JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - There is a Post-Graduate College called the Amar Singh College, at Lakhaoti in the district of Bulandshahar. It is affiliated to the Meerut University. The dispute giving rise to this petition centres round the appointment to the post of Principal of that College. The petitioner's name was approved by the Vice-Chancellor of the University by an order dated 26th of December, 1980 for appointment as the Principal of the said College. Upon a representation made by Dr. Harpal Singh, the respondent No. 3 herein, the Chancellor of the University, by the impugned order dated 31st of October, 1981, set aside the order of the Vice-Chancellor and quashed the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner does not possess the requisite minimum academic qualifications laid down by the applicable statute. The sole question debated at the bar at the hearing of the petition was whether the Chancellor is right in taking that view. 2. We may now set out the relevant facts. In Aug., 1977, a vacancy arose in the post of Principal on the retirement of the previous Principal of the College. Dr. Harpal Singh, who happened to be the senior most teacher of the college was allowed to officiate as Principal pending the selection of permanent incumbent. In Jan., 1978 the post was advertised. Various individuals, including Dr. Harpal Singh, Dr. P.S. Malik (the petitioner herein) and Sri Rajendra applied for the post. A selection committee was constituted for the purpose. The selection committee submitted its recommendation to the Administrator of the College (the management of the College had been taken over by the the State Government and the District Magistrate. Bulandshahar has been functioning as the Administrator of the College). The selection committee had recommended the name of Sri Rajendra, even though in its view Dr. P.S. Malik had a superior claim, on the ground that Dr. P. S. Malik wanted a higher starting salary. The Administrator, however, recommended the name of Dr. P.S. Malik to the Vice-Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor by his order dated 26-12-1978 did not accede to the request of the Administrator, and, instead approved the appointment of Sri Rajendra. Aggrieved by that approval of the Vice-Chancellor, two representations were filed before the Vice-Chancellor one by the petitioner and the other by Dr. Harpal Singh. P.S. Malik to the Vice-Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor by his order dated 26-12-1978 did not accede to the request of the Administrator, and, instead approved the appointment of Sri Rajendra. Aggrieved by that approval of the Vice-Chancellor, two representations were filed before the Vice-Chancellor one by the petitioner and the other by Dr. Harpal Singh. Their contention was that Sri Rajendra did not possess the requisite minimum academic qualifications. The Chancellor by his order dated 19th of Oct., 1979 rejected both the representations and upheld the appointment of Sri Rajendra. Aggrieved by that order of the Chancellor two petitions were filed in the Court, one by the petitioner and the other by Dr. Harpal Singh. Both these petitions were allowed by this Court by its judgment and order dated 17-7-1980. The Bench hearing the petitions quashed the orders of the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor and directed the Vice-Chancellor to reconsider the mentations of the selection committee as well as the reports submitted by the Administrator in the light of the observations made in the judgment. The Vice-Chancellor, thereupon, reconsidered the whole matter and by his order dated 26th of Dec., 1980 approved the appointment of the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order Dr. Harpal Singh filed a representation which has been allowed by the Chancellor by an impugned order dated 31st of Oct., 1981. The view taken by the Chancellor is that on a true and proper construction of the relevant Statutes laying down the academic qualifications for the eligibility to the post of Principal of a Post-Graduate College, the candidate must possess a Master's degree in one of the subjects taught in the Post-Graduate classes. It is not disputed that the petitioner does not hold a Master's degree in any of the subjects being taught in the Institution in the Post-Graduate classes. The contention of the petitioner before us was that the Chancellor has misconstrued the Statutes. The Master's degree possessed by him in the subjects being taught in the degree classes of the Institution was sufficient to qualify the petitioner for appointment to the post. We have to see whether this contention has any merit. 3. We may now briefly notice the relevant statutory provisions. The appointment of the Principal of an affiliated College is governed by S. 31 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). We have to see whether this contention has any merit. 3. We may now briefly notice the relevant statutory provisions. The appointment of the Principal of an affiliated College is governed by S. 31 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). S. 31 (1) provides that the teachers (which term includes Principal) shall be appointed by Management of the affiliated college on the recommendations of a Selection Committee in the matter laid down therein. S. 31 (11) enjoins that no teacher shall be appointed without prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor. The Selection Committee is entitled to make recommendations of one or more but not more than three names. If the Management does not agree with the recommendations of the Selection Committee, the Management is required to refer the matter to the Vice-Chancellor along with the reasons for such disagreement. Under S. 31(11) the Vice-Chancellor is empowered to approve or disapprove the recommendation made by the Selection Committee. 