JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon, J. - This petition. at the instance of the Committee of Management t hereinafter referred to as the Management) of Kunwar R.C. Mahila Degree College, Mainpuri (hereinafter referred to as the College), in institution affiliated to the University of Agra (hereinafter referred to as the University), stems from the orders passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University refusing to approve the decision of the Management to terminate the services of a teacher and the order purported to have been passed under S, 78A of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Registrar of the University on 13th March, 1986 informed the Management through its Secretary that the Vice-Chancellor had taken the view that the decision of the Management to terminate the services of Miss Usha Galav (hereinafter referred to as Miss Galav) as a Lecturer in History was ineffective as the same had been taken without the prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor. On 21st March, 1986 the Registrer informed Miss Galav that the Vice-Chancellor had issued fresh order to the management to permit her to join her duties as a Lecturer in History. A copy of this communication was forwarded to the Principal of the College, Fresh orders were also issued by the Vice-Chancellor to the Secretary as well as the petitioner. On May 5/6, 1987, the Vice-Chancellor directed the Management to pay to Miss Galav the arrears of salary and other allowances for the period up to 30th April, 1987 amounting to Rs. 72,953.54 p. within fifteen days of the receipt of the order. The management was also directed to continue to pay the salary and other allowance to Miss Galav even after 30th, 1987 as she continued in service in the college. The aforesaid two communication of the Registrar and the last order of the Vice-Chancellor aforementioned are being impugned in the present petition. The prayer is that the same may be quashed. 2. The petition has not been formally admitted. However, affidavits have been exchanged between the petitioner Miss Galav and the Vice-Chancellor of the University, the only two respondents to the petition. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we heard this petition with a view to dispose it of finally. We are, therefore, doing so. 3. 2. The petition has not been formally admitted. However, affidavits have been exchanged between the petitioner Miss Galav and the Vice-Chancellor of the University, the only two respondents to the petition. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we heard this petition with a view to dispose it of finally. We are, therefore, doing so. 3. Before the enforcement of the U.P. Highers Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Commission Act) the conditions of service etc. of a teacher of an affiliated college were governed by the provisions of the Act and the Statutes of the University. By enacting the Commission Act the Legislature has intended to supplement the provisions of the Act and not supplant them. This is evident from the provisions of Section 30 of the Commission Act. This provision will be dealt by us later on. 4. Section 12 of the Commission Act, in substance provides that every substantive appointment of a teacher in a college shall be made by the management on the recommendation of the Commission which shall be constituted in accordance with S. 3. However, an exception is made to the cases which fall under Sections 16, 3l A and 31 B. We are at this stage, concerned with S. 16 which contemplates of a situation where the commission has come into existence, the management has notified a vacancy of the Commission in accordance with sub-section (2) of S. 12 and the Commission has failed to recommend the names of suitable candidates within three months from the date of such notification by the management then the management is authorised to appoint a teacher on purely ad hoc basis and the terms of such an appointment have been specified, one of them being thirtieth day of June following the date of ad hoc appointment. 5. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Commission had been constituted in 1982, the vacancy had been notified by the management to the Commission and the management had appointed Miss Galav in purported exercise of power under S. 16 of the Commission Act. 5. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Commission had been constituted in 1982, the vacancy had been notified by the management to the Commission and the management had appointed Miss Galav in purported exercise of power under S. 16 of the Commission Act. At this stage, we may note that, even in cases falling under S. 16, this Court had taken a consistent view that, in spite of the provision in S. 16 that an ad hoc appointment shall cease with effect from the thirtieth day of June following the date of such appointment, a teacher appointed on ad hoc basis under S. 16 will continue to hold the post till a candidate recommended by the Commission joins the post or till the appointment of such a teacher is terminated in accordance with law. 6. It is the common case of the parties that the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Order), issued under Section 31A of the Commission Act was enforced with effect from 4th January, 1982. Paragraph 2 of the Order provides that the management of a college may appoint a teacher on purely ad hoc basis, in accordance with the provisions of the Order, in the vacancies occurring in any of the five manners indicated therein. We are concerned with the first contingency, which is : "creation of new post". It is neither the case of any party nor can it be that except that first contingency any other contingency will be applicable to the case in hand. Paragraph 2 further emphasises that the candidates to be appointed must posses the prescribed minimum qualification. It is not the case of the management that Miss Galav, on the relevant date, did not possess the prescribed minimum qualification. Paragraph 3 provides that every appointment of a teacher shall be made in consultation with an expert, nominated by the Vice-Chancellor, and shall cease on the date when the Commission recommends a candidate for appointment in accordance with the provisions of the Commission Act. 7. The management through its Secretary invited applications for appointment to certain substantive posts through an advertisement published in the newspaper 'Amar Ujala' on 14th September. 1981. The first post was of a Lady Principal. 7. The management through its Secretary invited applications for appointment to certain substantive posts through an advertisement published in the newspaper 'Amar Ujala' on 14th September. 