JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is a petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution for quashing the orders of appointment of respondent No. 2 as the Dean of the faculty of science and Technology and the subsequent proceedings of the selection committee of which respondent No. 2 was a member. ( 2. ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the petitioner is working as professor and head of the Department of Mathematics in Holkar Science College Indore; that on 17th April 1973 the chancellor of Indore University exercising powers under section 26 of the University of Indore Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the "old Act") appointed petitioner as the Dean of the Faculty of science for a term of two years. This term was to commence from the date he took over charge of the office and it is not in dispute that the petitioner took charge of the office on 22nd April 1973. Accordingly, according to the petitioner his term was to expire on 21st April 1975. ( 3. ) ON the 21st December 1973 the petitioner was appointed as the Dean of the Faculty of Technology and according to the petitioner he was appointed as Head of the Department of Pharmacy on 22nd April 1974 and that as he was the only professor in the faculty of Technology he was entitled to be appointed as the Dean of that Faculty. ( 4. ) THE petitioner has also alleged that he is the President of the Madhya pradesh Government College Teachers organisation which is recognized by the Government and he is also secretary of the University Teachers Association which according to the petitioner is also recognized. According to the petitioner he was a critic of the actions of the Vice-chancellor and on that basis bias is alleged against the respondent. The respondent University have admitted that the petitioner was the President of the College Teachers Association and also secretary of the University Teachers Association; bias however is not admitted; but it is stated by the University that the petitioner used to use intemperate language which was the subject matter of disapproval and condemnation by the executive council of the University. ( 5. ( 5. ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the post of professor of Mathematics in the University teaching Department was advertised by the University on 12th january 1974 and according to him as he fulfilled the requisite qualification he applied for the post on 31st January 1974 and the date of interview was fixed as 2nd July 1974. According to the petitioner, on account of prejudice the vice-chancellor of the respondent university acted mala fide subsequently in appointing respondent No. 2 as the Dean of the Faculty of science and Technology by his orders dated 29th June 1974 and also by nominating three eminent educationists Shri G. N. Tondon, Dr. Shrikhande and Dr. V. S. Huzurbazar on the selection committee, the Dean respondent No. 2 also being one of the members of that selection committee according to the petitioner, the nomination of these three persons also be challenged on the ground that Shri G. N. Tondon is not a person who can be said to be unconnected with the University in any manner as he had been the Registrar of this University for nine years and had also officiated as Vice-chancellor. Similarly, according to the petitioner Dr. Shrikhande was appointed initially as an expert in statistics and Dr. V. S. Huzurbazar was also known to be an expert in statistics. But none of them can fee said to be expert in mathematics; and consequently, the proceedings of the selection committee consisting of there three persons and also respondent no. 2 whose appointment as Dean is also challenged by the petitioner, according to the petitioner, is bad in law and cannot be given effect to. ( 6. ) THE petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No. 2 as Dean on the ground that the petitioner was appointed Dean of the faculty of science under section 26 (3) sub-clause (a) of the Indore University Act 1963 and the statutory term of the Dean under that Act was two years. That when the Madhya Pradesh Universities Act 1973 (Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya adhiniyam 1973) came into force repealing the Indore University Act, section 2 clause (v) preserved the appointments made under the repealed Act as if they were made under the new Act. That when the Madhya Pradesh Universities Act 1973 (Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya adhiniyam 1973) came into force repealing the Indore University Act, section 2 clause (v) preserved the appointments made under the repealed Act as if they were made under the new Act. It is also contended that under section 11 (iii) of the 1973 Act Deans of the Faculties are put in the category of officers in the University" and because of section 2 clause (v) this appointment was to be deemed to be under the new Act. Consequently, the term of the petitioner could not come to an end before the expiry of the period of two years. And as the petitioner continued to be the Dean respondent No. 2 could not appoint Dean of the same faculty unless and until the appointment of the petitioner was either cancelled under any provision of law or ceased to have effect by efflux of time under the provisions of law. As, according to the petitioner there is no provision under this the appointment of the Dean could be cancelled, and in fact it was never cancelled, and even according to the return filed by the University it is not their case that the appointment of the petitioner as Dean of the Faculty of Science and Technology was either cancelled or terminated, consequently, according to the petitioner, the appointment of respondent No. 2 is invalid and therefore his taking part in the deliberations of the selection committee for appointment of Professor of Mathematics in the university teaching Department is also illegal. ( 7. ) THE petitioner has also challenged the proceedings of the selection committee on the ground that the three persons nominated to that committee are not competent to be nominated to that committee on the ground (a) that shri G. N. Tondon could not be said to be a person not connected with the university in any manner and (b) the other two nominated as experts could not be said to be expert in the subject of mathematics; and on this ground also the appointment of the committee and its proceedings are challenged. ( 8. ) ON behalf of the respondent University it was contended that the dean is a part and parcel of the faculty. ( 8. ) ON