JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS petition gives rise to what is usually termed as public Interest Litigation and is moved by two persons who are cultivators and, therefore, claim to be interested in the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of the indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur. ( 2. ) BY M. P. Ordinance No. 1 of 1987knownas"raipurkrishivishwavidyalaya adhyadesh, 1987", Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya has been established to provide education and to prosecute research in agriculture and allied sciences. This Ordinance has subsequently been replaced by Indira Gandhi Krishi vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1987. The Governor of Madhya Pradesh is the ex officio Chancellor of the University. The University shall have a Vice-Chancellor. The procedure for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor is contained in section 14 of the Adhiniyam. ( 3. ) FIRSTLY, one Shri D. K. Sharma was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the vishwavidyalaya. A vacancy was created when Shri Sharma was appointed as vice-Chancellor of Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur. To fill up this vacancy the Chancellor in terms of section 14 (2) of the Adhiniyam appointed a committee of the following three persons : (i) Shri Anand Sarup, Chairman, National Book Trust of India, New delhi (Nominee of Chairman, University Grants Commission), (ii) Dr. N. S. Randhewa, Director General of Indian Council of agricultural Research, New Delhi, and (iii) Dr. M. P. Dixit, Vice-Chancellor, Rani Durgawati Vishwa Vidyalaya, jabalpur (Nominee of the Chancellor ). The order constituting this committee to recommend panel of suitable persons to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor is dated 20-6-1987. A meeting of this committee was held in Delhi on 2-9-1987 and it submitted the panel including the name of shri V. P. Shukla, respondent No. 2, to the Chancellor. By order dated 19-8-1987, the time for submitting the panel was extended upto 2-9-1987. This was on the asking of the Chairman of the Committee. The panel submitted by the committee was received in the office of the Chancellor and acknowledged vide letter dated 7/8-9-1987. The Chancellor accepted the recommendation by the Committee and appointed Shri V. P. Shukla, respondent No. 2, as the Vice-Chancellor of Indira gandhi Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Raipur. This was on the asking of the Chairman of the Committee. The panel submitted by the committee was received in the office of the Chancellor and acknowledged vide letter dated 7/8-9-1987. The Chancellor accepted the recommendation by the Committee and appointed Shri V. P. Shukla, respondent No. 2, as the Vice-Chancellor of Indira gandhi Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Raipur. By this petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India, the appointment of respondent V. P. Shukla as Vice-Chancellor of the Vishwa Vidyalaya is challenged on the following grounds : (i) that nomination of Shri Anand Sarup as Chairman/member of committee is invalid since he was not physically fit to participate in the deliberation of the committee; and (ii) that the panel submitted by the committee was invalid and inconsequential as the time to submit the panel was extended beyond four weeks and that too after the expiry of period of six weeks from the date of the constitution of the committee. ( 4. ) THE first ground of attack could not be supported by any reason or argument worth mentioning. The return exhibited by the respondents 1 and 3 clearly indicates that Shri Anand Sarup was fit enough to participate in the meeting of the selection committee. Not only this, the return also shows that Shri anand Sarup did actually participate in the meeting of the selection committee held on 2-9-1987. Indeed, after seeing the return, the learned counsel for the petitioners, quite fairly, as he often does, did not press this ground into service any further. ( 5. ) SHRI N. S. Kale, learned counsel for the petitioners was at pains to demonstrate that when, as a consequence of meeting held on 2-9-1987, the selection committee submitted its panel on 4-9-1987, it had lost all its authority by reason of expiry of the statutory period prescribed under the Adhiniyam. The submission has been that the selection committee was required to submit the panel within six weeks of its constitution; i. e. , 24-6-1987. This period could not have been extended in exercise of powers under section 14 (4) of the Adhiniyam, after it had run out on expiry of six weeks from 24-6-1987. Further attack is that this period could not be extended beyond four weeks. This period could not have been extended in exercise of powers under section 14 (4) of the Adhiniyam, after it had run out on expiry of six weeks from 24-6-1987. Further attack is that this period could not be extended beyond four weeks. We find from the documents submitted with the return that the order extending the time of submission of panel by the committee was made by the Chancellor on 19-8-1987 which is apparently beyond six weeks of 20-6-1987. Similarly, submission of panel on 2-9-1987 is beyond 6 + 4 = 10 weeks of the appointment of that committee. The question, therefore is whether in terms of provisions contained in section 14 of the Adhiniyam, a panel so submitted is valid and any person appointed out of such panel as Vice-Chancellor can be said to be validly appointed. 