1981. The first post was of a Lady Principal. The other posts were of Lady Lecturers in the discipline of Sanskrit, Hindi, English, Music (Vocal), History, Political Science and Sociology in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1600 and other allowances admissible under the State Government orders. The third were the posts of Librarian, Head Clerk-cum Accountant, Routine Clerk's and Class IV employees. On 18th May, 1982 the Secretary wrote to Miss Galav that with reference to her application dated 1st October, 1981 the management had appointed her as a Lecturer in History on ad hoc basis in the institution in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1600 plus other allowances as admissible under the State Government orders. It was also indicated therein that although the Vice-Chancellor had approved the appointment till 30th June, 1982, the said appointment was likely to last till some one also is recommended by the Commission for appointment to the said post. On 6th September, 1982 the Secretary sent another communication to Miss Galav stating therein that the management had approved the continuance of her services as ad hoc lecturer in the subject of History with effect from 1st July, 1982 till the post is filled by the Commission. The Vice-Chancellor had accorded his approval vide letter dated 30th August, 1982. However, it was made clear that the appointment was on ad hoc basis. It may be noted at this stage that Miss Galav had been appointed as a Lecturer in History on ad hoc basis in accordance with the terms of the Order aforementioned. That is why the Secretary in his communications to Miss Galav emphasised that her appointment was to continue till the post of Lecturer in History was filled up by the Commission. We may at once note that it is not the case of the management that the Commission, at any stage, selected any candidate for being appointed as a Lecturer in History in the College. 8. On 28th February, 1986 the management passed a resolution No. 4(Kha) in Hindi. Before it, there was a report of the Joint Secretary that the Lecturer in History had a work load of only 12 lectures per week. 8. On 28th February, 1986 the management passed a resolution No. 4(Kha) in Hindi. Before it, there was a report of the Joint Secretary that the Lecturer in History had a work load of only 12 lectures per week. The Principal of the institution could be asked to deliver 6 lectures per week. If this suggestion was accepted the work load of the Lecturer in History would be reduced to 6 Lectures per week whereas according to the prescribed norm a Lecturer should be assigned to 24 lectures per week. In these circumstances. there was no justification to financially burden the college by having a Lecturer in History. The Joint Secretary also opined that the Principal had been selected by the Commission and since she was qualified to teach History she may be requested to take up 12 lectures per week in History. The Joint Secretary proposed that the management may authorise the Secretary to request the Principal to take up 12 lectures in History per week and the Secretary may further be authorised to taken appropriate action to terminate the services of the Lecturer in History after the consent of the Principal thereby obviating an unnecessary financial burden upon the college. After discussion, the members unanimously authorised the Secretary to request the Principal to take up 12 lecturers in History per week and take her consent in writing in that behalf. The management also authorised the Secretary that he may taken action in accordance with law to terminate the services of the lecturer in History after obtaining the consent of the Principal. On 3rd March, 1986 the Secretary sent a communication to Miss Galav that on account of the availability of a person duly selected by the Commission to teach History as a subject to the students of B.A. and in accordance with the decision of the management as recorded in Resolution No. 4 (kha) dated 28th February, 1986 her (Miss Galav's) services were not required in the institution and, therefore, her services were being terminated with effect from 3rd March, 1986 and she was being given one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice through a cheque which was enclosed thereto. A copy of this communication was sent by the Secretary to the Vice-Chancellor along with the said resolution of the management. A copy of this communication was sent by the Secretary to the Vice-Chancellor along with the said resolution of the management. On 8th March 1986 Miss Galav made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor in which she drew his attention to her earlier letter dated 22nd January 1986 and 2nd March, 1986 addressed to the Vice-Chancellor wherein she had complained that the management had neither made part payment of her salary since November, 1986 nor had paid the arrears of salary to her. She had also expressed the apprehension that on account of persistent demand of her arrears of salary etc. the management may taken some action by way of reprisal. She pointed out that her apprehension had proved correct and she had been summarily dismissed from service vide letter dated 3rd March, 1986 of the Secretary. She had also pointed out that no one had been selected or appointed by the Commission on the post of Lecturer in History in the institution and Dr. ( Miss) Sushila Tyagi had been selected and appointed through the Commission as the Principal of the institution. Miss Galav appealed to the Vice-Chancellor to immediately intervene in the interest of justice and fair play by revoking the order of dismissal so that she may be allowed to continue in service and perform her duties without any let or hindrance and with all benefits of salary. allowances and continuity of service etc. On 13th March, 1986 the Registrar sent a communication to the Secretary through registered post referring therein the letter dated 3rd March, 1986 addressed by the Secretary to Miss Galav and a copy endorsed to the Vice-Chancellor. The Registrar wrote : "I am directed to inform you that the Vice-Chancellor has been pleased to set aside the decision taken by the managing committee to terminate the service of Miss Usha Galav because the College has not complied with the conditions laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 which says that every decision of the management of such college to dismiss or remove a Lecturer or to reduce him in rank or to punish him in any other manner shall, before it is communicated to him, he reported to the Vice-Chancellor and shall not take effect unless it has been approved by the Vice-Chancellor". The Registrar also wrote that he had been directed to inform the Secretary that Miss Galav shall he treated as having continued in service from the date of illegal termination of her services till the receipt of these orders by the Principal and thereafter till the post of Lecturer in History is filled up by a candidate duly selected by the Commission. A copy of this letter was sent by the Registrar to the Principal of the institution as well as to Miss Galav and to some other officials. 