VIJENDER JAIN ( 1 ) THE petitioner before us challenges the advertisement issued by respondents 3,4 and 5 /which are affliated colleges of respondent no. 2/university of Delhi. According to the petitioner the petitioner did his M. A. in Commerce in the 1st Division and later passed the UGC National Level Test for (Junior Research Fellowship and Eligibility for Lectureship Master Level) (hereinafter referred to as the Eligibility. Test) held by the UGC in January 1991. ( 2 ) THE UGC-respondent no. 1 had issued a notification No. F. 1- 11/87 (CPP) dated 19. 9. 91 under Clause (e) of sub-section (i) of Sec. 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as UGC Act) by which it has notified through a Gazette Notification Regulation called "university Grants Commission (Qualifications Required of a Person to be appointed to the Teaching Staff of a University and Institutions Affiliated to it) (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations ). The relevant portion of the Regulations is as under:- - (3)A lecturer (a) ARTS, SCIENCES, SOCIAL SCIENCES, COMMERCE, EDUCATION, PHYSICAL EDUCATION, FOREIGN LANGUAGES AND LAW. Good academic record with atleast 55% marks or an equivalent Grade at Master s degree level in the relevant subject from an indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign University. Candidates besides fulfilling the above qualifications should have cleared the eligibility test for Lecturers conducted by UGC , CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC. " ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner respondent no. 2 in violation of the aforesaid Regulation pursuant to Executive Council Resolution No. 351 dated 19. 9. 84 had given certain relaxation, from appearing in the eligibility test vide its. Circular NO. F. 4-12/86 (NET) dated 30. 1. 90 and DO No. F. 4-12/86 (NET) dated 25. 1. 91. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner after, issuance of the Regulations by respondent no. 1 these circulars of respondent no. 2 have become redundant. The petitioner has stated that the advertisement has appeared in the newspapers on behalf of respondent no. 3, Acharya Narendra Dev College, Sri Aurobindo College respondent no. 4 and Bhim Rao Ambedkar College respondent no. 5 and applications are invited for the permanent post of lecturers and the qualifications laid down are as follows:- "qualifications: (a) A Doctorate s degree or Research work. 3, Acharya Narendra Dev College, Sri Aurobindo College respondent no. 4 and Bhim Rao Ambedkar College respondent no. 5 and applications are invited for the permanent post of lecturers and the qualifications laid down are as follows:- "qualifications: (a) A Doctorate s degree or Research work. of anequally high standard; and (b) Good academic record with atleast second class (C in the seven-point scale) Master s degree in a relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign University. Having regard to the need fop developing inter-disciplinary programme, the degree in (a) and (b) above may be in relevant subjects. Provided that if the Selection Committee is of the view that the Research work of a candidate as evident either from his thesis or from his published work is of very high standard, it may relax the requirement of "atleast second class". (C in the seven-point scale) in Master s degree exam. In terms of level achieved at the said exam as prescribed in (b) above. Provided further that if a candidate possessing a Doctor s degree or equivalent Research work is not available or is not considered suitable, a person possessing a good academic record, (weightage being given to M. Phil, or equivalent degree or Research work of Quality) may be appointed on the condition that he will have to obtain a Doctor s M. Phil degree or give evidence of research of high standard wsithin eight years of his appointment, failing which he will not be able to earn future increments until he fulfils these requirements. Explanations; 1. For determining -"good academic record" the following criteria shall be adopted: (i) A candidate holding a Ph. D/m. Phil. degree should possess atleast a second class Master degree; or (ii) - A candidate without a Ph. D /m. Phil, degree should; possess a high second class Master s degree and second class in the Bachelor s degree; or (iii) A candidate not possessing Ph. D/m. Phil. degree but possession second class Master s degree should have obtained first class in the Bachelor s degree. 2. Persons having secured marks more than the mid-point or prescribed minimum marks for passing an examination in the second division and the prescribed minimum marks for passing an examination in the first division of a University shall be deemed to have passed the examination in the high second class. Note: 1. 2. Persons having secured marks more than the mid-point or prescribed minimum marks for passing an examination in the second division and the prescribed minimum marks for passing an examination in the first division of a University shall be deemed to have passed the examination in the high second class. Note: 1. The applications should reach the undersigned within 15 days from the date of publication. 2. Persons already in employment should apply through proper channel. 3. No TA/da is admissible. A. One out of five posts in Commerce is meant for candidates belonging to SC/st. However, if not suitable SC/st candidate is available the posts would be filled-up by appointing any suitable candidate. 5. Lecturers should be competent to teach in relevant subjects in English and Hindi both. Sd/. (D. S. Mann) Principal. " ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner the applications were invited by respondents 3,4 and 5 for the post amongst others of lecturers in Commerce numbering 4,5 and 1 respectively and in none of these advertisements qualification of eligibility test as a prerequisite has laid down in the regulations have been mentioned, thereby the University of Delhi, have violated the Regulation, which is a mandatory requirement for candidates seeking a Job of lecturers in Delhi University. The story did not end here. The petitioner being eligible qua qualification as laid down in the advertisement as also-having passed Eligibility Test under the Regulation, applied for; the post of lecturer in Commerce to all the three- colleges, i. e respondents 3,4 and 5. He received no call for interview: However, on 26. 9. 92 the petitioner came to know that other applicants have already been called for interview by respondent no. 3 on 28. 9. 92-and on that day he discovered many candidates who were only M. A. and had, not passed the eligibility test the were considered for the said-appointment of lecturer in Commerce. The case of the petitioner is that he was not even:considered for appointment to the said post. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed the present petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the University of Delhi to strictly comply with the Regulation issued by University Grants Commission in selecting the teachers for appointment to the post available in or under respondents 2,3,4 and 5. ( 6 ) PURSUANT to our issuance of the notice respondents filed its reply. ( 6 ) PURSUANT to our issuance of the notice respondents filed its reply. On 13th May 1993, we issued Rule D. B. and made an interim order to the following effect:- "as regards interim orders to be passed in the present case, we are of the opinion that till we decide the matter D. U. should follow the Regulations promulgated by the UGC. It is the admitted case that Jawaharlal Nehru University, which is also creation of a statute, and Pune University are following these Regulations. Prima facie we do not see any reason why D. U. which is a University recognised under the University Grants Commission Act should not folow these statutory Regulations. We will, therefore, direct that till decision of the writ petition the D. U. and its affiliated colleges shall not appoint any person to the post of lecturer in violation of the Regulations prescribing condition of qualifications and the eligibility test. This will, however, not apply to the appointments already made. If the petitioner otherwise fulfils the qualifications and has passed eligibility test as prescribed by the U. G. C. he shall be called by the D. U. and any of its affiliated colleges for the post for which he is qualified. This direction will apply to all such candidates similarly situated. A copy of this order will be given to the counsel for the D. U. for circulation to all its affiliated colleges. The writ petition be set down for hearing on 16 August 1993 as No. 1 subject to pard heard. Meanwhile, parties shall complete their pleadings. Counter- affidavits shall be filed within six weeks and rejoinders thereto before the date fixed. Parties shall remain bound by the time schedule so fixed. Sd/-D. P. Wadhwa,j. May 13, 1993. Sd/. Vijender Jain,j. " ( 7 ) FEELING aggrieved by our interim order University of Delhi filed a Special Leave Petition being No. 10849/93 in the Supreme Court on which the Supreme Court passed the following order on 29th July, 1993. Parties shall remain bound by the time schedule so fixed. Sd/-D. P. Wadhwa,j. May 13, 1993. Sd/. Vijender Jain,j. " ( 7 ) FEELING aggrieved by our interim order University of Delhi filed a Special Leave Petition being No. 10849/93 in the Supreme Court on which the Supreme Court passed the following order on 29th July, 1993. "we have heard the learned counsel for the University on the merits of the matter and in particular with regard to the direction given by the High Court in the impugned order to the following effect:- We will, therefore, direct that till decision of the writ petition the D. U. and its affiliated colleges shall not appoint any person to the post of Lecturer in violation of the Regulations prescribing condition of qualifications and the eligibility test. Mr. Rao contends that because of the interim order the University is not able to make appointments and since the colleges have reopened the students are suffering for want of an adequate teaching staff. The High Court has, however, in the concluding paragraph of the impugned order appreciated the urgency of the matter and has set down the writ petition for hearing on 16th August, 1993 as item No. 1, subject to part-heard. We, therefore, do not see any reason to entertain this petition against the aforesaid interim direction which emphasises adherence to the UGC regulations prescribing condition of qualifications and eligibility test. The regulations, we are told, have not been challenged by anyone and remain in force. Since the High Court has itself seen the urgency of the matter, we are sure that it will dispose of the matter, as early as possible when it is called on for hearing on 16th August, 1993. The University will have an occasion to project all its difficulties before the High Court at the said hearing. With these observations, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of. " ( 8 ) AS the University of Delhi insisted that matter is important as many vacancies are to be filled, and the University is not intending to abide by the Regulation of the UGC for selection of lecturers, we heard the matter at length. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the University of Delhi, Shri V. P. Chaudhry contended that the regulation issued by the University Grants Commission at the first instance was beyond the competence of UGC. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the University of Delhi, Shri V. P. Chaudhry contended that the regulation issued by the University Grants Commission at the first instance was beyond the competence of UGC. The learned counsel contended that the said Regulation in the alternative may be directory in nature and not mandatory. Secondly, he said that the Delhi University was itself an autonomous body and any condition imposing of eligibility test over and above the qualifications prescribed by the University of Delhi would be violative of the democratic character of Delhi University, apart from being inconsistent. Thirdly, he argued that the prescribing of eligibility test was not a qualification and, therefore, the University Grants Commission cannot add or superimpose the eligibility test. Shri Chaudhry further argued that the word qualification as appearing in Sec. 26 (l) (e) of the UGC Act has relation to academic attainment conferred or recognised by the University and UGC cannot prescribe an eligibility test which is not qualification under the UGC Act. ( 10 ) SHRI Chaudhry further contended that eligibility test is a part of selection process which amounts to participation by the UGC in the process of selection of lecturers which UGC is not entitled to. According to the learned counsel for the University, the provision of Sec. 26 (l) (e) of the University Grants Commission Act are directory in nature the regulation/notification issued on the basis of such directory provisions will also be directory. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the University has further argued that if the statute of the University of Delhi are subordinate legislation then the regulation/notification issued by the University Grants Commission is also a subordinate legislation. According to him, there, is no conflict in the UGC Act or the Delhi University Act but the conflict is vis-a-vis the regulations and the statute of the Delhi University, according to him, the statute of the Delhi University shall prevail. It would be relevant to quote some of the relevant provisions of the University Grants Commissions Act, 1956 which are material f6r understanding the controversy in question. "sec. It would be relevant to quote some of the relevant provisions of the University Grants Commissions Act, 1956 which are material f6r understanding the controversy in question. "sec. 12 It shall be in the general duty of the Commission to take, in consultation with the Universities or other bodies concerned, all such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and co-ordination of University education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities, and for the purpose of performing its functions under this Act, the Commission may- (j) perform such other functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by the Commission for advancing the cause of higher education in India or as may be incidental or conducive to the discharge of the above functions. l2a (1) In this section- (d) "qualification" means a degree or any other qualifiction awarded by a university. Sec. 14 If any University (grants affiliation in respect of any course of study to any college referred to in sub-section (5) of section 12a in contravention of the provisions of that sub-section or) fails within a reasonable time to comply with any recommendation made by the Commission under section 12 or section 13, (or contravenes the provision of any rule made under clause (0 or clause (g) of sub-section (2) of section 25, or of any regulation made under clause (e) or clause (f) or clause (g) of section 26,) the Commission, after taking into consideration the cause, if any, shown by the University (for such failure or contravention,) may withhold from the University the grants proposed to be made out of the Fund of the Commissiosn. Sec. 26 The Commission (may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations consistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder- (e) defining the qualifications that should ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University, having regard to the branch of education in which he is expected to give instruction; " ( 12 ) AT the outset Shri Chaudhry has stated that the Delhi University Act has been amended four times since its incorporation in the year 1922 whereas Section 14 of the University Grants Commission Act was amended in 1972. According to the learned counsel for the University, Delhi University Act is a special Act which provides the mode of selection of teachers and the University Grants Commission Act also being a Central Act was a General Act and the legisltive intention of amending the University Act 1981 subsequent to the amendment of Sec. 14 of the University Grants Commission Act in 1972 would show that the legislature intended to keep the appointment of teachers entirely in the hands of the University and the University Grants Commission could not and should not lay down any eligibility test as one of the conditions in selection of the teachers. To butteress his argument the counsel for the respondent has taken us the relevant provisions of Delhi University Act, 1922 which are as under:- "2 (G) Teachers includes Professors, Readers, lecturers and other persons imparting instruction in the University or in any College or Hall. 2 (h) Teachers of the University means persons appointed or recognised by the University for the purpose of imparting instruction, in the University or in any College. Sec. 4 The University shall have the following powers,namely: (6) to institute Professorships, Readerships, Lectureships and any other teaching posts required by the University. (7) to appoint or recognise persons as Professors, Readers, Lecturers or otherwise as teachers of the University. Sec. 21 The Executive Council shall be the executive body of the University, and its Constitution and the terms of office of its members, otherwise than ex-officio members, shall be prescribed by the Statutes. Sec. 23 The Academic Council shall be the academic body of the University and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances, have the control and general regulation, and be responsible for the maintenance of standards of instruction, education and examination within the University, and shall exercise such other, powers and perform such other duties as may be conferred or imposed upon it by the Statutes. It shall have the right to advise the Executive Council on all academic matters. The constitution of the Academic Council and the term of office of its members, other than ex-officio members, shall be prescribed by the Statutes. It shall have the right to advise the Executive Council on all academic matters. The constitution of the Academic Council and the term of office of its members, other than ex-officio members, shall be prescribed by the Statutes. " ( 13 ) ACCORDING to the Section 28 of the Delhi University Act subject to the provision of this Act the statutes may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely: 28 (hh) the extent of the autonomy which a College, declared as an autonomous College under Clause 9 (a) of Section 4, may have and the matters in relation to which such autonomy may be exercised. 29 (2) (ix) the conditions on the fulfilment of which the teachers of Colleges and Institutions may be recognised as teachers of the University. Statute 6 (1) The Executive Council shall, subject to the control of the Court, have the management and administration of the revenue and property of the University and the conduct of all administrative affairs of the University not otherwise provided for. (2) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances, the Executive Council shall in addition to all other powers vested in it, have the following powers, namely: (i) to appoint, from time to time, the Registrar, Librarian, Principals of Colleges and Institutions established by the University and such Professors, Readers, Lecturers and other members of the teaching staff as may be necessary on the recommendations of Selection Committees constituted for the purpose: Provided that no action shall be taken by the Executive Council, except in cases covered by the second proviso, in respect of the number, qualifications and the emoluments of teachers otherwise than after consideration of the recommendations of the Academic Council. Statute 17 (1) Teachers of the University shall be of two classes, namely: (i) Appointed teachers of the Univesity; and (ii) Recognised teachers of the University. Ordinance XXIV. Qualifications of University Teachers (Appointed and Recognised) and Principals other than those for whom special qualifications may be prescribed by the Executive Council on the recommendations of the Academic Council. Qualifications for the posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers under the Faculties -of Arts, Science, Social Sciences, Education, Mathematical Sciences, Law, Management Studies, Music and Fine Arts and Technology, except those for Lecturers in Book Publishing, Lecturers in Tourism, Lecturers in Home Science, Lecturers in Nursing, Professors, Readers and Lecturers in Pharmacy. Qualifications for the posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers under the Faculties -of Arts, Science, Social Sciences, Education, Mathematical Sciences, Law, Management Studies, Music and Fine Arts and Technology, except those for Lecturers in Book Publishing, Lecturers in Tourism, Lecturers in Home Science, Lecturers in Nursing, Professors, Readers and Lecturers in Pharmacy. Faculties of Arts, Science, Social Sciences, Education, Mathematical Sciences, Law and Management Studies. Readers: (Other than those in Library Science, Social Work and Chinese and Japanese Languages) Good academic record with atleast second class Master s degree in a relevant subject with a doctoral degree or equivalent published work. Evidence of being actively engaged in (i) research, or (ii) innovation in teaching methods or (iii) production of teaching materials. Five years experience of teaching in under- grduate/post-graduate classes and/or post-doctoral research work with evidence of published work. Note:- Second Class would mean atleast 50% marks in the subject or equivalent grade. Lecturers: (Other than those in Foreign Languages, Education, Management Studies and Law): (a) A Doctorate s degree or research work of an equally high standard; and (b) Good academic record with at least second class (C in the seven point scale) Master s degree in a relevant subject from an Indian. University or an equivalent degree from a foreign University. Having regard to the need for developing interdisciplinary Programmes, the degree idn (a) and (b) above may be in relevant subjects. Provided that if the Selection Committee is of the view that the research work of a candidate as evident either from his thesis or from his published work is of very high standard, it may relax the requirement of "at least second Class in Master s degree examination in. terms of level achieved at the said examination as prescibed in (b) above. Provided further that if a candidate possessing a Doctor s degree or equivlent research work is not available or is not considered suitable, a person possessing a good academic record, (weightage being given to M. Phil. or equivalent degree or research work of quality) may be appointed on the condition that he will have to obtain Doctor s/m. Phil, degree or give evidence of research of high standard within ten years of his appointment, failing which he will not be able to earn future increments until he fulfils these requirements. EXPLANATION : 1. or equivalent degree or research work of quality) may be appointed on the condition that he will have to obtain Doctor s/m. Phil, degree or give evidence of research of high standard within ten years of his appointment, failing which he will not be able to earn future increments until he fulfils these requirements. EXPLANATION : 1. For determining good academic record the following criteria shall be adopted; (i) A candidate holding a Phd/m. Phil. degree should possess at least a second class Master s degree; or (ii) A candidate without a Ph. D/m. Phil. degree should possess a high second class Master s degree and second class in the Bachelor s degree; or (iii) A candidate not possessing Ph. D. /m. Phil. degree but possessing second class Master s degree should have obtained first class in the Bachelor s degree. 