behalf of the respondent University it was contended that the dean is a part and parcel of the faculty. The faculty is an authority under the Act and under the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "new Act") section 3 (ii) the authorities cannot function alter one year after the Act came into force. Admittedly, the new Act came into force on 5-5-1973 and therefore the authorities (faculty)could not function beyond 5-5-1974. And as the Faculty itself ceased to function on 5-5-1974, respondent No. 2 was appointed as Dean of the Faculty of science and Technology on 29-6-1974. Phis, according to learned counsel for the respondent, was the starting of the constitution of the new faculty under the new Act. ( 9. ) IT was also contended that the allegation about prejudice against the vice-chancellor and against Shri T. N. Tondon and the experts cannot be considered as these persons have not been joined as parties to the petition. In the alternative, it was contended that the question about the qualifications at an expert is a question of fact and there is no material on the basis of which this court can challenge the decision of the University. It was also contended that in fact the petitioner is challenging the constitution of the selection committee for the post of Professor of Mathematics in University Teaching Department; but he himself was a candidate and even if he was the Dean of the Faculty, he could not have participated in the deliberations. Even in his absence it could not have been fair for the petitioner to be a candidate when he himself was one of the members of the committee. Consequently, it was contended that the petitioner is not justified in challenging the constitution by this petition. ( 10. ) IT cannot be disputed that the question about an expert being nominated to the selection committee was within the jurisdiction of the University Authorities. It cannot also be doubted that there is no material before us on the basis of which it can be said that a particular person is not an expert in a particular subject. In a petition under Article 226 of the constitution disputed questions of fact can hardly be gone into. It cannot also be doubted that there is no material before us on the basis of which it can be said that a particular person is not an expert in a particular subject. In a petition under Article 226 of the constitution disputed questions of fact can hardly be gone into. Consequently, the question about a particular person being an expert in his subject cannot be raised and decided in this petition. ( 11. ) THE question about Shri G. N. Tondon not being connected with the University in any manner, also is a question which cannot be gone into in this petition. It was contended that apparently, Shri Tondon is in no way concerned with the University at present, but it was alleged that he had been registrar of this University for a long time and also officiated as Vice Chancellor. It was therefore contended that he had his own prejudices about various persons and accordingly cannot be said to be a person "unconnected with the university in any manner. " It is no doubt true that the phrase "unconnected with the University in any manner" is too wide but it cannot be doubted that the allegations about Shri Tondon having prejudices because of his old association are questions which cannot be decided without giving an opportunity to him to contradict what is alleged against him. It is also clear that nothing specific has been alleged by the petitioner and Shri Tondon has also not been joined as party to this petition. Consequently, in our opinion, this question cannot also be gone into. ( 12. ) THE only important question which has been raised is about the continuance of the petitioner as Dean of the Faculty of science and Technology and the appointment of respondent No 2 as Dean after the new Act came into force on 29-6-1974. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the dean under the old as well as under the new Act is included in the category of officers of the University and the appointment of officers of the University is saved under section 2 clause (v ). Therefore the Dean was bound to continue as Dean for his full term. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the dean under the old as well as under the new Act is included in the category of officers of the University and the appointment of officers of the University is saved under section 2 clause (v ). Therefore the Dean was bound to continue as Dean for his full term. Whereas on behalf of the respondent it was contended that a Dean although included in the category of officers, is a part and parcel of the faculty and because of section 3 clause (ii) the faculty could not function for more than a year after the new act came into force. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to refer to certain provisions in the new act that a Dean, apart from the Faculty, has his own functions; and therefore it was contended that he could function as such even without that faculty. However no such provision could be pointed out under the old Act. ( 13. ) SECTION 26 of the Indore University Act, 1963 provides for the constitution of faculties; "26 (1) The University shall have faculties of arts, science, Law education, Engineering, medicine, Ayurveda, Home science, commerce and other faculties as may be prescribed by the statutes. (2) Each faculty shall consist of such members and shall have such powers as may be prescribed by the statutes. (3) There shall be a Dean for each faculty who shall be appointed by the Kuladhipati for a period of two years as follows, namely;- (a ). . . . . . . . . Sub-clause (I) enumerates the faculties which shall be constituted. Subclause (2) speaks of the constitution of each faculty and it has been left that the powers shall be prescribed by the statutes. Sub-clause (3) of this section provides for the appointment of a Dean in each faculty. The scheme of section 26, therefore goes to show that a Dean is part and parcel of the faculty and there is no independent provision providing for the appointment of a Dean of the faculty apart from section 26. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed under the provisions of section 26 as the Dean of the faculty of science and technology. The scheme of section 26, therefore goes to show that a Dean is part and parcel of the faculty and there is no independent provision providing for the appointment of a Dean of the faculty apart from section 26. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed under the provisions of section 26 as the Dean of the faculty of science and technology. It is no doubt true that under section 9 of the old Act it has been prescribed as to who shall be the officers of the University and sub-clause (v) of this section talks of Deans of the faculties, whereas section 13 of the old Act provides for the Authorities of the University and sub-clause (iv) of this section to faculties. Apparently therefore, it appears that a Dean who is part and parcel of the faculty, also is an authority along with the faculty under section 18, but has been described as an Officer under section 9 although there is no provision independent of section 26 for the appointment of the Dean. With this appointment of the petitioner as Dean, the old Act was repealed and on 5th May, 1973 the New Act came into force. Section 2 sub-clause (v) of the New Act runs -"2 (v) all appointments made, notification and orders issued, degrees, diplomas or certificates conferred or issued, privileges granted or other things done under the repealed enactments and in force immediately before the date aforesaid shall be deemed to have been respectively made, issued, conferred, granted or done under this Act. " Placing reliance on this provision it was contended that under this provision the appointment of the petitioner as Dean shall be deemed to be an appointment under the New Act and therefore he shall continue to hold the office for full term, that is two years. ( 14. ) SECTION 3 of the New Act reads- "3 Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act- (i) The Kulpatis in office immediately before the appointed date shall continue in office for the term prescribed under the respective repealed enactments. . . . . . . . . . . . ( 14. ) SECTION 3 of the New Act reads- "3 Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act- (i) The Kulpatis in office immediately before the appointed date shall continue in office for the term prescribed under the respective repealed enactments. . . . . . . . . . . . (ii) authorities, committees or bodies of the respective Universities constituted under the repealed enactments shall continue to function till such time as they are reconstituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act but such period shall not exceed one year from the date aforesaid; (iii) life members, of any such authorities, shall cease to so on the expiration of the period specified in clause (ii) above, unless continued to be so in accordance with the provisions of this Act. " The Language used in section S is very clear and the phrase "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act" goes to show that this section has been enacted to mean that if it is inconsistent with any other provision, this will override the other provisions of the Act. It is also significant that although Kulpati is an officer and the appointment of Kulpati is under the provisions of section 2 sub-clause (v), it appears that keeping in view the overriding effect of this section, the continuing in office of the Kulpati, with the proviso, has been specially enacted in sub-clause (i) of section 3. It is therefore clear that subclause (ii) of this section will have overriding effect as regards the functioning of the authorities under the old Act is concerned. If the appointment in spite of section 3 sub-clause (ii), it would have been specifically provided for. It is therefore clear that what is saved under section 2 sub clause (v) is subject to the provisions contained in section 3. As discussed earlier, the Dean under the scheme of the Indore University Act was a part and parcel of the authority, that is the faculty and such authority under sub-clause (ii) of section 3 cannot function beyond the period of one year from the date of coming into force of the New Act. Apparently, therefore, the Dean could not function beyond the period of one year after the Mew Act came into force. ( 15. Apparently, therefore, the Dean could not function beyond the period of one year after the Mew Act came into force. ( 15. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner referred to certain provisions under the New Act to indicate that the Dean has certain functions apart from the faculty itself. But it is also clear that under the Old Act he could not refer to any such provision. It also cannot be doubted that even under the new Act, section 27 provides for the faculties, sub-clause (2) of this section provides for a Dean for each of the faculties and sub-clause (4) provides for the appointment of Dean. It, therefore, clearly goes to show that even under the scheme of the New Act, the Dean is a part and parcel of the faculty although because of his being a Dean of a faculty certain other functions might have been entrusted to him. But still, looking to the scheme of section 27 it cannot be doubted that Dean is a part and parcel of the faculty. It is thus clear that if under the provisions contained in sub clause (ii) of section 3 the faculty could not function after a period of one year, and the faculty (Authority) has to be reconstituted, then it cannot be said that although the faculty ceases to function and has to be reconstituted, still, the Dean of the faculty would continue to hold office for a period of two years in spite of sub-clause (ii) of section 3, and this only because the appointment is saved under sub-clause (v) of section 2 when section 3 has specifically the overriding effect. Consequently, in our opinion the appointment of the petitioner as Dean under the Old Act could not continue beyond 5-5-1974 and therefore when respondent No. 2 was appointed as Dean of the faculty of science and Technology on 29th June 1974, this appointment could not be challenged as on that date the petitioner has ceased to be the Dean of the Faculty of science and Technology and under the New act it was within the powers of the University to constitute the respective authorities including faculties and make appointments of Deans for the respective faculties. In this view of the matter therefore the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. ( 16. ) NO other question was raised. In this view of the matter therefore the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. ( 16. ) NO other question was raised. Consequently, in our opinion, there is no substance in this petition. The petition is dismissed. But, in view of the circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs. The security amount be refunded to the petitioner after verification. Petition dismissed.