9. Inspite of the aforesaid letter of the Registrar dated 13th March, 1986 Miss Galav was not permitted to resume her duties. She made a representation on 15th March, 1986 to the Principal of the College and prayed that the order of the Vice-Chancellor should he given effect to. Having failed to get any redress, she, it appears, on 19th March, 1986 made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor. On 21st March, 1986 the Registrar sent under registered post a communication to the Secretary as well as to the Principal. In this communication a reference was made to the letter dated 18th March, 1986 sent by the Registrar conveying the decision of the Vice-Chancellor. A reference was also made to the representation dated 19th March, 1986 made by Miss Galav to the Vice-Chancellor a copy of which was endarsed to the Secretary and the Principal. In her representation dated 19th March, 1986 Miss Galav had pointed that she reported herself for duty on 15th March, 1986 and on 17th March 1986 but she was not allowed to join. The Registrar pointed out that the Vice-Chancellor had taken a serious view of the fact that the College had not complied with his orders. The vice-Chancellor reiterated that his order. as communicated vide letter dated 13th March 1986, should be complied with immediately and Km. Galav should be allowed to join, the College should report the compliance of the orders and in case the orders will not be complied with, the University will be forced to initiate proceedings to dis-affiliate the college under the relevant provisions of the Statutes. To the writ petition, a copy of the aforementioned communication of the Registrar dated 21st march, 1986.has not been annexed. However, a copy of the letter dated 21st march, 1986 of the Registrar addressed to Miss Galav has been filed. In this letter. To the writ petition, a copy of the aforementioned communication of the Registrar dated 21st march, 1986.has not been annexed. However, a copy of the letter dated 21st march, 1986 of the Registrar addressed to Miss Galav has been filed. In this letter. there is a reference of the representation of Miss Galav dated 19th March. 1986. It emphasises that the Vice-Chancellor had passed fresh order and directed the College to allow her to join duties as Lecturer in History. She was directed to report for duty immediately on receipt of the letter. We presume that the petitioner deisres that this Court should quash the communication dated 21st March, 1986 of the Registrar to the Secretary as well as the Principal, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure 6' to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the vice-Chancellor. 10. Section 30 of the Commission Act reads : "The provisions of this Act, shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 or the Statutes or ordinances made thereunder." It maybe noted that the provisions of the Act in so far as they pertain to teachers of affiliated colleges have not been repealed by the Commission Act. The purpose of Section 30 of the Commission Act clearly is that the provisions of the Commission Act will have over-riding effect in spite of any provisions of the Act which may be indicating a contrary intention. To put it differently, the object and purpose of Section 30 is that in case of a conflict between the provisions of the Act and the Commission Act the letter will operate for the time being and the provisions of the Act will lie dormant or will give way to the provisions as contained in the Commission Act. The marginal note to Section 30 which reads : "Act to have over-riding effect" is also suggestive of the interpretation given by us to the provisions under reference. 11. We have already referred to the relevant provisions the Order. We have also emphasised that the appointment of Miss. Galav as an ad hoc Lecturer in History was made under the Order. We have seen that the appointment of Miss. Galav as an ad hoc Lecturer was approved by the Vice-Chancellor. 11. We have already referred to the relevant provisions the Order. We have also emphasised that the appointment of Miss. Galav as an ad hoc Lecturer in History was made under the Order. We have seen that the appointment of Miss. Galav as an ad hoc Lecturer was approved by the Vice-Chancellor. We have also seen that neither the provisions as contained in Section 16 of the Commission Act nor the terms of the Order provide neither dismissal or removal or punishment in any other manner. or termination of the services by way of punishment or otherwise, of an ad hoc teacher. The provisions of S. 16 of the Commission Act and the terms of the Order merely refer to certain contingencies on the occurrence of which the appointment of an ad hoc teacher will come to an automatic end. It is thus clear that either the management in vested with no power at all to either dismiss or remove or terminate the services of an ad hoc teacher or such a power is there, but it is to be found not in the Commission Act or in the Order but elsewhere. Indeed, it is not the contention of the counsel for the petitioner, nor can it be, that the management has no power to terminate the services of Miss Galav. On the contrary, the contention is that such a power resides in the management but is not subject to the control of the Vice-Chancellor as envisaged in S. 35 of the Act. This submission is untenable. 12. Sub-section (2) of Section 35, inter alia, provides that every decision of the management of an affiliated college to dismiss or remove a teacher or to reduce him in rank or to punish him in any other manner shall before it is communicated to him. be reported to the Vice-Chancellor and shall not take effect unless it has been approved by the Vice-Chancellor, Sub-section (3) enjoins that the provisions of sub-section (2) shall also apply to any decision to terminate the services of a teacher, whether by way of punishment or otherwise but shall not apply to any termination of service on the expiry of the period for which the teacher was appointed. A combined reading of the two provisions particularly the words in sub-section (3) : "any decision to terminate the services of a teacher, whether by way of punishment or otherwise", are, in our opinion, wide enough to include the decision of the management of terminate the service of a teacher appointed on ad hoc basis upon the"creation of a new post." In Sri Pradeep Kumar Mukherji v. Managing Committee. Sant Vinoba Degree College, Deoria, 1984 UPLBEC 183 the expression "otherwise" occurring in Section 35(3) was interpreted to mean that there may be termination of the service of a teacher in a manner other than these mentioned in sub- sections (2) and (3) We respectfully agree with the said decision which was given by two Hon'ble Judges of this Court, one of them being Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. N. Singh as he then was. We have, therefore, no difficulty in taking the view that the Vice-Chancellor was perfectly justified in holding that the decision of the Secretary dated 3rd March, 1986 terminating the service of Miss. Galav was ineffective and void as the same had been communicated to Miss Galav even prior to the approval of the Vice-Chancellor. 