JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks the relief of Certiorari quashing the order of the Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, dated 16th October, 1980. 2. For deciding the points involved, a brief reference to the facts is necessary. There is a Society known as Payanand Vedic-College Samiti. This Society runs a Degree College which is affiliated with Bundelkhand University, Jhansi. The administration of the College in run by a Committee which is generally described as a Committee of Management, the members of which are elected by the Samiti. The office bearers of the Committee of Management are elected by its members. 3. At an election held on 16th July, 1978. Vajai Karan Nath Bisaria, petitioner no. 1, was elected as Hony. Secretary, after defeating S.R. Srivastava, respondent 3, who had also contested the election as against petitioner no. 1, S.R. Srivastava filed a representation before the Vice-Chancellor under statute 12.05 (f) of the Statutes challenging the election of petitioner no. 1. The statute runs as under : - "If any question arises whether any person has been duly chosen as, or is entitled to be a member or office bearer of the Management or whether the Management is legally constituted, the decision of the Vice-Chancellor shall be final." 4. He also challenged the election of Brij Behari Lal, petitioner no. 2, as a member of the Committee of Management. 5. The ground of challenge was the same as against the two petitioners. For petitioner no. 1, respondent 3 alleged that as his real brother was employed in the College as a paid teacher, petitioner no. 1 was disqualified under Section 39 of U.P. State Universities Act. The ground of challenge against petitioner no. 2 was that his daughter was a paid teacher in the said College. On that round, petitioner no. 2 was also disqualified. The Vice-Chancellor rejected the representation of respondent no. 3 which was communicated to respondent 3 by a letter issued by the Registrar dated 5th August, 1980. Respondent 3 made reference to the Chancellor under Section 68 of U.P. State Universities Act. The reference was allowed and the order of the Vice-Chancellor was set aside. The Chancellor upheld the pica of respondent 3 that as the relations of petitioners 1 and 2 were employed in the College of which petitioner no. 1 was the Hony. Respondent 3 made reference to the Chancellor under Section 68 of U.P. State Universities Act. The reference was allowed and the order of the Vice-Chancellor was set aside. The Chancellor upheld the pica of respondent 3 that as the relations of petitioners 1 and 2 were employed in the College of which petitioner no. 1 was the Hony. Secretary and petitioner 2 was the member, therefore, they were disqualified under Section 39 of the U.P. State Universities Act. 6. The two issues which arose on the representation of respondent 3 ate 1. Whether Sri V.K.N. Bisaria could he elected as a member of the Committee of Management while his real brother Sri Abhai Karan was a permanent lecturer in the same College ? 2. Whether the Principal Brij Behari Lal could be elected as member of the Executive Committee while his daughter was a permanent lecturer in the same College ? 7. As already stated, the case of respondent 3 that the petitioners were disqualified, was based on Section 39. Section 39 provides as under - "39. A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Management of an affiliated or associated College (other than a College maintained exclusively by the State Government or by local authority), if he or his relative accepts any remuneration for 'any work in or for such College or any contract for the supply of goods, to or for the execution of any work for such College : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to the acceptance of any remuneration by a teacher as such or for any duties performed in connection with an examination conduced by the College or for any duties as Superintendent or warden of a training monitor of a half or hostel of the College or as Proctor or tutor or for any duties of a similar nature in relation to the College." 8. The Vice-Chancellor held that the employment of the relations as teachers did not disqualify the petitioners. The view of the Chancellor was, however, to the contrary. To us, it appears that the Chancellors view is based on a wrong interpretation of Section 39. Section 39 has a restricted application disqualifying a member of the Committee-of Management of an affiliated College if he or his relative accepts any remuneration for any work. The view of the Chancellor was, however, to the contrary. To us, it appears that the Chancellors view is based on a wrong interpretation of Section 39. Section 39 has a restricted application disqualifying a member of the Committee-of Management of an affiliated College if he or his relative accepts any remuneration for any work. The object this section is that neither should any member of the Committee of Management abuse his position and gain advantage by the fact of being elected in the Committee of Management nor should his relations derive any advantage out of the same. The proviso to this section carves out an exception to the acceptance of any remuneration by a relation who is a teacher and who receives any remuneration for performing any duty in connection with an examination conducted by the College or for any duties as Superintendent or warden of a training unit. The purpose of the proviso is clear and the same appears to be that in case of a relative who is employed as teacher, it may not he correct to say that he gets remuneration for any duties performed by him on account of a member of the Committee of Management who happens to be his relation. 9. In the present case, the relations of petitioners 1 and 2 were employed as teachers from before the date of the election. Phis does not attract Section 39 of the Act so as to disqualify them from holding the office on which they had been elected. It may be noted here that whereas Abhai Karan Saxena was appointed by the Committee of Management by a resolution dated 30th September, 1974, Km. Kanti was appointed in 1976 and her appointment was approved by the Vice-Chancellor. That being so, the view of the Chancellor holding the petitioners to be disqualified does not appear to be in consonance with Section 39. 10. Sri U.K. Misra, counsel for the respondents, invited our attention to clause (b) of statute 12.05 of Chapter XI and urged that the provision for representation of teachers made in it would be completely defeated if the teachers nominated are the relation of members of the Committee of Management. 10. Sri U.K. Misra, counsel for the respondents, invited our attention to clause (b) of statute 12.05 of Chapter XI and urged that the provision for representation of teachers made in it would be completely defeated if the teachers nominated are the relation of members of the Committee of Management. The object of representation of teachers to the extent of 25 per cent is for checking the activities of the Committee of Management and for looking after the interest of the members of the staff. This object could be achieved only when the members of the Committee of Management are not the relations of the teachers. Otherwise the teachers are likely to favour the members and the object of providing representation of the teachers would be defeated. This submission is far fetched and does net advance the case of respondent No. 3. The provision for disqualification is made in Section 39. This has to be strictly construed applying this rule of construction. We are not able to find any thing in it which could disqualify the petitioners 1 and 2. 11. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Chancellor dated 10th October, 1980 is quashed. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their ow n costs.