JUDGMENT - V.A. MOHTA, J.:---Yesterday, this matter was placed before us for admission and stay. Shri Sanyal voluntarily took notice for the respondents. We had thus the advantage of hearing both the sides at the stage of admission. After hearing the matter for quite some time, we indicated our inclination to admit the matter and also to grant ad interim stay of the Election of the membership of the Executive Council of Nagpur University scheduled for tomorrow. Both the parties submitted that as the facts are undisputed and a pure question of law is almost wholly argued, it would be better that the matter itself is finally decided. Accepting that joint request, we have made the rule returnable forthwith and heard this matter on merits. What falls for consideration is true import of section 23(1)(viii) of the Nagpur University Act, 1974 ('the Act'). 2. Dr. B.S. Choube-the petitioner-was in the year 1982 a Professor of Medicine in the Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur, which is affiliated to the Nagpur University. He was then duly elected as a member of the senate of the University for a period of six year as a "Teacher" from Teachers' constituency as contemplated under section 20(1)(b)(iii) of the Act. Senate is one of the Authorities of the University enumerated in section 19. Constitution of Senate is given in section 20. Membership can be broadly classified into three categories. (A) Ex offcio Members, (B) Elected Members and (C) Other members. In (B) category, there are as many as seventeen constituencies, the first being of Principals of affiliated constituent conducted and autonomous colleges as provided under section 20(1)(b)(i) which reads thus :--- "One-third of the total number of Principals of affiliated, constituent, conducted and autonomous colleges at a time by rotation, or five such Principals, whichever is more. In (B) category, there are as many as seventeen constituencies, the first being of Principals of affiliated constituent conducted and autonomous colleges as provided under section 20(1)(b)(i) which reads thus :--- "One-third of the total number of Principals of affiliated, constituent, conducted and autonomous colleges at a time by rotation, or five such Principals, whichever is more. For the purposes of such rotation, the colleges shall be arranged into six groups consisting as far as possible of an equal number of colleges, and the Principals from one of the groups shall retire after the first year and have another term for one year at the end of the period of six years and the Principals from the remaining groups shall retire after every two years, in the manner prescribed by the statutes." The University did make Statute No. 1 as required under the above provision prescribing the groups of various colleges for rotating representation through principals for a period of two years. In April 1983, the petitioner was appointed as Dean of the Government Medical College and Hospital and in that ex officio capacity also, by operation of Statute No. 1, he came to be appointed as a Senator for a period of two years from October 1984. As a result, presently, he is a Senator in two capacities--one as a "Principal" under section 20(1)(b)(i) and the other as a "Teacher" under section 20(1)(b)(iii) which reads as under :--- "twenty-five teachers, other than Principals of autonomous, conducted, constituent or affiliated Colleges, Heads of recognized institutions, or Heads of University Departments, from amongst themselves." 3. Executive Council is the other Authority of the University. Its Constitution is given in section 23 of the Act. The term of office of the elected and nominated members of the Executive Council is for a period of three years as per section 23(3). Membership consists of various categories including two Principals 23(1)(vii), two teachers other than Principals and Head of University Departments 23(1)(viii) and seven person, other than Principals, Teachers and student members [23(1)(ix)] all to be elected by the Senate from amongst its members. Elections of Principals are not due for the present and elections of Teachers are scheduled for tomorrow. Membership consists of various categories including two Principals 23(1)(vii), two teachers other than Principals and Head of University Departments 23(1)(viii) and seven person, other than Principals, Teachers and student members [23(1)(ix)] all to be elected by the Senate from amongst its members. Elections of Principals are not due for the present and elections of Teachers are scheduled for tomorrow. Section 23(1)(viii), which squarely falls for consideration, reads thus :--- "two teacher, other Principals and Heads of University Departments, elected by the Senate from amongst its members." The petitioner filed his nomination paper for election of membership of Executive Council under section 23(1)(vii), but in a scrutiny made on 21st October, 1985 it came to be rejected by the Returning Officer (respondent No. 2) on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to contest the election because of acquisition of membership of a Senate in an additional ex officio capacity as a Principal and that his initial membership as a Teacher had become secondary for the purpose of onward elections as he ceased to represent the original constituency for the time being. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Vice-Chancellor under Clause 8 of Statute No. 33 and also simultaneously moved this Court on 23rd October, 1985 perhaps because the election was only two days ahead. The Vice-Chancellor has by now rejected the appeal observing: "Dr. Choubey is entitled to exercise his right of franchise for proposing or seconding a candidate for any of the constituencies for the purposes of the election to the Executive Council from Senate. However, there is specific bar for his contesting as a teacher candidate from Senate to Executive Council since he has become a Member of the Senate as Principal." 