13. Statute 16.04, which is relevant for the present controversy, provides that a teacher of affiliated college (other than a Principal) may be dismissed or removed or his services terminated on one of the eight grounds enumerated therein. We are not concerned with any other ground except the last, which reads : "abolition of the post with prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor". Even it be assumed for the sake of argument that the management. in substance, purported to abolish the post of a Lecturer in History, it could not on that ground terminate the services of Miss Galav because, admittedly, the approval of the Vice-Chancellor was not taken before the decision to abolish the post of Lecturer in History was taken by the management. This aspect has been emphasised in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Chancellor. Therefore, the argument on behalf of the petitioner that the post of a lecturer in History was abolished does not advance the case of the petitioner so as to entitle it to get rid of the impugned orders of the Vice-Chancellor insofar as they relate to termination of services of Miss Galav. 14. Therefore, the argument on behalf of the petitioner that the post of a lecturer in History was abolished does not advance the case of the petitioner so as to entitle it to get rid of the impugned orders of the Vice-Chancellor insofar as they relate to termination of services of Miss Galav. 14. We have shown that the Secretary advertised the post of a Lady Principal on 14th September, 1981. In that advertisement, posts of Lady Lecturers in various disciplines, including History, were also advertised. According to the petitioner, Km. Sushila Tyagi, a M.A. in History, was on 18th October, 1984, appointed as the Principal by the Commission. The assertion of the petitioner that every Principal is bound to take six periods per week is not accepted by the contesting respondents. According to the petitioner, the Principal has consented to take up all the classes of History in the college. The argument is that once the Principal, who has been duly appointed as such by the Commission, agreed to take up History classes, in the eye of law a teacher in History duly appointed by the Commission came into existence and, therefore, in accordance with the terms of the Order as well as the condition laid down in the letter of appointment issued to Miss Galav, the appointment of Miss Galav as an ad hoc lecturer in History came to an automatic end. This submission is fallacious. In the Commission Act the expression teacher or Principal is not defined. However, in the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission (Procedure for Selection of Teachers) Regulations, 1983 we find in Regulation 2(h) 'teacher' defined to mean a person employed for imparting instructions in a college and includes a Principal. This definition maintains a distinction between a teacher and a Principal. It does not mean that the office of a Principal and that of a teacher can coincide. Regulation 5 deals with notification of vacancies by the Commission, submission of applications and indication of preferences. It is implicit that the Commission shall separately specify the vacancy of the office of a Principal and the vacancy, if any, for the post of .a teacher in a college. Regulation 6 provides the procedure for selection. Different procedures are prescribed for selection to the post of a Principal and for the post of a teacher. It is implicit that the Commission shall separately specify the vacancy of the office of a Principal and the vacancy, if any, for the post of .a teacher in a college. Regulation 6 provides the procedure for selection. Different procedures are prescribed for selection to the post of a Principal and for the post of a teacher. Regulation 7 which deals with the recommendation for appointment draws a distinction between the post of Principal and the post of teacher. We may now advert to the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Rules, 1981, Rule 7 relates to the intimation of vacancies by the management of a college to the Commission. This is to be done in a prescribed Form-I. A look at this form also indicates a distinction is drawn between the post of a Principal and the post of a teacher. Rule 11 talks of the intimation to the Director by a candidate recommended by the Commission for appointment but not given appointment by the management. This intimation has to be given in the prescribed Form II. A look at this form also indicates that a distinction is drawn between the post of a Principal and the post of a teacher. We may also refer to the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1983. Regulation 5 talks of the constitution of separate interview Boards for the post of Principal and for the post of teachers. Regulation 6 provides that the Commission shall prepare a panel of Experts for the selection of Principal and separate subject-wise panels for selection of teachers other than Principal. It is thus evident that a distinction does exist between the post of a Principal and the post of a teacher and that is why in the advertisement issued on 14th September 1981 in the news paper 'Amar Ujala' such a distinction is maintained. It is to be remembered that it is not the case of the petitioner that the Commission subsequent to 18th May, 1982, when Miss Galav. for the first time was appointed as an ad hoc lecturer in History, recommended a candidate for appointment as a Lecturer in History in accordance with the provisions of the Commission Act. It is to be remembered that it is not the case of the petitioner that the Commission subsequent to 18th May, 1982, when Miss Galav. for the first time was appointed as an ad hoc lecturer in History, recommended a candidate for appointment as a Lecturer in History in accordance with the provisions of the Commission Act. We may emphasise that in paragraph 3 of the Order the recommendation of a candidate for appointment by the Commission is referable to the recommendation of a candidate for appointment on permanent basis under Section 12 of the Commission Act. We have, therefore, no hesitation in repelling the contention that the appointment of Miss Galav came to an automatic end merely because the Principal allegedly agreed to deliver 12 lectures per week in History to B.A. students. 15. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition it is overred that the College came into existence in the year 1981-82. We may refer again to the advertisement made by the Secretary in the newspaper 'Amar Ujala' dated 14th September, 1981. In that advertisement the post of a Lecturer in History along with the posts of Lecturers in other specialities, the Principal and some other officials were described as substantive posts. The mere fact that the College was not given a permanent affiliation by the University in relation to the subject of History will not convert the substantive post of a Lecturer in History into a temporary post. The nature of the post will not change. If. however, affiliation is not granted in a particular subject, a case for the abolition of the post in that subject may be made out. In this hack-drop, we may consider Section 31B. It reads : "31 B. Regulation of certain ad hoc appointments - (1) Every teacher, other than a Principal. directly appointed on or before January 3. 