereafter up to the 20th of December 1956 the office had received 472 ballot papers. 4. The main contention raised by the petitioner's counsel is that under the provisions of Section 3 (1) (c) of the Intermediate Education Act the petitioner who was the Principal both of the Intermediate College and the Degree College was eligible to be elected as a member of the Board. Section 3 (1) (c) of the Act provides as follows:- "3 (1). The Board shall be established as soon as may be after this Act has come into force, and shall consist of- (C) four Principals of Intermediate Colleges not maintained by the Provincial Government, elected from among themselves." 5. Chapter XVI, Regulation 8, provides that every Principal or Head Master, as the case may be of an institution recognised by the Board shall be entitled to vote. The petitioner therefore contends that he had a right to vote inasmuch as he was the Principal of a recognised institution. It is not contended that this regulation was framed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The contention of the Standing Counsel who represents the opposite parties is that Section 3 (1) (c) of the Act makes the Principal of an Intermediate College eligible for election to the membership of the Board, but if a person along with the office of a Principal of an Intermediate College holds any other office he is not eligible for election to the membership of the Board. In my opinion there is no force in the contention raised by the Standing Counsel. It is an accepted principle of an interpretation of the Statute that no words are to be added to the words in the Statute. A person who is a Principal of an Intermediate College does not cease to be so if he occupies any other position. It is an accepted principle of an interpretation of the Statute that no words are to be added to the words in the Statute. A person who is a Principal of an Intermediate College does not cease to be so if he occupies any other position. Although the petitioner is the Principal of the Degree Section he does not cease to be the Principal of the Intermediate College. There are no words in Section 3 (1) (c) which justify an interpretation that the Principal of the Intermediate College referred to in that section means a Principal of an Intermediate College who does not hold any other office. If the intention of the Legislature was to disqualify a Principal of an Intermediate College from seeking election to the membership of the Board on the ground that he holds any other office the Legislature would have either used clearer words in Section 3 (1) (c) to that effect or would have enacted a separate clause laying down this as a disqualification to seek election to the membership of the Board. If the interpretation put by the Standing Counsel is accepted certain words like other than those who hold any other office will have to be added after the words `Principals of Intermediate colleges not maintained by the Provincial Government' and before the words `elected from among themselves.' If the interpretation of the opposite parties is accepted the clause will have to read something like this. "Four Principals of Intermediate colleges not maintained by the Provincial Government other than those who hold any other office, elected from among themselves." 6. The Standing Counsel has urged that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this case as by his conduct he has allowed the elections to take place and if the petitioner is granted relief of mandamus against the opposite parties directing them to accept the nomination of the petitioner it will disturb the entire elections which have so far taken place. Fresh ballot papers will have to be sent to all the voters again. In these circumstances the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own laches and ask this Court to issue a writ of mandamus. The letter by which the petitioner was informed that his nomination has been rejected is dated the 13th of November 1956. Fresh ballot papers will have to be sent to all the voters again. In these circumstances the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own laches and ask this Court to issue a writ of mandamus. The letter by which the petitioner was informed that his nomination has been rejected is dated the 13th of November 1956. The petition in this court was filed on the 11th of December 1956. The President had fixed the 20th of December 1956 for the elections. As will appear from the counter affidavit itself the Secretary had asked the voters to send their ballot papers duly signed by the 20th of December 1956. On the 11th of December 1956 when the petitioner moved the present petition he asked for an interim stay staying further elections but the prayer was not granted. The opposite parties were only directed not to declare the results of the elections meanwhile. It cannot therefore be said that the petitioner's application to this court on the 11th of December 1956 was a belated one and that the petitioner was guilty of any laches. Emphasis was laid by the counsel for the opposite parties on paragraph 13 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition which reads as follows:- "That the petitioner then consulted Sri Bishan Singh, Advocate High Court (Lucknow Bench) and the Standing Counsel of the D. A. V. College in respect of the advisability of filing a writ petition in the High Court against the rejection of the petitioner's nomination by the respondent No. 2. The petitioner was advised that he should file a writ petition in the Lucknow Bench. This advice was given to the petitioner sometime in the third week of the last month. For certain unavoidable reasons the writ petition could not be filed in the last month. When however the petitioner asked Sri Bishan Singh to file a writ petition on Friday last, Sri Bishan Singh told the petitioner that the writ petition should be filed in the High Court at Allahabad." 7. From this paragraph it is argued by the Standing counsel that the petitioner himself concedes that there was delay in filing the petition and he has not given any reasons as to why he could not file the petition earlier. From this paragraph it is argued by the Standing counsel that the petitioner himself concedes that there was delay in filing the petition and he has not given any reasons as to why he could not file the petition earlier. In my judgment this paragraph does not in any way admit that the petitioner was guilty of undue delay in filing the petition. In this paragraph a certain fact has been stated that the legal adviser of the petitioner advised him to file a writ petition sometimes in the last week of November 1956; but in spite of his legal advice on account of some reasons it could not be filed in the month of November 1956. But that does not mean that the petitioner has in any way admitted that there was any delay in filing the petition. As I have said the order was received by the petitioner on the 13th of November 1956. He rushed to this Court within a month of the receipt of the order. There was sufficient time for him to obtain a stay order so as to avoid the holding of the elections on the 20th of December 1956. It was contended by the Standing Counsel that in the supplementary counter affidavit it has been asserted that by the 1st of December 1956 the Board had already dispatched the ballot papers to all the Principals and in any case the petitioner should have come to this Court be fore that date. The petitioner could not have known on what date the ballot papers were likely to be dispatched by the office of the Board and consequently it cannot be said that his failure to come before the 1st of December 1956 dis-entitles him to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. It was lastly contended by the Standing Counsel that the petitioner violated the Statute of the Lucknow University and the condition on which the permission was granted by the University to hold Degree classes. It will therefore be against the maintenance of public discipline if then petitioner is granted any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Reliance has been placed on the conditions of recognition of Associated Colleges given in the B amended Statute of the Lucknow University. It will therefore be against the maintenance of public discipline if then petitioner is granted any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Reliance has been placed on the conditions of recognition of Associated Colleges given in the B amended Statute of the Lucknow University. Condition 10 reads as follows:- "An Associated College, shall employed whole time teachers as a rule but may for very special reasons appoint part time teachers not exceeding 10 per cent of the total strength of the staff on special terms." That is one of the conditions which is required to be observed by an Associated College. It is contended by the Standing Counsel that has the petitioner was holding the post of the Principal of the Intermediate Section as well as the Degree section and was also Hindi teacher of the Degree College his employment as a part time teacher was in contravention of conditions to which already referred to. This condition for special reasons permits an appointment of a part time teacher and it, cannot be assumed in the absence of any clear allegations in the affidavit that there were no special reasons for the appointment of the petitioner as a Hindi teacher even though he was working as a Principal of the Intermediate College. Apart from it, any breach of these conditions may disentitle the College to be recognised as an affiliated College but that cannot be a disqualification for seeking election to the membership of the Board. Reliance was also placed on condition 5 of the agreement which is to be entered into between a teacher and a management of an aided institution and which reads as follows:- "The Head Master shall give his whole time to the service of the said school and shall not take up any work unconnected with the said school without obtaining the previous sanction of the Committee." 9. To my mind even assuming that any breach of this condition was committed by the petitioner that cannot be regarded as a disqualification for seeking election to the membership of the Board. 10. In the result I allow this petition with costs, quash the order of the opposite party No. 2 rejecting the nomination of the petitioner and further issue a mandamus directing the opposite parties to hold the election after taking into consideration the nomination of the petitioner.