2. Persons having secured at least 55% or more marks shall be deemed to have passed the examination in the high second class. ( 14 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid provisions as contained in the Delhi University Act, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the mechanism and mode of selection of teachers has been exclusively provided under the Act which falls in the domain of University of Delhi and any eligibility test as laid down by the regulations issued by the University Grants Commission encroaches upon the autonomy of the University. Moreover, he has argued that prescribing a test is not a qualification and, therefore, UGC has overstepped its power under the UGC Act. An interesting argument was also advanced by the counsel for the University that the petitioner has no right to approach this Court and at best if there is any violation by the Delhi University of any provision of the University Grants Commission Act the UGC was fully competent to take action under Sec. 14 of the UGC Act. According to him by prescribing an eligibility test the UGC is part; pating in the process of selection of lecturers to be appointed by the respondent University. Here, we would like to observe that the first affidavit was filed by the University on 2. 3. 1993. The same was filed by Prof. S. K. Wasan, Registrar of the Delhi University. According to him by prescribing an eligibility test the UGC is part; pating in the process of selection of lecturers to be appointed by the respondent University. Here, we would like to observe that the first affidavit was filed by the University on 2. 3. 1993. The same was filed by Prof. S. K. Wasan, Registrar of the Delhi University. The relevant portion thereof reads as under | :- that without prejudice to what has been stated in the preceding paragraph, it is further submitted that the notification in question issued by the U. G. C. has been sent to the University for adoption. The matter is yet to be considered at the appropriate level by the University. The Vice-Chancellor of the University , in items of the Executive Council Resolution No. 85 dated 26. 10. 1988, had appointed a Committee under the Chairmanship of Prov-Vice-Chancellor to finalise its recommendations regarding streamlining the selection criteria for appointment of teachers/candidates to be called for interview for teaching posts in the University. It has been decided to place before this Committee at its next meeting the notification issued by the U. G. C. The recommendations of the Committee would then be placed before the Academic Council and finally before the Executive Council. " ( 15 ) THE notification issued by the University Grants Commission prescribing as one of the qualifications is dated 19. 9. 91 which reads as under: "no person shall be appointed to a teaching post in University or in any of institutions including constituent or affiliated colleges recognised under clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 or in an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the said Act in a subject if he does not fulfil the requirements as to the qualifications for the appropriate subject as provided in the Schedule 1. Provided that any relaxation in the prescribed qualifications can only be made by a University in regard to the posts under it or any of the institutions including constituent or affiliated colleges recognised under clause (f) of Section 2 of the aforesaid Act or by any institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the said Act with the prior approval of the University Grants Commission. Provided further that these regulations shall not be applicable to such cases where selections through duly constituted selection committees for making appointments to the teaching posts have been made prior to the enforcement of these regulations. " ( 16 ) SINCE 1991 the University has not taken any step to deliberate upon the notification issued by the University Grants Commission in the meeting of the Executive Council or the Academic Council. As a matter of fact we wonder as to how the affidavit purported to have been filed by Prof. Wasan on behalf of respondent no-2/university of Delhi. We cannot appreciate that when the University of Delhi is a party and the same is made a party through Vice Chancellor it ought to have been the Vice Chancellor who should have filed the affidavit in reply on behalf of the University of Delhi. Neither the Registrar nor the Vice Chancellor are University of Delhi. As a matter of. fact the stand, of the University of Delhi strictly speaking has not been brought to the notice of this Court. The University is defined in Sec. 3 of the Act which is as under:- "3 (1) The first Chancellor and the first Vice-Chancellor of the University and the first members of the Court, the Executive Council and the Academic Council and all persons who may hereafter become such officers or members so long as they continue to hold such office or membership, are hereby constituted a body corporate by the name of the University of Delhi . (2) The University shall have perpetual succession 258 and a Common Seal, and shall sue and be sued by the said name. " ( 17 ) THIS discrepancy was brought to the knowledge of the University during the course of hearing but no remedial steps were taken by the University in this regard. We could have disposed of this writ petition on this ground alone that neither the Vice Chancellor nor the Registrar of University could have ignored a Regulation framed under statutory power by UGC. It is strange that no decision of the University on the Regulation of the UGC was communicated to this Court. We could have disposed of this writ petition on this ground alone that neither the Vice Chancellor nor the Registrar of University could have ignored a Regulation framed under statutory power by UGC. It is strange that no decision of the University on the Regulation of the UGC was communicated to this Court. But as questions of tar reaching importance and magnitude involving the powers and functions of the University Grants Commission vis-a-vis the University are involved, we would like to deal with all the arguments raised by the counsel for the University. Another affidavit of Prof. Wasan was filed in August 1993. In para 5 of the said affidavit the stand of the respondent is as follows:- "that the deponent is advised to state that making of a Regulation by the U. G. C. prescribding inter alia, that the candidates for the post of lecturers should have cleared eligibility test of lecturers conducted by the U. G. C. or a similar test accredited by the u. G. C. is beyond the powers of the U. G. C. , is ultra-vires the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, is illegal and void and the University is not obliged to follow the said Regulation, inter alia, for the following reasons: (i) Entry 66 in List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution vests in the Union of India the power of co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions . In exercise of the said power, the parliament enacted the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. In the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, it was provided that the principal objective of establishing the University Grants Commission was to enquire into the financial needs of the Universities and disperse grants to University for any general or specified purpose. It was also provided that the Commission will also have the power to recommend to any University the measures necessary for the reform and improvement of the University education and to advise the University concerned upon the action to be taken for the purpose of implementing such recommendations . It was also provided that the Commission will also have the power to recommend to any University the measures necessary for the reform and improvement of the University education and to advise the University concerned upon the action to be taken for the purpose of implementing such recommendations . It is evident from the statement of Objects and Reasons and various provisions of the Act that the role of the University Grants Commission, in so far as the maintenance of standards of education is concerned, is advisory in nature and its recommedations become operative only after they are adopted by the University concerned for implementation. " ( 18 ) THE contents and tenor of this affidavit is different than the one filed earlier by the University. ( 19 ) THE counsel for the University has also argued that the expression qualification means both in the ordinary parlance and as defined in the Act itself only a degree/diploma etc. which was conferred by the University. Passing of a test being held by the University Grants Commission which has no power to confer any degree or diploma on any person is not a qualification within the competence of and the purpose of the University Grants Commission Act. Therefore, on this basis the prescribing of a test by the UGC is not a qualification even if it is presumed that UGC is entitled to lay down qualifications for selection of lecturers in University of Delhi. ( 20 ) THE counsel for the University has also assailed the regulations of the University Grants Commission on the ground that it does not contemplate grant of any exemption from its operation candidates who have done their Ph. D. and M. Phil. etc. According to him, grant of such ad-hoc exemption by some circular issued by the University Grants Commission subsequently from time to time is without the sanction of law wholly irrational and arbitrary. Shri Chaudhry has also laid stress that in all subsequent Central Acts like University of Hyderabad Act etc. power of selection