4. The qualifications for the appointment to the post of Principal of the College in question are laid down by the First Statutes of the Meerut University (hereinafter referred to as the Statutes). The minimum qualifications for the post of the Principal of a Degree or Post Graduate College are laid down in Statute 11.14 of the aforesaid Statutes. As the entire submissions at the bar centred round Statute 11.14, we are reproducing the same in extenso : "11.14. In the case of any College affiliated to the University the following shall be the minimum qualifications for the post of Principal for a - (1) Degree College. As the entire submissions at the bar centred round Statute 11.14, we are reproducing the same in extenso : "11.14. In the case of any College affiliated to the University the following shall be the minimum qualifications for the post of Principal for a - (1) Degree College. (a) A consistently good academic record (that is to say, the overall record of all assessments throughout the academic career of a candidate) with first or higher second class (that is to say, with an aggregate of more than 54 per cent marks) Master's degree, or an equivalent degree of a foreign University in one of the subjects taught in the college; and (b) a doctorate degree in one of the subjects taught in the college, with 10 years experience of teaching degree classes: Provided that if a candidate possesses 15 years or more experience of teaching degree classes or 10 years or more experience of teaching Post-Graduate classes or if he is or has been a confirmed Principal of four years or more standing of any Degree College, the Selection Committee may relax the requirement of doctorate degree. (2) Post-Graduate College : (a) a consistently good academic record (that is to say, the overall record of all assessments throughout the academic career of a candidate) with first or high second class (that is to say, with an aggregate of more than 54 per cent marks) Master's degree, or an equivalent degree of a foreign University, in one of the subjects taught in the college; and (b) a doctorate degree in one of the subjects taught in the college, with 7 years experience of teaching Post-Graduate Classes or 5 years experience of Principalship of a degree college : Provided that if a candidate possesses 10 years experience of teaching Post-graduate classes or 20 years or more experience of teaching degree classes or if he is or has been a confirmed Principal of five..years or more standing of any Post-Graduate college the Selection Committee may relax the requirement of doctorate degree." 5. We may now set out the rival contentions. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the words "Master's degree or an equivalent degree of a foreign University in one of the subjects taught in the college" refer to all the subjects being taught in the College, whether in the Degree classes or in the Post-Graduate classes. We may now set out the rival contentions. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the words "Master's degree or an equivalent degree of a foreign University in one of the subjects taught in the college" refer to all the subjects being taught in the College, whether in the Degree classes or in the Post-Graduate classes. It is not required, it was urged, that the Master's degree must necessarily be in one of the subjects taught in the Post-Graduate classes. The argument was that the Institution was one. Consequently, if the candidate has a Master's degree in any of the subjects being taught in the college, he must be deemed to possess the requisite minimum qualifications. 6. Having given the matter a careful consideration, we are clearly of the opinion that for the appointment of the Principal of an affiliated college-which is a Post-Graduate College - the candidate must possess a Master's degree in any of the subjects taught in the Post-Graduate classes. We now proceed to give our reasons. 7. The first feature which strikes us is that the qualifications for the post of Principal of a Degree College and a Post-Graduate College have been given separately-Statute 11.14 (1) for the former and Statute 11.14 (2) for the latter. Further, sub-clauses 'a' of both the clauses (1) and (2) are identical, word for word. If, therefore, the petitioner were right in his contention, clause 2 of Statute 11.14 would be wholly redundant. For a single clause would have sufficed both for the Degree colleges as well as the Post-Graduate Colleges with a suitable proviso added thereto as regards teaching experience in Post-Graduate Classes or experience of Principalship of a Post-Graduate College. We cannot, however, assume without any compelling reason redundancy. 8. In the second place, as a matter of plain grammatical construction it is obvious that the words "in one of the subjects taught in the College" occurring in cl. 2 (b) of Statute 114 must have reference to the subjects taught in the Post-Graduate College, that is, Post-Graduate Classes, because of the use of the definite article "the". 9. In the next place, it cannot be disputed that if the Post-Graduate College happens to be one which has provision only for Post-Graduate courses, the Master's degree must in view of Statute 11.14 (2) (a), be in one of the subjects taught in the Post-Graduate Classes. 