1984. on ad hoc basis, against a substantive vacancy in accordance with the provisions of t he Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission I Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1982 or the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission) Removal of Difficulties) Order. 1983. directly appointed on or before January 3. 1984. on ad hoc basis, against a substantive vacancy in accordance with the provisions of t he Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission I Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1982 or the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission) Removal of Difficulties) Order. 1983. who possesses the qualifications prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualifications in accordance with, the provisions of the concerned Statutes, shall with effect from the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Amendment) Act, l985 be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity provided that such teacher has been continuously serving the College from the date of such ad hoc appointment up to the date of such commencement. (2) Every teacher deemed to have been appointed in substantive capacity under sub-section III shall be deemed to be on probation from the date of such commencement. (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to entitle any teacher to substantive appointment if - (a) on the date of such commencement, such post had already been filled, or selection for such post had already been made, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, or (b) Such teacher was related to any member of the Management or the Principal of the College concerned." Having read the provisions carefully we come to the conclusion that Miss Galav fulfils all the requirements as contemplated in the aforequoted provisions. Therefore, the conclusion is irresistible that Miss. Galav was appointed as a Lecturer in History in substantive capacity with effect from the date of the commencement of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission (Amendment) Act, 198-5. If this be so, the services of Miss Galav could not be done away with on the footing that she was an ad hoc lecturer in History. This will. therefore. be an additional ground for taking the view that the decision of the management terminating the services of Miss Galav is void. 16. There is another aspect of the matter. Under resolution No. 4 (kha) dated 28th February, 1986 the committee of management merely authorised its Secretary to take steps in accordance with law, for terminating the services of Miss Galav after obtaining the consent of the Principal. 16. There is another aspect of the matter. Under resolution No. 4 (kha) dated 28th February, 1986 the committee of management merely authorised its Secretary to take steps in accordance with law, for terminating the services of Miss Galav after obtaining the consent of the Principal. The consent, it will he remembered, was in relation to the Principal agreeing to deliver 12 lectures per week in the subject of History to the students of B.A. class. Allegedly, such a consent was given by the Principal Paragraph 2 of the Order empowered the management of a college to appoint a teacher on ad hoc basis. Therefore, it was the management alone which could terminate the services of Miss Galav. if at all. A close reading of the resolution will indicate that the committee of Management did not delegate its power of terminating the services of Miss Galav to its Secretary. It merely authorised him to take necessary steps for terminating her services. Obviously, the steps in contemplation where the consent of the Principal and, more importantly, the approval of the Vice-Chancellor. The committee of management having not taken a decision to terminate the services of Miss Galav, the order passed by its Secretary is without jurisdiction and void. This may be another ground for taking the view that the services of Miss Galav were not terminated in accordance with law. 17. Now we may consider the order of the Vice-Chancellor purported to have been passed under Section 68A of the Act. Its contents are these. The Committee of management terminated the services of Miss Galav without obtaining the prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor, In spite of the several orders passed by the Vice-Chancellor, the Managing Committee did not allow Miss Galav either to join her duties or made payment of arrears of her past salary and also failed to pay the salary etc. from 4th March, 1986 onwards. The crucial words are : "in view of the decision taken by the Executive Council of the University at its meeting held on 28th February, 1987 (copy of the resolution enclosed at Annexure 1). I hereby, in exercise of my powers under Section 68A of the U.P. State Universities, Act, 1973, order..........to pay the arrears of salary and other allowances for the period up to 30-4-1987 amounting to Rs. I hereby, in exercise of my powers under Section 68A of the U.P. State Universities, Act, 1973, order..........to pay the arrears of salary and other allowances for the period up to 30-4-1987 amounting to Rs. 72,953.54 to Miss Usha Galav (as per statement of claims submitted by Miss Usha Galav and attached with these orders) within fifteen days of the receipt of this order. I also order that the Managing Committee of college shall continue to pay the salary and allowances to Miss. Usha Galav even after 30-4-1987 as she continues in service of the college according to the orders communicated by the University through its letters quoted in para 2 above." 18. We may, in brief, refer to the resolution 28th February. 1987 of the Executive Council of the University. The meeting of the Executive Council was held to consider the reply of the management to the notice of show cause given to it as to why the College should not be dis-affiliated from the University. It appears from a perusal of the resolution that on 10th August, 1986 the Executive Council vide its resolution No. 12/2.11 resolved that the management be asked to comply with the directions of the Vice-Chancellor. The relevant resolution is : "the Executive Council considered the matter at great length and there was a strong feeling that action for disaffiliation of the college should be taken in view of the persistent violation of directives and norms of the University. However, considering the fact that it would cause hardship to the girl students of Mainpuri and teachers of the college it ultimately resolved that action against the management of the college under Section 68A of the Act be taken by the Vice-Chancellor and at the same time the State Government be written for appointing an authorised controller for the college as per the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act. 19. A two-pronged attack has been made upon the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor. The first is that the same has been passed at the direction of the Executive Council and without any application of mind. The second is that, in any view of the matter, the