of teachers has been given to the University itself by the legislature and, therefore, according to him, any test prescribed by the UGC is unwarranted and illegal. Shri Chaudhry has also laid stress that in all subsequent Central Acts like University of Hyderabad Act etc. power of selection of teachers has been given to the University itself by the legislature and, therefore, according to him, any test prescribed by the UGC is unwarranted and illegal. ( 21 ) LEARNED counsel for the University Grants Commission Shri G. K. Banerjee has argued that the National Eligibility Test which is pre-requisite for selection of lecturers who become eligible for appointment has not so far been objected to by the other Universities. Moreover, Universities like Jawaharlal Nehru University, Pune University etc. are following the regulations framed by the UGC in this regard. ( 22 ) SHRI Chaudhry has also argued that there is a conflict has arisen as UGC has laid down the qualifying test which means that Delhi University cannot appoint any person if that person has not cleared the National Eligibility Test and this infringes upon the autonomy and the powers of appointment as granted by legislature to the Delhi University. He says that the University Act, Statutes and Ordinances are creatures of Central Act and Univesity is not subordinate to University Grants Commission. He says that University Grants Commission Act came into force on account of Entry No. 66 in the Union List in the VIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India. Similarly, the University Act came into being on account of the provision in Entry 63 of the Union List of VIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India. Therefore, according to him, at best the UGC circular or regulation may be directory if we have to give harmonious interpretation to the two Acts. In this connection Shri Chaudhry has referreed to the statement of Objects and Reasons under the UGC Act 1956 which are as follows:- "the Constitution of India vests Parliament with exclusive authority in regard to 'co-ordination and determination standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions'. It is obvious that neither co-ordination nor determination of standards is possible unless the Centra Government has some voice in the determination of standards of teaching and examination in Universities, both old and new. It is also necessary to ensure that the available resources are utilised to the best possible effect. The problem has become more acute recently on account of their tendency to multiply Universities. It is also necessary to ensure that the available resources are utilised to the best possible effect. The problem has become more acute recently on account of their tendency to multiply Universities. The need for a properly constituted Commission for determining and allocating to Universities funds made available by the-Central Government has also become more urgent on this account. 2. It is, therefore, proposed to establish a University Grants Commission as a corporate body which will inquire into the financial needs of Universities and allocate and disburse grants to Universities for any general or specified purpose. The Commission will also have the power to recommend to any university the measures necessary for the reform and improvement of University education and to advise the University concerned upon the action to be taken for the purpose of implementing such recommendation. The Commission will act as an expert body to advise the Central Government on problems connected with the co-ordination of facilities and maintenance of standards in Universities. The Commission, in consultation with the University concerned, will also have the power to cause an inspection or inquiry to be made of any -University established by law in India and to advise the University on any matter which has been the subject of an inquiry or inspection. The" Commission shall also advise, whenever such advise is sought on the establishment of new Universities. " ( 23 ) ANOTHER leg of argument of Shri Chaudhry was that the function of the Commission and the extent of giving advise and the residuary powers given under sub-section (j) of Sec. 12 of the Act will be within the parameter as has been spelt out in sub-sections (a) to (i) of Sec. 12. He says that qualification has been defined in sub-section (d) of Sec. 12 (a) (i) and for the purpose of University Grants Commission Act the definition of qualification will be taken to be as what has been defined in sub-section (d) of Sec. 12 (a) (1) of the UGC Act and, therefore, he says that the definition of the qualification as it appears in Sec. 26 (l) (e) of the UGC Act will not take in its fold or would not superimpose those degrees or qualifications which already exist because defining is not prescribing. Defining is merely stating. Defining is merely stating. He further contended that the word 'ordinarily' occurring in the same Section suggests that it is recommendatory in nature and not mandatory which means invariably and, therefore, from the words of the Section the import of this Section is directory and not mandatory. . ( 24 ) HE further contended that the further circular issued by the University Grants Commission granting exemption in certain cases to candidates who have done their Ph. D. or M. Phil. from taking the National Eligibility Test is also outside the power and jurisdiction. According to him if the UGC has no power to issue the impugned resolution, UGC by any stretch of imagination cannot have jurisdiction to issue any such circular exempting such class of candidates. Shri Chaudhry cited the case of Commissioner of Wealth tax, Andhra Pradesh Vs. Offlcer-in-charge (Court of Wards), Paigah AIR 1977 SC 113 and Lal Chand (dead) by L. Rs. and others Vs. Radha Kishan AIR 1977 SC 789 to support his arguments that the word 'definition' as appearing in Sec. 12a- has to be construed for the purposes of whole Act. We find that these authorities are of no help to the respondent. ( 25 ) THEN he relied upon Ashoka Marketing Ltd, and another Vs. Punjab National Bank and others AIR 1991 SC 855 to advance his arguments that Delhi University Act, 1922 is a Special Act, whereas the UGC Act is a General Act. He has laid emphasis to quote paragraph 51 of Ashoka Marketing case (supra) which is as under:- "the rationale of this rule is thus explained by this Court in the J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, (1961) 3 SCR 185: ( AIR 1961 SC 1170 ): The rule that general provisions should yield to specific provisions is not an arbitrary principle made by lawyers and Judges but springs from the common understanding of men and women that when the same person gives two directions one covering a large number of matters in general and another to only some of them his intention is that these latter directions should prevail as regards these while as regards all the rest the earlier directions should have effect. " ( 26 ) OUR attention has also been drawn to para 61 which reads as under: -. " ( 26 ) OUR attention has also been drawn to para 61 which reads as under: -. "the principle which emerges from these decisions is that in the case of inconsistency between the provisions of two enactments, both. of which can be regarded as Special in nature, the conflict has to to be resolved by reference to the purpose and policy underlying the two enactments and the clear inactment conveyed by the Inguage of the relevant provisions therein. We propose to consider this matter in the light of this principle. " ( 27 ) WE are afraid we cannot aggree to the proposition of Shri Chaudhry as Delhi University Act is not a Special Act, rather it is the University Grants Commission Act which is a Special Act enacted by the Parliament which in its preamble makes it'clear which reads as follows:- "act act to make provisions for the coordination and determination of standards in Universities and for that purpose, to establish a University Grants Commission. " ( 28 ) IT would be seen that UGC Act, 1956 has been specidially enacted for coordination and determination of standards in Universities which cannot be the domain of the Delhi University. Therefore, Ashoka Marketing case (supra) cannot advance the arguments of the respondent. Therefore, we do not see thats there is any inconsistency between the provisions of Delhi University Act and the University Grants Commission Act. The purpose and policy underlyiong both the enactments are without any ambiguity or inconsistency. Delhi University Act provides, inter alia, for appointment of lecturers in the University, the mode of their selection, the power to constitute Selection Committee and other ancilliary provisions for selection and recognition of teachers in the University, whereas the University Grants Commission also created by the Parliament for coordination and determination of standard of education of various Universities, for which the University Grants Commission has been empowerd to lay down certain conditions and power to make regulations defining the qualification that should ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University. The National Eligibility Test prescribed by the UGC is not a qualification as contended by the counsel for the Delhi University to select the lecturers for its various courts but it simply provides a test which has to be cleared before a candidate becomes eligible for the process of selection to be selected by the Delhi University Shri Chaudhry has further cited the case of Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur Vs. Thakur Manmohan Dey and others AIR 1966 SC 1931 which reads as under:- "a general later law does not abrogate an earlier special one by mere implication. Generalia specialibus non deogant, or, in other words, 'where there are general words in a later Act capable of resonable and sensible application without extending them to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, you are not to hold that earlier and special legislation indirectly repealed, altered, or derogated from merely by force of such general words, without any indication of a particular intention to do so. In such cases it is presumed to have only general cases in view, and not particular cases which have been already otherwise provided for by the special Act. " ( 29 ) HE has further cited the case Kailash Chandra Vs. The Union, of India AIR 1961 SC 1346 wherein it was held that:- "this intention is made even more clear beyond doubt by the use of the word 'ordinarily'. 