Judgment :- R. P. No. 85, 89, 88, 91, 96 and 9 of 1976 These review petitions are by the State. These petitions for review are based on the ground that the conclusion stated in Para.22 of our judgment in the writ petitions is inconsistent with the reasoning and discussion in regard to S.57 (4) of the University Act entered in Para.14 of the judgment. Discussing the vires of S.57 (4) of the Act in Para.14 of our judgment, we have stated that in view of the decision in 1969 KLT. 749 at page 772 which was confirmed on appeal in AIR. 1970 SC. 2079, which had upheld an almost similar provision, we would uphold S.57 (4). But in summarising our conclusion in Para.23 of the judgment we stated that only' sub-section (4) of S.57 is invalid. This is an obvious mistake which the State seeks to correct by these petitions. The petitions are well founded. We allow them, review our earlier judgment to this extent: that in Para.23, the concerned sentence will be substituted by a sentence to the effect that sub-section (4) of S.57 is valid. This was fairly conceded by the Counsel for the respondents (Petitioners in O.Ps) in the review petitions. R.P.97/ 76 in OP. 387I/ 74-C and R. P. 98/76 in OP. 3801/74-C 2. These are applications for review by the writ petitioners. They seek to review our finding and conclusion that S.57 (3) of the University Act is valid. The ground for review is that it having been accepted as a principle that the post of the Principal of a college is pivotal and that no sort of trammels should be placed on the selection of the Principal, and the minority's right in, making the same, we were wrong in holding that the insistence of seniority-cum-fitness sanctioned by S 57 (3) does not violate the principle of free selection recognised by this Court; nor violate the minority's rights guaranteed under Art.30. But we have pointed out in Para.12 of the judgment that although at first blush S.57 (3) might seem to restrict the minority's free right of choice in in regard to the appointment of Principal, it does not in fact do so, if regard is had to the principle of seniority-cum-fitness as explained in the rulings of this Court, and further to the fact that fitness is to be understood in the sense of fitness in the interests of minorities themselves. We see no ground at all to review either the reasoning or the conclusions thus arrived at. We dismiss these review petitions. R.P. 100 of 1976 in O.P. 4025 /1974 3. This review petition has been preferred by the petitioner in O.P. No. 4025 of 1974 who is aggrieved by our reasoning and conclusion in Para.12 of the judgment. We noticed in the said paragraph the contentions urged on behalf of this writ petitioner. Those contentions were: that he cannot be obliged to club all the four institutions and keen them under a common Managing Council under S.53; (2) to maintain a common roll of seniority in respect of all the four institutions; and (3) to appoint a common Manager for all the four institutions under S.54. It was stated that there is force in the objection to S.53 on the ground of superimposing a Committee on the minority institution. But we held that as the body constituted was purely advisory without the advice being made binding on the minorities, there is no ground for the petitioner to have any grievance. The writ-petitioner's counsel has now come forward with the review petition on the ground that we have not dealt with his other objections raised in regard to the preparation of a common roll of seniority and to the appointment of a common manager. It is enough for us to say that if and when the petitioner is aggrieved by the enforcement of these provisions against him, he shall not be precluded from pursuing his appropriate remedy Subject as above, the review petition is dismissed. Counsel for this writ-petitioner also raised a ground for review in regard to to S.57 (3) of the Act. For reasons noticed while dealing with Review Petitions 97 and 98 of 1976, we are unable to entertain the objection or to hold that any ground for interference has been made out. Counsel for this writ-petitioner also raised a ground for review in regard to to S.57 (3) of the Act. For reasons noticed while dealing with Review Petitions 97 and 98 of 1976, we are unable to entertain the objection or to hold that any ground for interference has been made out. C. M. P. No. 18882/ 76 in O.P. 3801/ 74 C. M. P. No. 18494/ 76 in O.P. 3871/ 74 C. M. P. No. 18881/ 76 in O.P. 3948/ 74 C. M. P. No. 184 3/76 in O.P. 4004/74 C. M. P. No. 18560/ 76 in O.P. 4025/ 74 C. M. P. No. 18810/ 76 in O.P. 4065/ 74 These are petitions for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We are unable to see that any substantial question of law of general importance arises in these cases, on which, in our opinion, a pronouncement by the Supreme Court is necessary. We discussed in the course of our judgment, the decisions of the Supreme Court which have dealt with this aspect of the matter; and in the light of the principles which we gather from these decisions, we had formed our conclusions and recorded findings. We see no ground to grant leave to appeal. We dismiss the petitions. C. M. P. No. 16483/76 in RP. 90/76 in OP. 4065/74 C. M. P. No. 16486/ 76 in RP. 91/ 76 in OP. 4004/ 74 C. M. P. No. 16481/ 76 in RP. 88/ 76 in OP. 3948/ 74 C. M. P. No. 16482/76 in RP. 89/76 in OP. 3871/74 C. M. P. No. 16709/76 in RP. 96/76 in OP. 4025/74 These arc petitions to dispense with the production of the typed copies of the judgment. These petitions are allowed.