Vice- Chancellor had no jurisdiction to direct the management to pay to Miss Galav the arrears of salary etc. for a period anterior to 4th March, 1986. The first is that the same has been passed at the direction of the Executive Council and without any application of mind. The second is that, in any view of the matter, the Vice- Chancellor had no jurisdiction to direct the management to pay to Miss Galav the arrears of salary etc. for a period anterior to 4th March, 1986. We may consider Section 68A, Sub-section (1) thereof, inter alia, provides that where a decision of the management of a affiliated college to dismiss, remove or to reduce a teacher in rank or to punish him in any other manner or to terminate his services, has not been approved by the Vice-Chancellor and the management has committed default in paying the salary of such teacher which became due to him in consequence of the Vice-Chancellor's order, the Vice-Chancellor may pass an order, requiring the management to pay the amount of salary as may be specified in the order. Sub-section (2) provides that in a case as is referred to in sub-section (1), the Vice-Chancellor may also order reinstatement of the teacher concerned subject to such terms and the conditions as he thinks fit. Sub-section (3) provides that the amount of salary required to be paid under an order of the Vice-Chancellor under sub-section (1) shall on a certificate issued by him to the effect, be recoverable by the Collector as arrears of land revenue. Sub-section (4) lays down that every order of the Vice-Chancellor under sub-section (2) shall be executable by the lowest civil court having territorial jurisdiction, as if it were a decree that court. Sub-section (5) is important and may be extracted : "No suit shall lie against any management or teacher in respect of any matter for which a relief can be granted by the Vice-Chancellor under this section." 20. The Vice-Chancellor had by his order dated 13th March, 1986 and 21st March, 1986 not approved the termination of the services of Miss Galav. The result was that the order of the Secretary dated 3rd March, 1986 terminating the services of Miss Galav became ineffective and void. Admittedly, the management had not paid to Miss Galav the salary etc. which was payable to her on or after 4th March 1986. The result was that the order of the Secretary dated 3rd March, 1986 terminating the services of Miss Galav became ineffective and void. Admittedly, the management had not paid to Miss Galav the salary etc. which was payable to her on or after 4th March 1986. In view of the provisions contained in sub-section (5), extracted above, a suit in a competent Civil Court at the instance of Miss Galav, to recover arrears of salary etc. with effect from 4th March 1986 was and is clearly barred. Therefore, a civil Court could not and cannot take cognizance of such a suit, at her instance in view of the provisions of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 21. Discretionary power, in legal parlance, implies existence of twin conditions. First. alternative courses of action should be available. Secondly, there must be a power to choose between alternatives. If only one course can be adopted, without violating the law, then it will be a case of performance of duty and not exercise of discretion. 22. We are required to discern whether in Section 68A power is coupled with duty. For doing so, we have to examine the language employed by the Legislature for conferring power upon the Vice-Chancellor and the context in which such a power is to be exercised. It is trite that the word "may" is prima facie to be construed as permissive and not imperative. However, this is not an exiom. In exceptional cases, the said word may be construed as imposing not only a duty to act but to act in one particular manner in Julius v. Bishop of Oxford, (1880) 5 AC 214, Erl Cairns L.C. observes : "Where a power is deposited with a public officer with the purpose of being used for the benefit of persons who are specifically pointed out, and with regard to whom a definition is supplied by the Legislature of the conditions upon which they are entitled to call for its exercise that power ought to be exercised, and the Court will require it to be exercised." 23. The Vice-Chancellor has been conferred the power. The beneficiary of the power is a teacher. The occasion for the exercise of the power is the order of the Vice- Chancellor disapproving the decision of the management and the failure of the management to pay. The Vice-Chancellor has been conferred the power. The beneficiary of the power is a teacher. The occasion for the exercise of the power is the order of the Vice- Chancellor disapproving the decision of the management and the failure of the management to pay. Therefore, "may" in sub-section (1) of Section 68A means "must". More so, the teacher cannot recover arrears of pay etc. by instituting a suit in a court of law. It follows that the Vice-Chancellor had no choice but to order the payment of arrears of arrears of salary etc. to Miss Galav with effect from 4th March, 1986. Furthermore, the question of the Vice-Chancellor exercising his discretion at the instance of the Executive Council and acting mechanically did not arise. 24. Section 13(2) of the Act lays down that the Vice-Chancellor shall be an ex-officio member and Chairman of the Executive Council In that background, let us re-examine the resolution of the Executive Council. Presumably, the Vice-Chancellor was present in the meeting of the Council held on 28th February 1987. He must have also expressed the view that the management had adopted a defiant attitude insofar as it refused to comply with the two orders passed by him. No objection to the resolution of the Executive Council could be taken if the word "may" had found place after the word "Act" and before the word "be". Having given a thoughtful consideration, we feel that the Executive Council intended to convey that the Vice-Chancellor may take an action under Section 68A. No doubt, the resolution is rather clumsily drafted. However, the intention appears to be clear. Nothing will turn on the words "in view of the decision taken by the Executive Council of the University" as used in the impugned order. In our view the Vice- Chancellor, in the impugned order, has not conveyed the idea that he is taking action under Section 68A because the Executive Council had taken a decision to that effect. On the contrary, he is conscious of the decision taken by the Executive Council that the proceedings initiated by it Executive Council) for dis-affiliating the College from the University should be dropped and instead action under Section 68A of the Act may be taken by the Vice-Chancellor. On the contrary, he is conscious of the decision taken by the Executive Council that the proceedings initiated by it Executive Council) for dis-affiliating the College from the University should be dropped and instead action under Section 68A of the Act may be taken by the Vice-Chancellor. We are, therefore, of the opinion that on a combined reading of the impugned order and the resolution of the Executive Council it cannot be said that the Executive Council had directed the Vice-Chancellor to act in a particular fashion and he acted in that fashion. On the whole, we take the view that the Vice- Chancellor acted on his own after due application of mind while passing the impugned order. 