'ordinarily' means In the large majority of cases but not invariably'. This itself emphasises the-fact that the appropriate authority is not bound to retain the servant after he attains the age of 55 even if he continues to be efficient. The intention of the second clause therefore clearly is that while under the first clause the appropriate authority has the right to retire the servant who falls within cl. (a) as soon as he attains the age of 55, it will, at that stage, consider whether or not to retain him further. This option to retain for the further period of five years can only be exercised if the servant continues to be efficient; but in deciding whether or not to exercise this option the authority has to consider circumstances other than the question of efficiency also; in the absence of special circumstances he 'should' retain the servant; but what are special circumstances is left entirely to the authority's decision. Thus, after the age of 55 is reached by the servant the authority has to exercise its discretion whether or not to retain the servant; and ther is no right ,in the servant to be retained, even- if he continues to be efficient. " ( 30 class=pno>>30 ) HE has cited another authority reported in re Presidential Election. AIR 1974 SC 1682 wherein on the interpretation of the Statute the relevant principle is stated at page 1682 it has been held:- "in determining the question whether a provision is mandatory or directory, the subject-matter, the importance of the provision, the relation of that provision to the general object" intended to be secured by the Act will decide whether the provision is directory or mandatory. It is the duty of the courts to get at the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the provision to be construed. The key to the opening of every law is the reason and spirit of the law, it is the animus impondentis, the intention of the law maker expressed in the law itself, taken as a whole'. " ( 31 ) WE are afraid that this authority is of no help to the case of the respondent. The proposition laid down by the Supreme Court, as a matter of fact, would advance the case of the University Grants Commission. ( 32 ) ANOTHER argument advanced by the learned counsel for the University was that in case the Delhi University does not follow the regulations even if it is assumed that they are mandatory the maximum University Grants Commission can do is to invoke Sec. 14 of the UGC Act which gives the power to withhold from the University the grants proposed to be made out of the funds of the Commission. This argument is neither here nor there. The fallacy in the argument of learned counsel for the respondent-University is manifest from the fact that the courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can issue appropriate writ or directions to any public authority if a legal duty is cast on that said authority and the authority is not discharging its functions on the basis of that legal authority. The citizen who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be left at the mercy of the erring public authority and he cannot be asked to wait for the ultimate penalty to be imposed by the University Grants Commission as in this case what is sought to be argued by the learned counsel for Delhi University. Once we hold that the provision of Sec. 26 (e) is mandatory and the Delhi University is bound to carry out the mandatory requirement of Sec. 26 (e) the Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not powerless to enforce the soverign will of the legislature as incorporated in Sec. 26 (e) University Grants Commission. ( 33 ) LASTLY, Shri Chaudhry has argued that as to what extent statement of object can be relied upon and in this support he cited Rib Tapes (India) Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Union of India and others AIR 1986 SC 2014 and Utkal Contractors and Joinery Pvt. Ltd and others etc. Vs. State of Orissa and others, AIR 1987 SC 1454 . The relevant portion of the latter judgment reads as under:- "in considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel and in defining and construing the area and the content of the Act and its provisions, it is necessary to make certain general observations regarding the interpretation of statutes. A statute is best understood if we know the reasons for it. The reason for a statute is the safest guide to its interpretation. The words of a statute take their colour from the reason for it. How do we discover the reason for a statute? There are external and intenal aids. the external aids are Statement of Objects and Reasons when the Bill is presented to Parliament, the reports of Committees which preceded the Bill and the reports of Parliamentary Committees. Occasional execussions into the -debates of Parliament are permitted. Internal aids are the preamble, the scheme and the provisions of the Act. Having discovered the reason for the statute and so having set the sail to the wind, the interpreter may p;roceed ahead. No provision in the statute and no word of the statute may be construed in isolation. Every provision and every word must be looked at generally before any provision or word is attempted to be construed. Having discovered the reason for the statute and so having set the sail to the wind, the interpreter may p;roceed ahead. No provision in the statute and no word of the statute may be construed in isolation. Every provision and every word must be looked at generally before any provision or word is attempted to be construed. The setting and the pattern are important. It is again important to remember that Parliament does not waste its breath unnecessarily. Just as Parliament is not expected to use unnecessary expressions. Parliament is also not expected to express itself unnecessary. Even as parliament does not use any word without meaning something. Parliament does not legislate where no legislation is called for. Parliament cannot be assumed to legislate for the sake of legislation; nor can it be assumed to make pointless legislation merely to state what it is unnecessary to state or to do what is already validly done. Parliament may not be assumed to legislate unnecessarily. Again, while the words of an enactment are important, the context is no less important. For instance, 'the fact that general words are used in a statute is not in itself a conclusive reason why every case falling literally within them should be governed by that statute, and the context of any Act may well indicate that wide or general words should be given a restrictive meaning. " ( 34 ) HE also cited the case Shashikant Laxman Kale and another Vs. Union of India and another AIR 1990 SC 2114 wherein it has been held that:- "for determining the purpose or object of the legislation, it is permissible to look into the circumstances which prevailed at the time when the law was passed and which necessitated the passing of that law. For the limited purpose of appreciating the background and the antecedent factual matrix leading to the legislation, it is permissible to look into the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill which actuated the step to provide a remedy for the then existing malady. . . . " ( 35 ) ACCORDING to the counsel appearing for the UGC Mr. G. K. Banerjee there is no inconsistency between the two Acts created by the Parliament. According to him the purpose and object of University Grants Commission is to coordinate and determine the education of standard and the purpose of Delhi University Act is teaching. . . . " ( 35 ) ACCORDING to the counsel appearing for the UGC Mr. G. K. Banerjee there is no inconsistency between the two Acts created by the Parliament. According to him the purpose and object of University Grants Commission is to coordinate and determine the education of standard and the purpose of Delhi University Act is teaching. According to him the determination of standard and coordination has been excluded from the purview of Delhi University and that is the harmonious interpretation of both the enactments. He has cited Of mania University Teachers Association Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another AIR 1987 SC 2034 wherein it has been held :- "the sole contention of Dr. Chitale, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the Commissionerate Act is just a duplicate of the University Grants Commission Act ("the U. G. C. Act") and the State has no legislative power at all to enact it, since it squarely falls under entry 66, List I. But the contention of Mr. Krishnamurthy Iyer learned counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh is to the contrary. While supporting the judgment of the High Court, he submitted that the enactment in pith and substance falls within entry 25 of List III and not under entry 66, List I of the Seventh Schedule. For proper consideration of the contentions we may set out these two entries: Entry 66, List I: "co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions. " Entry 25, List III: "education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I, vocational and technical -training of labour. " X X XX XX XX Entry 25, List III relating to education including technical education, medical education andUniversities has been made subject to the power of Parliament to legislate under entries 63 to 66 of List I. Entry 66, List I and entry 25,. List III should, therefore, be read together. Entry 66 gives power to Union to see that a required standard of higher education in the country is maintained. The standard of Higher Education including scientific and technical should not be lowered at the hands of any particular State or States. Secondly, it is the exclusive responsibility of the Central Government to co-ordinate and determine the standards for higher education. The standard of Higher Education including scientific and technical should not be lowered at the hands of any particular State or States. Secondly, it is the exclusive responsibility of the Central Government to co-ordinate and determine the standards for higher education. That power includes the power to evaluate, harmonise and secure proper relationship to any project of national importance. It is needless to state that such a co-ordinate action in higher education with proper standards, is of paramount importance to national progress. It is in this national interest, the legislative field in regard to 'education' has been distributed between List I and List III of the Seventh Schedule. XXXX XXX X It will be seen that the Commissionerate has practically taken over the academic programmes and activities of the Universities. The Universities have been rendered irrelevant if not non-entities. It is apparent from this discussion that the Commissionerate Act has been drawn by and large in the same terms as that of the U. G. C. Act. The Commissionerate Act, as we have earlier seen also contains some more provisions. Both the enactments, however, deal with the same subject-matter. Both deal with the co-ordination and determination of excellence in the standards of teaching and examination in the Universities. Here and there, some of the words and sentences used in the Commissionerate Act may be different from those used in the U. G. C. Act, but nevertheless, they convey the same meaning. It is just like referring the same person with different descriptions and names. The intention of the legislature has to be gathered by reading the statute as a whole. That is a rule which is now firmly established for the purpose of construction of statutes. The High Court appears to have gone on a tangent. The High Court would not have fallen into an error if it had perused the U. G. C. Act as a whole and compared it with the Commissionerate Act or vice versa. XXX X X X X The Constitution of India vests Parliament with exclusive authority in regard to co-ordination and 'determination of standards in