4. At this stage, a grievance made by the petitioner before the University Authorities as well as before us about the discriminatory treatment made out to his case vis-a-vis the cases of Dr. Bhandarkar and Shri Kedar may be noticed. Dr. Bhandarkar was elected to the senate as a teacher in the year 1982 and thereafter had become the head of the University Department of Social Science. Shri Kedar had entered the sentence as the representative of registered graduates under section 20(1)(b)(vi) in 1982 and is presently appointed as a Principle of the Collage of Physical Education. Dr. Bhandarkar was elected to the senate as a teacher in the year 1982 and thereafter had become the head of the University Department of Social Science. Shri Kedar had entered the sentence as the representative of registered graduates under section 20(1)(b)(vi) in 1982 and is presently appointed as a Principle of the Collage of Physical Education. Both these gentlemen have been allowed to contest the election of membership to the Executive Council under section 23(1)(viii) and (ix) respectively. It may be noticed that election of Heads of Department to the Senate is also by rotation under section 20(1)(c)(iv) read with Status. No. 15. Section 23(1)(ix) deals with election of seven person " other than Principals, Teacher and student members". 5. Petitioner' submission is that subsequent acquisition of the status of a Dean and election to the senate in that capacity for a period of two years by rotation accidentally at the time of elections to the executive Council cannot take away his right to contest the election to the membership of the Executive Council as a regular elected representative of teachers for a period of six years specially when his membership as a Senator in that capacity is not suspended. We see considerable in the submission. In the first place, there is no specific provision either in the Act or in the statue as is wrongly assumed by the Vice-Chancellor for incurring any such disqualification for contest. Disqualification to contest an election is a serious in road upon a valuable democratic right and cannot readily be inferred. Submission that the rights acquired under section 20(1)(b)(iii) stand merged in the rights acquired under section 20(1)(b)(i) also does not appeal to us considering the teachers of rights. Whereas one is acquired by a regular election and choice for a full period of six years, the other is merely involuntary, ex officio and only for a period of two years. Additionally it is just an accident that the turn of a particular collage may come in rotation at the time of triangle election of the Executive Council. Thus, by any measure, the right under section 20(1)(b)(iii) is higher and cannot either merge into the lower or become secondary to it. The teachers elect a representative for a full period of six years. Thus, by any measure, the right under section 20(1)(b)(iii) is higher and cannot either merge into the lower or become secondary to it. The teachers elect a representative for a full period of six years. The right of such an elected representative as a member of the Senate is not statutory suspended or cased only because of the subsequent promotion to the post of Principal or Head of the Department as is the stand of the University itself. It is on the basis of this stand only that Dr. Bhandarkar and Dr. Kedar allowed to contest the election to the membership of the Executive Council, despite their holding a position as the Head of the Department and/or Principal. If that be the correct position, it is difficult to see how the right to contest onward election to the Executive Council stands suspended only because of the accident and/or fortuitous circumstances of the institution's turn coming at the time of elections. 6. There is yet another important rule of construction which comes into play and that is of necessity of avoiding, if possible, interpretation which leads to patently enlist and results. In our judgement, interpretation adopted by the respondents leads to such result and it is possible to avoid that result even considering language used in section 23(1)(viii) of the Act and the general scheme. How then can one read the words "other than Principals and Heads of University Department" used in section 23(1)(viii)? In our judgment, the said provision relates only to the initial entry as Senator. If a person has initially entered the Senate as a Principal or Head of the University Department and continues as such at the time of election to the membership of Executive Council, he is disqualified to contest the said election either under section 23(1)(viii) or (ix). In this connection, we are not operating upon a given field. Though in somewhat different context, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Dr. Devising Ramsing Shekhawat and another v. The Chancellor and two others)1, Writ Petition No. 537 of 1981 decided on 29th April, 1981 had an occasion to deal with the subject. As both the parties are strongly replying on this decision, it will be proper to notice the basic facts and the background in Which it came to be rendered. Dr. Devising Ramsing Shekhawat and another v. The Chancellor and two others)1, Writ Petition No. 537 of 1981 decided on 29th April, 1981 had an occasion to deal with the subject. As both the parties are strongly replying