25. We are still left with the question as to whether the Vice-Chancellor had any jurisdiction to direct the management to pay to Miss Galav the arrears of salary etc. for the period prior to 4th March, 1980. We come back to subsection (2) of Section 68A. It may be profitable to extract the same : "In any such case as is referred to in sub-section (1), the Vice-Chancellor may also order re-instatement of the teacher concerned subject to such terms and the conditions as he thinks fit". In sub-section (1) of Section 68A a number of situations namely, dismissal, removal, reduction in rank or punishment in any other manner or termination of services, are mentioned. We are concerned, as already stated, with termination of service. "Any such case", so far we are concerned, is referable to the non-approval of the decision of the management to terminate the services of Miss Galav. In additiona to the power of not approving the decision of the management and directing the management to pay the arrears of salary etc. which may have became payable to a teacher as a consequence of the Vice-Chancellor's order, in sub-section (2), the Vice-Chancellor is clothed with an additional power to order re-instatement of a teacher. In this case an order of re-instatement is implicit in the words used by the Vice-Chancellor as quoted above, when he directs the management to continue to pay to Miss Galav the salary and allowances even after 30th April, 1987. Back again to sub-section (2) we find that the Vice-Chancellor could order the re-instatement subject to such terms and the conditions as he thought fit. Back again to sub-section (2) we find that the Vice-Chancellor could order the re-instatement subject to such terms and the conditions as he thought fit. The Vice-Chancellor had before him Section 68A as a whole and he purported to exercise the power conferred upon him under sub-section (2) when he directed the management to pay to Miss Galav the arrears of salary and other allowances for the period up to 30th April, 1987. There can be, therefore, no escape from the conclusion that the entire order of the Vice-Chancellor falls within the ambit of Section 68A. 26. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor the relevant averments are these. The College is financed by the Ram Chandra Lal Ji Trust. The College charges full fees from its students. The management retains the entire fees and no part of fees is deposited with the State Government. At the time of inspection of the college for the purpose of it being recommended to the Chancellor for affiliation to the University, the management had given an undertaking that all the members of the teaching staff, including the Principal, and the non-teaching staff would be appointed and paid their salaries in the revised pay scales or in the pay scales prescribed by the State Government or the University from time to time. An undertaking was also given by the management that the shortfall, if any, in the income of the college would be made good by the Sponsors of the College, namely, Kr. Ram Chandra Ji Lalji Trust, Bombay. A guarantee in writing was given by the Secretary of the College (Sri B.P. Singh) a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 'l' to the counter-affidavit of Sri R. S. Pandey, the Deputy Registrar of Agra University. The Guarantee so given reads : "It is hereby guaranteed that the members of the teaching staff including the Principal and those of the non-teaching staff will be appointed and paid in the revised pay scales or as may be prescribed and recommended or directed by the State Government of the Agra University from time to time. Further if there is any recurring deficit, it will be made good by the Sponsors viz. Kr. Ram Chandraji Lalji Trust, Bombay. 27. Further if there is any recurring deficit, it will be made good by the Sponsors viz. Kr. Ram Chandraji Lalji Trust, Bombay. 27. On 27th January, 1984, Miss Galav and other teachers moved an application before the Secretary praying therein to pay to them their salary in full UGC grade and also the arrear of salary which was due to them. On 10th September, 1985 several teachers, including Miss Galav requested the Secretary to direct the payment of full salary to them after taking into account the past increments in accordance with UGC Grade. On 7th October, 1985 seven teachers including Miss Galav. made an application to the Principal of the college pointing out to her that up to 30th September, 1985 a sum of Rs. 39,665.15 was payable to Miss Galav as arrears of salary. Likewise, other teachers demanded their arrears up to the said date. The arrears of those teachers ranged from rupees nineteen thousands and odd to rupees forty thousands and odd. On 22nd January, 1986, Miss Galav filed a detailed representation before the Vice-Chancellor of the University and forwarded copies of the same to the Secretary of the College as well as the Director of Education. Miss Galav pointed out in the said representation that out of the total sum of Rs. 2000/- per month payable to her only a sum of Rs. 700/- per month was being paid to her as part payment and that amount too was not being paid for the last two months. It was reiterated that till 30th September, 1985 a sum of Rs. 39,000/- and odd was in arrears and payable to her by the management. The Vice-Chancellor was requested to intervene so that the arrears were paid off. On 2nd March, 1986 Miss Galav wrote to the Vice-Chancellor that arrears of salary were not being said to her and the apprehended immediate termination of her services. Copy of this communication was sent to the Secretary and to the Director of Education. On 8th March, 1986 Miss Galav again wrote to the Secretary claiming therein the payment of arrear of salary etc. On 16th June. 1986 Miss Galav addressed a memorandum to the Vice-Chancellor in which she again complained regarding non payment of arrears of salary etc. Copy of this communication was sent to the Secretary and to the Director of Education. On 8th March, 1986 Miss Galav again wrote to the Secretary claiming therein the payment of arrear of salary etc. On 16th June. 1986 Miss Galav addressed a memorandum to the Vice-Chancellor in which she again complained regarding non payment of arrears of salary etc. On 24th June, 1986 Miss Galav sent another communication to the Vice-Chancellor in which she made a reference to the earlier communication dated 16th June, 1986. On 30th June. 1986 Miss Galav sent another communication to the Vice-Chancellor in which she again complained about non-payment of arrears of her salary etc. This was followed by another communication dated 28th July, 1986. In this, she again complained about non-payment of arrears of salary. On 6th November. 