institutions for higher education. The Parliament has enacted the U. G. C. Act for that purpose. The University Grants Commission has, therefore, a greater role to play in shaping the academic life of the country. XXX X X X X The Constitution of India vests Parliament with exclusive authority in regard to co-ordination and 'determination of standards in institutions for higher education. The Parliament has enacted the U. G. C. Act for that purpose. The University Grants Commission has, therefore, a greater role to play in shaping the academic life of the country. It shall not flater or fail in its duty to maintain a high standard in the Universities. Democracy depends for its. very life on a high standard of general, vocational and professional education. Dissemination of learning with search for new knowledge with discipline all round must be maintained at all costs. It is hoped that University Grants Commission will duly discharge its responsibility to the Nation and play an increasing role to bring about the needed transformation in the academic life of the Universities. " ( 36 ) ACCORDING to the counsel for the UGC the purpose of test is to remove disparity and to have minimum standard and the sole objective is to have higher standard of education. In this connection the learned counsel for the UGC Shri G. K. Banerjee has cited Km. Darsha Ahuja and etc. etc. Vs. University of Agra and Another AIR 1982 Allahabad 359. In support of his contention Mr. Banerjee has stated as to what is the meaning in a matter of Ordinances made by Executive Council of University and Regulation framed by Medical Coucil of India and whether those regulations were repugnant. The Court answered that fit does not seem that the object or purpose of the Act is to prohibit the Medical Institutions in India from laying down standards which may be higher or more stringent than the minimum standards prescribed by the Medical Council (AIR 1981 S. C. 2045 followed ). It runs as:- . . . . . . . . . . . . IF, anything, it prescribes a little higher standard than that laid down by the Medical Council of India. It does not in the slightest degree run counter either to the letter or the spirit of the minimum standards laid down by the Medical Council of India in its Regulations. . . . . . . . . . . . IF, anything, it prescribes a little higher standard than that laid down by the Medical Council of India. It does not in the slightest degree run counter either to the letter or the spirit of the minimum standards laid down by the Medical Council of India in its Regulations. The primary concern of the Medical Council of India is to ensure that the deducation imparted by the Universities and the Medical Institutions in India and the examinations conducted by them for the grant of medical degrees do not fall below the prescribed standards of proficiency expected of a Medical Graduate. There cannot be any serious objection if a medical institution or a University lays down a slightly more stringent standard for the examinations. " ( 37 ) HE also cited Sobhan Kumar S. , and others Vs. The Mangalore University and others AIR Karnataka 223. Then he cited the case of Gujarat University and another Vs. Shri Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar and others AIR 1963 SC 703 wherein it was held:- ". . . . . . IN other words, the validity of State legislation would depend upon whether it prejudicially affects co-ordination and determination of standards, but not upon the existence of some definite Union legislation directed to achieve that purpose. If there be Union legislation in respect of co-ordination and determination of standards, that would have paramountcy over the State law by virtue of the first part of Art. 254 (1); even if that power be not exercised by the Union Parliament the relevant legislative entries being in the exclusive lists, a State law trenching upon the Union field would still be invalid. " ( 38 ) HOWEVER, in the present case, we are not concerned with a law made by the State as the Delhi University Act is also a creation of an act of Parliament. However, what is important is that the field of co-ordination and determination of standards of education is not an area covered by the provisions of Delhi University Act. Therefore, it solely lies in the domain of University Grants Commission Act, which is a special Act enacted to co-ordinate an determine standards of education. Gujarat University's case (supra) has further dealt with as to what co-ordination means: ". . . . . Therefore, it solely lies in the domain of University Grants Commission Act, which is a special Act enacted to co-ordinate an determine standards of education. Gujarat University's case (supra) has further dealt with as to what co-ordination means: ". . . . . ITEM No. 66 is a legislative head and in interpreting it, unless it is expressly or of necessity found conditioned by the words used therein, a narrow or restricted interpretation will not be put upon the generality of the words. Power to legislate on a subject should normally be held to extend to all ancillary or subsidiary matters which can fairly and reasonably be said to be comprehended in that subject. Again there is nothing either in item 66 or elsewhere in the Constitution which supports the submission that the expression "co-ordination" must mean in the context in which it is used merely evaluation, co-ordination in its normal connotation means harmonising or bringing into proper relation in which all the things co-ordinated participate. in a common pattern of action. The power to co-ordinate, therefore, is not merely power to evaluate, it is a power to harmonise or secure relationship for concerted action. The poorer conferred by item 66 List I is not conditioned by the existence of a state of emergency or unequal standards calling for the exercise of the power. There is nothing in the entry which indicates that thepower to legislate on co-ordination of standards in institutions of higher education, does not include the power to legislate for preventing the occurrence of or for removal of disparities in standards. This power is not conditioned to be exercised merely upon the existence of a condition of disparity nor is it a power merely to evaluate-standards but not to take steps to rectify or to prevent disparity. By express pronouncement of the Constitution makers, it is a power to co-ordinate, and of necessity, implied therein is the power to prevent what would make co-ordination impossible or difficult. The power is absolute and unconditional, and in the absence of any controlling reasons it must be given full effect according to its plain and expressed intention". By express pronouncement of the Constitution makers, it is a power to co-ordinate, and of necessity, implied therein is the power to prevent what would make co-ordination impossible or difficult. The power is absolute and unconditional, and in the absence of any controlling reasons it must be given full effect according to its plain and expressed intention". ( 39 ) IN the matter of Prem Chand Jain and another V. R. K. Chhabra, AIR 1984 S. C. 981 wherein it was observed as under:- "the Act essentially intended to make provisions for the co-ordination and determination of standards in universities and that is squarely covered under entry 66 of List I. While legislating for a purpose germane to the subject covered by that entry and establishing a University Grants Commission, Parliament considered it necessary, as a 'regulatory measure, to prohibit unauthorised conferment of degrees and diplomas and also use of the word "university" by institution which had not been either established or incorporated by special legislation. Parliament could not be said to have entrenched upon legislative power reserved for the State legislature. If an enactment substantially falls within the powers expressly conferred by the Constitution upon the legislature enacting it, it cannot be held to be invalid merely because it incidentally encroaches on matters assigned to another legislature". ( 40 ) LEARNED counsel for UGC has also cited the case Shashikant Laxman Kale and another V. Union of India and another, AIR 1990 S. C. 2114 to bring home the point that object of the enactment provides the background for passing of that law. It was observed by the Supreme Court thus: ". . . . . IT is first necessary to discern the true purpose or object of the impugned enactment because it is only with reference to the true object of the enactment that the existence of a rational nexus of the differentia on which the classification is based, with the object sought to be achieved by the enactment, can be examined to test the validity of the classification. . . . . For determining the purpose or object of the legislation, it is-permissible to look into the circumstances which prevailed at the time when the law was passed and which necessitated the passing of that law. For the limited purpose of appreciating the background and the antecedent factual matrix leading to the legislation, it is permissible to. . . . . For determining the purpose or object of the legislation, it is-permissible to look into the circumstances which prevailed at the time when the law was passed and which necessitated the passing of that law. For the limited purpose of appreciating the background and the antecedent factual matrix leading to the legislation, it is permissible to. look into the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill which actuated the step to provide a remedy for the then existing malady. . . ;' ( 41 ) SHRI Banerjee has further argued that the full title of the University Grants Commission Act,, as a matter of fact, lays down the scope, intent and purpose of the enactment. In support of this contention, he has relied upon Aswini Kumar Ghose and another V. Arabinda Base and another, AIR 1952 S. C,. 369 wherein it has been held that: "turning now to the text of the Act, one cannot but be impressed at once with the wording of the full title of the Act. Although there are observations in earlier English cases that the title is not a part of the statute and is, therefore, to be excluded from consideration in construing the statute, it is now settled law that the title of a statute is an important part of the Act and may be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining its general scope and of throwing light on its construction, although it cannot override the clear meaning of the enactment. (See Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 9th Edn. , p. 44, and the cases cited therein ). . . . . . . " ( 42 ) ACCORDING to Shri Banerjee both Acts can be harmonised and according to him UGC Act while fixing the National Eligibility Test is doing nothing in the matter than laying down the standard which is the function of the UGC. According to him Delhi University Act is to establish a university. ( 43 ) IN order to appreciate and understand the various contentions it would be better as to what were the circumstances and how this Eligibility Test was evolved. According to him Delhi University Act is to establish a university. ( 43 ) IN order to appreciate and understand the various contentions it would be better as to what were the circumstances and how this Eligibility Test was evolved. It is important to note that the Government of India Statute on National Commission on Teachers- II in 1985, the terms of reference of National Commission on Teachers for higher education set up by Government of India for the Notification No. F. 23-1/81 P. N. 2 dated 16. 