JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - These are three applications on behalf of the respondents in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 584 of 1988, Dr. G. K. Narain v. Vice-Chancellor, Agra University, Agra and others, to vacate the interim stay dated 14-1-1988 and 18-2-1988. The interim order of stay dated 14-1-1988 is to the effect that the operation of order dated 8-1-1988 (Annexure-XIX to the writ petition) shall remain stayed. It was, however, made clear that the order dated 14-1-1988 was to remain effective till the petitioner attains the age of superannuation (i.e. on 4-4-1988). 2. The portrayal of the essential facts, leading to the present writ petition and applications to vacate the interim stay, are these. There is an institution named Varshney (Degree) College, Aligarh, affiliated to the Agra University. The provisions of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 and Statutes framed thereunder were applicable. Dr. S.C. Gupta, the Principal, retired on 30th June, 1987 after attaining the age of superannuation. 3. As the petitioner has been operated for contract in April, 1987 hence by his letter, dated 28-6-1987, he expressed un-willingness to officiate as the Principal. The Committee of Management took a decision in its meeting held on 29-6-1987 and appointed respondent No. 3 under Statute 12.20 as an officiating Principal (Annexure-II to the writ petition). The respondent No. 3 is alleged to have assumed the charge of the office of Principal with effect from 1-7-1987. The petitioner recovered from his cataract operation and he expressed his willingness to the Secretary of the Committee of Management to officiate as Principal in the institution, being senior most teacher of the college. As the respondent No 3 has already officiated as Principal for three months in view of Statute 12.20, the Committee of Management, keeping in view the willingness of Sri Arya who offered to tender his resignation from the officiating Principal (Annexure-V to the writ petition), in its meeting dated 21-12-1987 appointed the petitioner Dr. G.K. Narain, being the senior most teacher of the college, to officiate as Principal with effect from 22-12-1987 (Vide Annexure-X to the writ petition). Against the order dated 22-12-1987, appointing the petitioner as officiating Principal, the respondent No. 3 feeling aggrieved filed his representation before the Vice-Chancellor on 23-12-1987 (vide Annexure-XIV to the writ petition). G.K. Narain, being the senior most teacher of the college, to officiate as Principal with effect from 22-12-1987 (Vide Annexure-X to the writ petition). Against the order dated 22-12-1987, appointing the petitioner as officiating Principal, the respondent No. 3 feeling aggrieved filed his representation before the Vice-Chancellor on 23-12-1987 (vide Annexure-XIV to the writ petition). The Vice-Chancellor, after obtaining comments from the Committee of Management; the petitioner and the respondent No. 3, passed an order on 8-1-1988 to the effect that Sri Arya must continue as officiating Principal under Statute 12.20 (Vide Annexure-XIV to the Writ Petition). 4. Against the Order dated 8-1-1988, the petitioner has filed the aforesaid writ petition in this court. The petition was admitted on 14-1-1988 and an interim stay was granted staying the operation of order dated 8-1-1988 by a Division Bench of this court. It was further made clear that the petitioner shall continue as officiating Principal till he attains the age of superannuation (on 4-4-1988). Further as the Committee of Management has to hold a meeting on 22-2-1988, hence an application, dated 10-2-1988 was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 directing the management not to hold any meeting scheduled on 22-2-1988 to make ad-hoc appointment for the post of the Principal in the college whereas another two applications have been filed on behalf of the respondents to vacate the interim order granted on the aforesaid two dates. 5. On the aforesaid applications to vacate the interim stay, counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. On behalf of the petitioner as also on behalf of the respondents, details arguments were advanced including about the merits of the petition and also about justification to vacate the interim stay. Hence, the propriety requires that the applications may be disposed of by a bit elaborate order. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents urged that the respondent No. 3 Sri Arya has correctly been appointed as officiating Principal under Statute 12.20 framed under the Agra University Act till a permanent Principal is appointed under Section 16 of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 (for short the Act). Further, it was urged that the appointment of the officiating Principal can be made only under the statutory provision of Statute 12.20 of First Statutes of Agra University and not under Section 16 of the Act. Further, it was urged that the appointment of the officiating Principal can be made only under the statutory provision of Statute 12.20 of First Statutes of Agra University and not under Section 16 of the Act. The operation of the order of Vice-Chancellor need not be stayed and the interim stay granted by the Division Bench, dated 18-2-1988 may be vacated, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, urged that the provisions of U.P. State Universities Act or Statutes would not be applicable after the enforcement of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 which came into force on 21-8-1980. In view of Section 30, the provisions of this Act shall have overriding effect, notwithstanding anything contained in the U.P. State Universities Act or Statutes or Ordinance. The language employed by the legislature under Sections 16 and 30 is, self explicit. The provisions of U.P. State Universities Act or statutes or Ordinance would not, accordingly apply to the provisions of the Act. The impugned order (Annexure-XIX to the petition) directing the respondent No. 3 to continue as officiating Principal and holding his appointment under the Statute 12.20 cannot be sustained. It was further urged that the Vice-Chancellor does not appear to have taken into consideration the overriding effect of the provisions of Section 30 of the Act. The order passed by him appears to have been passed per incurium. Keeping in view the object of the Act, it is the Management alone which has power under Section 16 of the Act to make ad-hoc appointment on the post of Principal unless the candidate recommended by the Commission joins the post. It may be stated that the vacancy has already been notified by the Commission under Section 12 of the Act but the Commission has not as yet recommended the name. 7. Having heard counsel for the parties, in order to dispose of these applications, question for consideration is about the interpretation of Sections 12, 16 and 30 of the Act. 8. The problem of interpretation is a problem of meaning of words and their effectiveness to communicate a particular idea or thought which the legislature wanted to convey. In such matters language employed is the determining factor. The interpretation must be textual and contextual. Different parts of the statute must be read together. 8. The problem of interpretation is a problem of meaning of words and their effectiveness to communicate a particular idea or thought which the legislature wanted to convey. In such matters language employed is the determining factor. The interpretation must be textual and contextual. Different parts of the statute must be read together. A particular statutory provision must be so interpreted as to keep it in harmony with other provisions. In other words a particular provision need not be read in isolation rather it has to be read along with other relevant provisions. Besides well known principles contained in Heyodon's case (1884) 3 Co. Rep. 7-a, there are certain rules contained in certain Latin Maxims i.e. EX VISCER IBUS ACTUS which means that interpretation must be made within the our corners of the Act. Further there is another Maxim NEMONIM ALII QUAM PARTEM RBCTE INTELLIGERE POTEST A NATEQUAM TOTUM ITERUM ATQUE ITERUM PERLEGERIT which means that the construction must be of all the parts of statute together and not of any section or part in isolation. (See in Re a Debtor, (1950) Ch, 423). It must be in consonance with the reason and spirit of the law, keeping in view the intention of the law makers `ANIMUS IMPONENTIS' as expressed in the words employed. 9. The object of the Act, though not decisive but is of some assistance to be taken into account while interpreting Section 16 of the Act. The object of the Act is to establish a Service-Commission for the selection of teachers for appointment to the colleges affiliated to or recognised by a University and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. It is, therefore, obvious that the Act provides the establishment of a Service Commission in regard to the selection of teachers of the colleges affiliated to or recognised by the University. Whereas the U.P. State Universities Act is applicable in respect of the appointments, selection of teachers and other incidental matters including administration of the University as well as colleges affiliated with the University. In a way the U.P. State Universities Act is a generis whereas the present Act is a species. It would not be inapt to say that the present Act is a proviso to the U.P. State Universities Act. In a way the U.P. State Universities Act is a generis whereas the present Act is a species. It would not be inapt to say that the present Act is a proviso to the U.P. State Universities Act. As abundant caution statutory provisions of Section 16 of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 are set out as below "Appointment of ad-hoc teachers. - (1) Where the management has notified a vacancy to the Commission in accordance with subsection (2) of Section 12 and