1986 Miss Galav sent another communication to the Vice-Chancellor complaining therein about non-payment of the salary and praying that the Vice-Chancellor should exercise his powers under Section 13(1) and 13(6) of the Act. On 11th February, 1987 Miss Galav sent another communication to the Vice- Chancellor in which she complained that a positive and decisive action in her long pending matter had become overdue and she prayed that justice should be done to her without any further loss of time. On 10th August, 1987, Miss Galav sent another communication to the Vice-Chancellor pointing out therein that from 24th May 1982 to 31st July, 1987 a sum of Rs. 84,546.17 remained to be paid to her as arrears of salary etc. 28. In paragraph 21 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the University (not controverted in Rejoinder-affidavit), it is averred that under Statute 12.32 of the First Statutes of the Agra University it is statutory obligation of the management to pay the salary etc. to the teachers of the college. In paragraph 26, not controverted, it is emphasised that out of total amount of Rs. 72,953.54 a sum of Rs. 50,600.40 is due to Miss Galav for the period prior to 3rd March, 1986. This amount accrued on account of the fact that the management had been paying less than the full salary to her. The arrears on account of non-payment of full salary due to Miss Galav worked out to be Rs. 50,600.40 till 28th February, 1986. 50,600.40 is due to Miss Galav for the period prior to 3rd March, 1986. This amount accrued on account of the fact that the management had been paying less than the full salary to her. The arrears on account of non-payment of full salary due to Miss Galav worked out to be Rs. 50,600.40 till 28th February, 1986. A copy of the claim made by Miss Galav and submitted to the Vice-Chancellor had been supplied to the petitioner along with the order of the Vice Chancellor passed under Section 68A, but the college authorities did not point out any discrepancy in the claim of Miss Galav. A true copy of the claim made by Miss Galav before the Vice-Chancellor has been filed as Annexure 'B' to the counter-affidavit. We have perused Annexure 'B' to the said affidavit. We find that Miss Galav gave a detailed account beginning from the month of May, 1982 and ending in the month of February, 1987. She has given break-up of the arrears month by month. She has worked out the total arrears up to 28th February, 1987 plus the salary for the month of March and April 1987. She has given due credit to the payments received by her from time to time. She has worked out the grand total at Rs. 72,953.54. Even in this Court, the petitioner has not questioned the accuracy of the statement of account as contained in Annexure 'B' aforesaid. 29. Section 13(1)(a) of the Act lays down that the Vice-Chancellor shall be principal executive and academic officer of the University and shall exercise general supervision and control over the affairs of the University, including the constituent colleges and the Institutes maintained by the University and its affiliated and associated colleges. Sub-section (4) of Section.13 provides that it shall be the duty of the Vice-Chancellor to ensure the faithful observance of the Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances and he shall, without prejudice to the powers of the Chancellor under Sections 10 and 68, possess all such powers as may be necessary in that behalf. Assuming the Vice-Chancellor in the purported exercise of powers under Section 68-A(2) of the Act could not direct the management to pay arrears of salary etc. Assuming the Vice-Chancellor in the purported exercise of powers under Section 68-A(2) of the Act could not direct the management to pay arrears of salary etc. to Miss Galav for a period anterior to 4th March, .1986, we are satisfied from the material on record that the Vice-Chancellor acted very fairly and justly in giving relief to Miss Galav. who has successfully established in this Court the fact that for one reason or the other the management did not pay to her the usual salary month by month right from the beginning of her employment which commenced in the year 1982. The management has been making only part payments. In Annexure 12 to this petition filed on behalf of the management, it is stated that Miss Galav and other teachers consented to receive only part payments till the year 1990. However, the management has accepted that it had made solemn promise to the teachers, including Miss Galav, that their entire arrears of salary etc. would be paid. Now we are in the middle of the year 1990. Therefore, the management should have now, no objection to paying off the salary etc. to Miss Galav, as directed by the Vice-Chancellor. Since the Vice-Chancellor by directing the management to pay to Miss Galav the arrears of salary etc. for the period prior to 4th March 1986 has done substantial justice between the parties, we think that it is a fit case where we should decline to interfere with that part of the order of the Vice-Chancellor which directs the management to make the necessary payment to Miss Galav for the period prior to 4th March, 1986. 30. In the second supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the management it has been averred that from January, 1987 the college has been brought on the grant-in-aid list of the Government and the payment of salary of the teachers is now the liability of the Government. Reliance is placed by the petitioner upon the provisions contained in Chapter XI-A of the Act. It is significant to note that the petitioner has not cared to implead either the State Government or the Deputy Director of Education as one of the respondents to the writ petition. The petitioner should have done so if it desired to seek the protection of Chapter XI-A of the Act. It is significant to note that the petitioner has not cared to implead either the State Government or the Deputy Director of Education as one of the respondents to the writ petition. The petitioner should have done so if it desired to seek the protection of Chapter XI-A of the Act. In the absence of either the State Government or the Deputy Director of Education, we are not in a position to issue any direction to the effect that the salary etc. shall be paid to Miss Galav in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XI-A of the Act from 1st January, 1987 onwards. However, we make it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to claim reimbursement from the appropriate authority, in accordance with law. 31. This Court granted a limited interim order to the petitioner and that was to the effect that the petitioner shall not pay a sum of Rs. 72,953.54 p. to Miss Galav. Clearly this Court did not stay the operation of that part of the order of the Vice-Chancellor by which the management was directed to treat Miss Galav as in service all along on the footing that her services had not been terminated at any stage. We, therefore, presume that the management must be taking the work of a 'Lecturer in History from Miss Galav and must be paying full salary to her month by month. 32. This petition fails and is dismissed with costs.