5-A. We may at this stage notice the provision of section 14 of the Adhiniyam : "14. Vice-Chancellor.- (1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor from a panel of not less than three persons recommended by the committee constituted under sub-section (2) : provided that if the Chancellor does not approve of any of the persons so recommended or the person or persons approved by the chancellor out of those recommended by such committee are not willing to accept the appointment, the Chancellor may call for fresh recommendations from such committee : provided further that the First Vice-Chancellor shall be directly appointed by the Chancellor. (2) The Chancellor shall appoint a committee consisting of the following persons, namely : (i) Chairman of the University Grants Commission or his nominee; (ii) Director General of Indian Council of Agricultural Research; (iii) An educationalist nominated by the Chancellor. The Chancellor shall appoint one of the three persons to be the chairman of the Committee. (3) (4) The Committee shall submit the panel within six weeks from the date of its constitution or such further time not exceeding four weeks as may be extended by the Chancellor. (5) If the Committee fails to submit the panel within the period specified in sub-section (4), the Chancellor may appoint any person whom he deems fit to be the Vice-Chancellor. (5) If the Committee fails to submit the panel within the period specified in sub-section (4), the Chancellor may appoint any person whom he deems fit to be the Vice-Chancellor. (6) (7) In the event of the occurrence of any vacancy in the office of vice-Chancellor by reason of his death, resignation or otherwise the senior-most Director, Dean of Faculty or any officer of the Government nominated by Chancellor shall act as Vice-Chancellor until the date on which a new Vice-Chancellor, appointed under sub-section (1) to fill such vacancy enters upon his office : provided that the person so nominated shall not hold office for a period of more than six months. (8 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . (9) Until the nomination has been made under sub-section (7) or arrangements have been made under sub-section (8), the Registrar and if no Registrar has been appointed or if there be vacancy in the office of registrar for any reason whatsoever, such officer of the University as chancellor may direct shall carry on the current duties of the Vice-Chancellor. (10)The requirement of sub-section (4) is that the committee appointed under sub-section (2) shall submit the panel within six weeks from the date of its constitution. The Chancellor has power to extend this time for submission of panel but the extension shall not be beyond four weeks. To us it appears that the direction that the panel shall be submitted by the Committee within six weeks is not mandatory but is directory for the reason that the Chancellor himself has the power to extend this period, in case the panel is not so submitted. No universal rule can be stated with any amount of precision to test whether a given provision is directory or mandatory. The language employed plays a vital role in determining this question but is often not decisive. Regard must be had to the context, subject-matter and object of the provision in question. In State of U. P. vs. Manbodhanlal Shrivastava, air 1957 SC 912 , the Supreme Court approved the following passage from liverpool Borough Bank vs. Turner, (1861) 30 L. J. Ch. 379, where Lord Cambell said : "no universal rule can be laid down into whether mandatory enactments shall be considered directory only or obligatory with an implied nullification for disobedience. 379, where Lord Cambell said : "no universal rule can be laid down into whether mandatory enactments shall be considered directory only or obligatory with an implied nullification for disobedience. It is the duty of Courts of justice to try to get at the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the statute to be considered. " The Supreme Court in Manbodhanlal Shrivastavas case (supra) stressed that the intention of the legislature and not the language employed must govern. The nature and design of the provision together with the consequences which may follow from construing it one way or the other must be considered. (See also : state of U. P. vs. Baburam Upadhyaya, AIR 1961 SC 751 , State of Mysore vs. V. K. Kangan, AIR 1975 SC 2190 and Govindlal Chhaganlal Patel vs. Agriculture produce Market Committee, AIR 1976 SC 263 ). If the object of the enactment would be defeated by holding the provision directory, it