the Commission fails to recommended the names of suitable candidates in accordance with sub-section (1) of that section within three month from the date of such notification, the management may appoint a teacher on purely ad-hoc basis from amongst the persons holding qualification prescribed therefor. (2) Every appointment of an ad-hoc teacher under sub-section (1) shall cease with effect from the earliest of the following dates, namely ; (a) when the candidate recommended by the Commission Joins the post. (b) where the period of two months from the date of receipt of the recommendation of the Commission under sub-section (1) of Section 12 expires; (c) thirtieth day of June following the date of such ad-hoc appointment." Aforesaid Section 16 has to be read along with the Statutory provision of Section 30 which is as below : - "30. Act to have overriding Effect. - The provision of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 or the Statutes or Ordinances made thereunder." 10. A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions of Sections 12, 16 and 30 of the Act together indicate that the provisions of the Act have got overriding effect over the provisions of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 or the Statutes or Ordinances framed thereunder. The simple elementary interpretation of Section 30 is that the intendment of law maker has been made manifest that in respect of the selection of teachers and their appointment in the college affiliated to or recognised by the University, only the provisions of the Act shall apply, and the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act or statutes would not apply. 11. 11. The provision of Section 16 of the Act is a part of an integral scheme, it need not be read in isolation but has to be considered and construed along with Section 30 and other provisions of the Act. An isolated consideration of a Part of an Act would render other part to become otinose or devoid of relevant meaning (See G.P. Singla v. Union of India and others, AIR 1984 SC 1595 . Sections 16 and 30 have designedly been worded by the legislature to convey its intention that it is only the committee of management which has got powers to make appointment on ad-hoc basis for the post of principal or any other teacher and these appointment shall continue till the candidate recommended by the commission joins the post. In the institution, the vacancy has been notified as required by Section 12 of the Act. The U.P. Higher Education Services Commission has not as yet recommended any name for the post of principal. It is the exclusive power of the Committee of Management to appoint any teacher, of the college as ad-hoc principal, who possesses the qualification prescribed. As the petitioner, who, under the interim stay order dated 14-1-1988 passed by a Division Bench of this Court has continued as officiating principal till he attains the age of superannuation (on 4-4-1988) it shall, therefore, be open to the Committee of Management to take such effective steps to hold the meeting for the appointment of the ad-hoc principal at the earliest and to consider the name of the teachers possessing the qualification prescribed. 12. The provisions of Statute 12.20 would not apply to the appointment of ad-hoc principal after the enforcement of the Act keeping in view its object. The appointment of Sri P. P. Arya, the respondent No. 3, under Statute 12.20 and the impugned order of the Vice-Chancellor approving the appointment appear to be manifestly erroneous. 13. The present writ petition has got a very short life as the petitioner himself has to retire on 4th April, 1988. Under these circumstances, there is no justification to vacate the interim stay order dated 14-1-1982 but at the same time, the interim order dated 18-2-1988 to the effect that the meeting of the Committee of Management to be held to make appointment to the post of ad hoc principal was to remain stayed deserves to be vacated. 14. Under these circumstances, there is no justification to vacate the interim stay order dated 14-1-1982 but at the same time, the interim order dated 18-2-1988 to the effect that the meeting of the Committee of Management to be held to make appointment to the post of ad hoc principal was to remain stayed deserves to be vacated. 14. It may be mentioned that the second connected Writ Petition No. 2825 of 1988. Committee of Management, Varshney College, Aligarh and others v. Vice-Chancellor, Agra University and others, has been filed challenging the same order of the Vice-Chancellor. 15. In view of the aforesaid premises, the applications filed by the respondents to vacate the interim stay dated 14-1-1988 are dismissed whereas the application to vacate the order dated 18-2-1988 is allowed. It is, however, made dear that it is open to the Committee of Management to hold a meeting to select a teacher who possesses requisite qualification for the post of ad hoc principal in view of the provisions of Section 16 of the Act.