on this decision, it will be proper to notice the basic facts and the background in Which it came to be rendered. Dr. Shekhawat---the petitioner there entered the Senate for the first time under section 20(1)(b)(i). He was elected to the Executive Council as representing the Principals under section 23(1)(vii). Before the term of two years expired, he also became a member of the Senate under section 20(1)(b)(xvi) as representative of the Society. The question arose whether he could continue as a member of the Executive Council even after the expiry of the period of two years by virtue of the fact that before that period came to an end, he had acquired membership as Senator in different capacity. The Division Bench relied on provision to section 20(1)(b) as well as provision to section 23(1) and came to the conclusion that membership of the Senate as a principal had come to an end after a period of two years as he ceased to be "a member of the electing body" as provided in the provision to section 23(1)(b) and, therefore, he ceased to hold the office of Executive Councillor under provision to section 23(1). While exhaustively dealing with the scheme of the Act in general and the provisions of section 20 and section 23 of the Act in particular, the following significant observations came to be made : "It is in this light that the 'Principals' to be elected from the Senate to the Executive Council has to come on the Senate initially as a member under section 20(1)(b)(i). x x x x x x x x x Those principals who are elected by the Senate from amongst its members are those members, who are elected to the Senate in the first instance under section 20(1)(b)(i)". (Emphasis supplied) With respect, we are in total agreement with this view. That is the only way by which different provisions can be harmoniously construed and absurdity and injustice avoided. (Emphasis supplied) With respect, we are in total agreement with this view. That is the only way by which different provisions can be harmoniously construed and absurdity and injustice avoided. The two provisions are reproduced for ready reference :--- "Proviso to section 20(1)(b) : provided that, a person elected under sub-clauses (ii) to (xvi) of Clauses (B) shall cease to be member of the Senate as soon as he ceases to be a member of the electing body or bodies, as the case may be." "Proviso to section 23(1) : Provided that, a member elected under Clauses (vi) to (xi) shall cease to hold office as member if he ceases to be the Head of the University Department, or member of the Senate or the Academic Council, or the Dean, as the case may be". The submission that in section 23, category of principals falls earlier to the category of Teachers and, therefore, category of teachers becomes secondary does not appeal to us. Membership in all the capacities is equal, subsequent membership cannot prevail over the former and there is no warrant for the conclusion that the membership in two capacities at the same time cannot exist. The status acquired by regular election is neither suspended for the limited purpose of contesting the election nor is the period of six years curtailed. An elected representative of teachers continues to represent his original constituency for all a full period. 7. In this connection, useful reference may be made to the case of (Jehangir Bhikaji Panthaki v. Corporation of the City of Nagpur)2, 1960 Nag.L.J. 99. City of Nagpur Corporation Act contained a provision for having a representation to a Textile Mills in the Corporation as a Councillor. Jehangir Panthaki was appointed as Councillor on behalf of the Textile Mills. Subsequently the relationship of master and servant between him and the Mills came to an end and the Mills took the decision of cancelling his representation. Point arose whether he automatically ceased to be a Councillor thereby and incurred disqualification because of the subsequent event. In this background, the following observations dealing with disqualification clause were made : "Once a Councillor is appointed under section 9(1)(d)(vi) and his appointment is notified under the section 16, the Councillor has a right to hold that office for a period of five years subject to the Act. In this background, the following observations dealing with disqualification clause were made : "Once a Councillor is appointed under section 9(1)(d)(vi) and his appointment is notified under the section 16, the Councillor has a right to hold that office for a period of five years subject to the Act. If he incurs any disqualification either under section 15 or under section 19, the person shall cease to be a councillor and the State Government shall declare his seat to be vacant by a notification. Mr. Panthaki's seat has not been declared to be vacant under section 19. Under section 17 therefore, Mr. Panthaki will be entitled to hold the office of Councillor for a period of five years." Undoubtedly, the situation in both these cases are not similar but the principle laid down is relevant. The only provision dealing with vacation the office is contained in section 79 of the Act. 8. To conclude, the nomination paper of the petitioner was wrongly rejected and the orders passed by the respondents to that effect are quashed and set aside. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled to contest election under section 23(1)(viii) of the Act. Petition allowed. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer (a). Having regard to the fact that the relevant provisions are not very clear and the University must have taken the decision bona fide, we could choose to make no order as to costs. Rules made absolute. -----