would be construed as mandatory. When consequence of nullification on failure to comply with a presctribed requirement is provided by the statute itself, there can be no manner of doubt that such statutory requirement must be interpreted as mandatory. When the statute does not specifically provide for nullification as a consequence of the non-compliance of the statutory injunction but imposes expressly some other penalty, it is a question of construction in each given case whether the legislature intended to lay down an absolute prohibition or merely to make the offending person liable for the penalty. It may also be mentioned that the use of the word "shall" in many cases has been held to be directory, although it is ordinarily construed as mandatory, depending upon the real intention of the legislature and the scope of the statute. Where the enactment is mandatory it has to be obeyed or fulfilled exactly. A directory provision may be obeyed or fulfilled substantially but complete non-compliance of such a directory provision need not affect the validity of an act done in its breach. (See : State of U. P. vs. Manbodhanlal Shrivastava (supra) and L. Hazari Mal Kuthiala vs. I. T. O. , Ambala cantt, AIR 1961 SC 200 ). A directory provision may be obeyed or fulfilled substantially but complete non-compliance of such a directory provision need not affect the validity of an act done in its breach. (See : State of U. P. vs. Manbodhanlal Shrivastava (supra) and L. Hazari Mal Kuthiala vs. I. T. O. , Ambala cantt, AIR 1961 SC 200 ). The law in this regard has been summed up by G. P. Singh, J. in his principles of Statutory Interpretation, 3rd Edition, at page 275, as follows: " (1) Those which should be substantially complied with to make the act valid, (2) those which even if not at all complied with have no effect on the Act. The correct position appears to be that substantial compliance of an enactment is insisted, where mandatory and directory requirements are lumped together, for in such a case, if mandatory requirements are complied with, it will be proper to say that the enactment has been substantially complied with notwithstanding the non-compliance of directory requirements. " ( 6. ) FIRST part of sub-section (4) of section 14 requires the selection committee to submit the panel within six weeks. The consequence of non-submission of panel within that period does not nullify the constitution of the committee itself. Instead, the very provision permits the Chancellor to extend time for submission of the panel by the committee already constituted. This, in our opinion, indicates that although the provision is caused in imperative terms by the use of the word "shall", that part appears to be only directory and not mandatory. The panel can well be submitted within the extended time of four weeks. We are, therefore, of the opinion that even when the selection committee fails to submit the panel within six weeks of its constitution, it could well submit the panel within the extended period. ( 7. ) THE latter part of sub-section (4) of section 14 does empower the chacellor to extend the period beyond six weeks for submission of panel as provided by its first part. The Chancellor, however, is not obliged to extend this period. He may do so or he may not do so. ( 7. ) THE latter part of sub-section (4) of section 14 does empower the chacellor to extend the period beyond six weeks for submission of panel as provided by its first part. The Chancellor, however, is not obliged to extend this period. He may do so or he may not do so. When the committee does not submit panel either within the period of six weeks as initially fixed or within the extended period which shall not go beyond four weeks, the Chancellor gets jurisdiction to appoint any person as Vice-Chancellor by force of sub-section (5 ). The Act thus provides the consequence of the failure of the committee to submit a panel to the chancellor as required by sub-section (4 ). Thus, where a panel is submitted by the committee beyond the period presctribed in sub-section (4) of Section 14, the chancellor may ignore that panel. Since sub-section (5), in that event, permits him to appoint as Vice-Chancellor any person whom he deems fit, he can even pick up any person out of such panel submitted beyond the prescribed period under sub-section (4) of section 14. Such an appointment of the Vice-Chancellor can well be justified under sub-section (5) of section 14 of the Act. ( 8. ) THE Chancellor in his return has supported the appointment of respondent no. 2 as Vice-Chancellor. According to him, Shri Shukla is fit to be appointed as vice-Chancellor. Even if, therefore, Shri Shuklas appointment may not be held strictly justified under sub-section (1) of section 14, it can still be upheld as validly made under sub-section (5) of Section 14. The appointment of respondent No. 2, therefore, must be upheld. ( 9. ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without any order as to costs. Security amounts be refunded to the petitioners. Petition dismissed.