2. 83. There were about 12 terms of reference, out of which two are important for the present controversy which are:- "1; Lay down clear objectives for the teaching profession with reference to the search for excellence, breadth of vision and cultivation of values in keeping with the country's heritage and ideals of democracy, secularism and justice; 2. Recommend measures needed for attracting and retaining talented persons in the teaching profession and widening the base for recruitment, particularly of women. " ( 44 ) THE members of the National Commission on Teachers at about 21 members of eminent Academician including twoformer Vice Chancellors of Delhi University. Chapter VI deals specifically under the title "professional Excellence-Recruitment and Career Development" of the report of the said National Commission on Teachers. The following paragraphs are relevant in this case:- "6. 01 Professional Excellence and Status of Teachers: While an adequate standard of material life may be considered to be a pre-condition for enhancement of the status of teachers, by itself, it cannot lead to the desired result. Status can be earned only through the pursuit of professional excellence. Retailing stale knowledge on the counter of a teaching shop or wholesaling uncritically adopted versions of outdated texts from the West may and does make some teachers quite affluent. But the tainted money so earned cannot buy status. Students, however, have a sixth sense, which helps them distinguish the real from. the spurious; There are, fortunately, numerous teachers in all fields and in all institutions who inspire respect and are held in great esteem. They have earned this invariably through commitment to professional excellence. Standard of material life is the necessary condition for status professional excellence is the sufficient- coindition. 6. the spurious; There are, fortunately, numerous teachers in all fields and in all institutions who inspire respect and are held in great esteem. They have earned this invariably through commitment to professional excellence. Standard of material life is the necessary condition for status professional excellence is the sufficient- coindition. 6. 02 Recruitment of Teachers: With a view to have a body of teachers of professional excellence in the country, it is necessary that competent and talented persons are attracted to the profession. While emoluments and conditions of work are quite important in this context, it is equally important to' design the criteria and procedures of recruitment in a manner which ensures the induction of the best. There is a strong feeling in the country and particularly among teachers themselves that these suffer from serious limitations, distortions and inadequacies and that remedial steps are called for. 6. 02. 01 Possibility or Remeval of the Inadequacies of the Recruitment System There is evidence to show that under the pressure of rapid expansion of higher education during the sixties, adequate care was not taken to ensure the entry of persons with the requisite calibre into the profession. With the revision of pay scales from 1973 onwards, the UGC prescribed minimum qualifications of the teaching staff and now this has been converted into a Regulation for observance in all collges and universities. A good academic record, evidence of research capabilities as well as a research degree and pedagogic skills are now being increasingly insisted upon. This is a step in the right direction and advances made in this sphere should be further strengthened and consolidted. It is most welcome that a substantial number of teachers, both at the university and the college levels are of the view that a candidate's academic performance should be given much greater weightage than any other factor at the time of first appointment. 6. 02. 02 Complexity of Assessment of Academic Performance The assessment of the record of performance is a complex task in any sphere of life; but it is particularly so in the case of academic performance. There is, in this context no way of eliminating subjectivity completely. "objective" methods of summating marks allotted to number of papers published, grades secured in examinations, years of teaching experience and the like have been tried but have invaribly failed to identify suitable candidates for appointment. 6. 02. There is, in this context no way of eliminating subjectivity completely. "objective" methods of summating marks allotted to number of papers published, grades secured in examinations, years of teaching experience and the like have been tried but have invaribly failed to identify suitable candidates for appointment. 6. 02. 03 Evaluating Academic Achievements How, then, should we proceed in the matter of evaluating academic achievements at the entry point? (a) Unreliability and Non-Comparability of Examination Results Categorical statements have been made by various Committees and Commissions that the examination results are neither reliable nor valid and comparable. " It is recognised that the standards of performance vary from university to university, and that universities which are a little more exacting are less generous with their scores. Evidently, a way has to be found to ensure not only that justice is being done but also that it appears to be done. (b) The National Yardstick-An All-India Merit Test Many teachers, during discussions with the Commission, suggested a way of getting over the problems of inter-university comparbility and of ensuring that persons with dubious academic records do not get faculty appointments on extraneous grounds. An All-India merit test may be held in each subject under the auspices of a technically competent national body with a high level of credibility, and only candidates securing grades above a given cut-off point in this test may be considered to be eligible for being appointed as lecturers' in any college or university in the country. It is not being suggested that faculty appointments should be made on the basis of such-a test. The university/college would induct faculty through selection committees in terms of the relevant statutes and ordinances. But it must be ensured that every citizen aspiring to be a teacher at the tertiary level qualifies in terms of a national yard-stick. Protective discrimination may be built into the system to offset disparities of various kinds. Since the first appointment presuppoes doctoral work and since the UGC as well the CSIR hold an All-India test for fellowships at this stage, the grade secured by a candidate in this test may be utilised for drawing up a list of candidates eligible for lecturerships in colleges and universities of the country. It is conceded that the task of holding an All-India test in each subject is fairly complex. It is conceded that the task of holding an All-India test in each subject is fairly complex. It is, however, suggested that if this proposal were to be implemented in such a manner that the test becomes reliable, valid and comparable from the academic and the technical points of view, the problem of regulating the induction of persons with high calibre into the universities and colleges of the country would be largely taken care of and the dream of having a national cadre of academics with high inter-regional mobility would have been realised. We recommend that the UGC should incorporate the passing of one of the national tests at least in grade B+ on a seven-point scale in its Regulation laying down the minimum qualifications of teachers and that this should come into force within twoyears. 8. 02. 04 Work Environment In Chapter V, we have had to combine a discussion of the existing situation with a number of suggestions and recommendations. We see no point in enumerating or briefly mentioning, the recommendations here, because, in the process, much of force of argument will be lost. The strengthening of libraries with text books and reference material and also, in selected cases, with audio instructinal tapes and supporting material has been mentioned. The necessity of enlarging the UGC's faculty improvement programme for young teachers, particularly college teachers has been recommended. Great stress has been laid by us on improving research facilities by way of libraries and laboratories, and by creating linkages with District/ Regional needs of development of production and establishment of social services; research on curriculum and new teaching methods has been emphasised. In this connection teachers orientation programmes, research seminars/ schools/workshops/conferences, are very important; more of them should be instituted and travel of teachers to such programmes should be encouraged. In this connection teachers in far away places and hilly areas should be especially cared for since their geographical position becomes a handicap; we recommend special grants for teachers in such areas to enable them to spend 4 to 6 weeks of their vacation time in more central freedom of the teacher in his research, teaching and extension, and this can come about through autonomous functioning of colleges, which therefore, must be especially encouraged by state governments, universities and the UGC in "development consortium". We have extensively discussed the participation of teachers in running and managing many activities, upon the basic premise that freedom entails responsibility. We have, in fact, advocated both academic and financial autonomy for selected colleges and university departments. We have advocated that governing bodies too should be accountable: they should govern, and they should not be free to be partial or parochial or inefficient or, so to say, to misgovern. We have explained how we see the role of Teachers' Associations, and the necessity of their taking serious interest in the professional performance of their members. The question of code of conduct or norms of behaviour, or what have been called unacceptable conduct has been discussed and we believe that teachers and their associations should readily agree to a clear definition of the role and responsibility of teachers. A mechanism for prompt redressal of grievances has also been suggested. We firmly believe that all these steps will greatly contribute to improvement in the atmosphere of work in. our institutions". ( 45 ) IT is the admitted case that on 28. 10. 