9. In the next place, it cannot be disputed that if the Post-Graduate College happens to be one which has provision only for Post-Graduate courses, the Master's degree must in view of Statute 11.14 (2) (a), be in one of the subjects taught in the Post-Graduate Classes. The question is : would a lower academic merit be required or expected of the candidate applying for the post of Principal of a Post-Graduate College which has provision for both Post-Graduate courses as well as Degree course? The answer cannot but, in our view, be in the negative. For there does not exist a single valid, reason and none was pointed out by the petitioner's learned counsel-why the framers of the Statutes would require of a prospective incumbent a lower standard of education in the case of the latter category of a Post-Graduate College. We may add here that Statute 11.14 is primarily concerned with the minimum academic qualifications required of the candidates applying for the post of the Principal. It is not concerned with the administrative -or other non-academic qualifications. Contextually also, therefore, it seems that a higher academic merit was prescribed for a Post-Graduate College. 10. Our conclusion, therefore, is that in the case of a Post-Graduate College the candidate must possess a Master's degree in one of the subjects which are taught in the Post Graduate classes, or where it is a composite college of the nature discussed above, in a subject which is taught both in the Degree classes as well as in the Post-Graduate classes. The subject must, in our opinion, be one which is taught up to the Post Graduate level. We cannot accept the contention that a Master's degree in a subject which is taught only at the degree level would be enough compliance of sub-cl. (a) of Cl. (2) of Statute 11.14. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, laid considerable stress on the difference in the provisions of Cl. (b) of St. 11.14(1) and the corresponding Cl. (b) of St. 11.14(2). He submitted that the language of sub-cl. (a) of Cl. (2) and that of -sub-cl. (a) of Cl. (1) of the Statute in question was identical. It must follow, it was urged, that so far as the Master's degree is concerned the requirement for both the degree college and the Post-Graduate college was the same. (b) of St. 11.14(2). He submitted that the language of sub-cl. (a) of Cl. (2) and that of -sub-cl. (a) of Cl. (1) of the Statute in question was identical. It must follow, it was urged, that so far as the Master's degree is concerned the requirement for both the degree college and the Post-Graduate college was the same. Only, in the case of a Post-Graduate college for the appointment to the post of Principal a higher teaching experience in Post-Graduate classes was required. In all other respects the qualifications were the same for both a degree college as well as a Post-Graduate college. 12. We are unable to accept the contention. The argument if accepted would, as already discussed above, render Cl. (2) of Statute 11.14 wholly superfluous. Moreover, we are not inclined to hold that the same qualifications were intended to be laid down for the post of Principal irrespective of whether the College was a degree college or a Post-Graduate college. 13. The result of the aforesaid discussion, therefore, is that the Chancellor was right in taking the view, that the Master's degree must be in the subject taught in the Post-Graduate classes. 14. Now the undisputed facts are that the petitioner does not have the Master's degree in any of the subjects which are taught in the Post-Graduate classes of the College. He has a Master's degree in the subjects of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, neither of which is being taught in the Post-Graduate classes. These subjects are, however, being taught in the degree classes, but the same are of no avail for the reasons already mentioned. 15. Learned counsel in the end made a very feeble attempt to argue that Dr. Harpal Singh had no locus standi to file a representation under S. 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act. The submission is entirely without any merit. Dr. Harpal Singh was a candidate for the post in question. He was, therefore, clearly an aggrieved person entitled to file a representation under S. 68. Yet another submission raised on behalf of the petitioner was that so far as the Meerut University is concerned it has from the very beginning taken the stand that even those candidates who possessed a Master's degree in one of the subjects being taught in the Degree Classes were eligible for the post. Yet another submission raised on behalf of the petitioner was that so far as the Meerut University is concerned it has from the very beginning taken the stand that even those candidates who possessed a Master's degree in one of the subjects being taught in the Degree Classes were eligible for the post. Learned counsel invited our attention to the various averments made in the petition in support of this submission. However, assuming that the Vice-Chancellor of the University was of the opinion that a Master's degree in one of the subjects taught in the Degree classes was a sufficient qualification that would not affect the validity of the impugned order. For, if the appointment in question is found to have been made in breach of some Statues made under the U.P. State Universities Act, the Chancellor would be perfectly within his rights to quash the same irrespective of the opinion or stand of the University. 16. No other point was urged in support of the petition. 17. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. We, however, make no orders as to costs.