91 regulations issued by the University Grants Commission was communicated to the Delhi University. According to Mr. Banerjee S. 12a of the University Grants Commission Act was amended and qualifications have been defined in relation to cheek the menace of bogus degrees and other make practices committed by the Universities charging capitation fees etc. According to him provisions as contained in Sec. 12 and Sec. 26 cover the fields which is not covered by any provisions of the Delhi - University Act, Statutes or Ordinances and, therefore, there is no inconsistency between the operation of the two Acts. We also feel that it is the UGC which coordinate and determine standard of education and it is the Delhi University which maintains such standards as lays down by the UGC and that is the proper and harmonious construction of both the Central Actss. According to Shri Banerjee Statutes 17 and 18 framed under the Delhi. University Act and Ordinances the University is free to set higher standard of education than what has been prescribed by the UGC. He has also argued that the provisions of the UGC Act are special in nature and whereas provisions of the Delhi University Act are general. According to Shri Banerjee Statutes 17 and 18 framed under the Delhi. University Act and Ordinances the University is free to set higher standard of education than what has been prescribed by the UGC. He has also argued that the provisions of the UGC Act are special in nature and whereas provisions of the Delhi University Act are general. In our opinion both the Acts operate in their own fields and it is, therfore, not necesssary for us to examine this argument. However, the University Grants Commission Act, as we have discussed earlier, was enacted in the year 1956 for making provisions for the coordination and determination of standards in the Universities and for that purpose University Grants Commission was established whereas Delhi University Act, 1922 as it would be seen from the opening words of the Act that it was an Act to establish and incorporate a teaching and affiliating University at Delhi. However, the Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with this proposition in Ashok Marketing case (supra) where the rival contentions of the parties were that the provisions of Public Premises Act overrides the provision of Rent Act or not. The relevant portion reads as under:- "shri Venugopal and other learned counsel representing the petitioners have urged that the Rent Control Act is a self-contained Code providing for regulating he relationship of landlords and tenants and it. makes comprehensive provisions with regard to control of rents as well as eviction of tenants and that the provision of the Rent Control Act, being specil in nature insofar as lease-hold properties in Delhi are concerned, would prevail over the provisions of the Public Premises Act which re in the nature of general provisions relating to eviction of unauthorised occupants from Government premises in the whole country. In Support of this submission the learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on Sections 22 and 54 and the non- obstante clause contained in Section 14 (1) of the Rent Control Actl. In Support of this submission the learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on Sections 22 and 54 and the non- obstante clause contained in Section 14 (1) of the Rent Control Actl. It has also been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Public Premises Act does not contain any machinery for the termination of the tenancy and that in view of the decision of this Court in V. Dhanapal Chettyiar v. Yesodai Ammal, (1980) 1 SCR 334 : ( AIR 1979 SC 1745 ), jural relationship of landlord and tenant dean come to an end only on the passing of an order of eviction by a competent Court inaccordance with the provisions of the Rent Control Act and that in the absence of an order of eviction by a competent Court in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Control Act and that in the absence of an order of eviction under the provisions of the Rent Control Act no proceedings can be intiated against a person who came into occupation of the premises as a tenant and who is continuing in occupation of the said premises after the contractual tenancy has expired or has been terminated. The learned Attorney General and Shri, G. L. Sanghi, appearing on behalf of the respondents in the appeals, have urged that. the Public Premises Act is in the nature of a special enctment making provision for speedy and expeditious recovery of possession of public premises from persons in. unauthorised occupation of the same whereas the Rent Control Act is a general enactment regulaing the relationship of landlord and tenant and since the Public Premises Act is a special ertactment it would override the provisions of the Rent Control Act. It he also been urged that the Public Premises Act is a later enactment, having been enacted in 1971, whereas the Rent Control Act was enacted in 1958, and, therefore, the Public Premises Act which bars the jurisdiction of other Courts is in the nature of a non-obstante cause which gives overriding effect to the provisions of the Public Premises Act. " ( 46 ) NOW, the next controversy which has been raised by the University regarding the regulations being mandatory'or directory we have to refer to Sec. 12 which, inter alia, incorporates the power and function of the Commissioner and start with the words 'it shall be in the general duty of the Commission to take all such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and coordination of University education and for the determination and maintenance of the standads of teaching. With these words as contained in Sec. 12 of the UGC Act to be read with Sec. 26 (1) (e) which deals with the power of the Commission to define the qualification that should ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University. We are not in any doubt whatsoever about the clear intention of Parliament that these provisions are mandatory and not directory. The Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with the situation in case re President Election 1974 (supra) wherein it was held:- "in determining the question whether a provision is mandatory or directory, the subject-matter, the importance of the provision, the relation of that provision to the general object intended to be secured by the Act will decide whether the provision is directory or mandatory. It is the duty of the courts to get at the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the provision to be construed. The key to the opening of every law is the reason and spirit of the law, it is the animus impondent is, the intention of the. law maker expressed in the law itself, taken as a whole'. " ( 47 ) WE feel that legal duty was cast upon the respondent-University to abide by the regulations as framed by UGC pursuant to its powers under Sec. 26 of the UGC Act. In our opinion, as we have discussed above, the provisions in this regard are mandatory in nature and not directory. We would once again point out the R. C. Melhotra Committee report recommended in paragraph 6. 2. 9 which is as under:- "in order to ensure the quality of new entrants to the ' profession, the Committee recommends that all aspirants for post of lecturer in university/college, should have passed a national qualifying examination. We would once again point out the R. C. Melhotra Committee report recommended in paragraph 6. 2. 9 which is as under:- "in order to ensure the quality of new entrants to the ' profession, the Committee recommends that all aspirants for post of lecturer in university/college, should have passed a national qualifying examination. It may be noted that this recommendation is in line with the recommendation of the National Commission on Teachers-II. Such a test would have the merit of removing disparities in standards of examination at Master's level between different universities. It is also hoped that by this step local influence will be minimized and the eligibility zone for recruitment to the teaching posts would become wider. The actual of fellowships, since it will be testing teaching competence as well as competence for research. The proposed examination is a qualifying one in the sense that it determines the eligibility only and no selection. " ( 48 ) IT is to be noted that we have taken into consideration that in the National Eligibility Test local influence will be minimized and the eligibility. zone for recruitment to the teaching posts would become wider. It is strange that the petitioner who fulfils all the qualifications as prescribed by the Delhi University in addition has cleared National Eligibility Test is not even considered for7 appointment as a lecturer by the colleges and the Delhi University. The stand of the Delhi University as we have already commented upon is inconsisent with the letter and spirit for which the UGC was created by an Act of Parliament. Vice Chancellor is not University and no individual can arogate. to himself the authority empowered which has not been given to him by the Act. We fail to understand as to why the University Grants Commission has been going as a luke spectator in this sordid time of inaction on the part of Delhi University when their regulation was sent to it way back in the year 1991. The petitioner before us has no other remedy and that is why he has filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ or appropriate directions for University of Delhi to implement the regulations issued by the UGC to consider him for the appointment of the lecturer. The petitioner before us has no other remedy and that is why he has filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ or appropriate directions for University of Delhi to implement the regulations issued by the UGC to consider him for the appointment of the lecturer. We would also like to disapprove the conduct of the Ministry as during the initial hearing of the writ petition without moving an application or modifying our" interim order made on 13th May, 1993 on the ground that University/its colleges should be permitted to make ad- hoc appointment during the pendency of the writ petition. During the hearing, we had specifically asked the University Authorities to give us the number of posts lying vacant and other details in this regard. We have already indicated to them that if they will select candidates who are hundreds in number and had passed Eligibility Test we would modify our orders. The stand of the University in this regard was that the regulation issued by the UGC is directory and, therefore, they will not like this condition of Eligibility Test to be cleared ad-hoc. ( 49 ) WE agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the UGC has not taken coercive steps as contemplated under Sec. 14 of the University Grants Commission Act the petitioner's right to have the regulations implemented and on that basis vested right which has been created in favour of the petitioner cannot be defeated by inaction on the part of the UGC and not initiated any coercive steps against the Delhi University. ( 50 ) IN view of the above discussion, we hold that the Notification dated 19. 9. 91 issued by the University Grants Commission is valid and mandatory and Delhi University is obliged under law to comply with the same. Delhi University is further directed to make the selection of the teaching staff for appointment in the post available in the affiliated or subordinate college of Delhi University or in the Delhi University to the post of lecturers be strictly in accordance with the aforesaid notification. We make the rule absolute, allow the writ petition. However, in the circumstances of the case, no orders to costs.