Judgment S. B. Sinha and J JJ. 1. In this application the petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of quo warranto directing respondent No.3 to show cause as to under what autnority he has been acting as Vice Chancellor Baba bhimrao Ambedkar University (hereinafter referred to as the University) and for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mundamus directing the respondents to appoint a Vice Chancellor in terms ot Sec.10 (1) of the Bihar state Universities Act, 1976 Admittedly, one Dr. Balram Singh was the vice Chancellor of the University His term expired on 25.6.93 The chancellor of the University by reason of a notification dated 24.6.93 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application appointed respondent No.3 who is Commissioner of Tirhut Division as Vice Chancellor of the University in addition to his own duty in purported exercise of power under Section 13 (2) of the said Act. 2. Mr. Prasad. learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the provision of Sections 10 A 13 of the Act and made tne following submissions :- (i) Sec.10 (1) of the said Act mandates that a Vice Chancellor of a University must be a person reputed for his scholarship and academic interest. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the words used in Sec.10 (1) of the Act leaves no manner of doubt whatsoever that such provision is mandatory one. According to the learned counsel although in terms of section 13 (2) of the Act the Chancellor has been conferred with power to fill up the vacancy of the post of Vice Chancellor caused due to resignation, death, completion of the terms of any other reason but in terms thereof he is only omitted to make arrangement for performance of the duty of the office of the vice Chancellor, and thus such appointment must be in conformity thereof with the another in substantial compliance of provision under Sec.10 (1) of the Act or in any event must be held to be for a short tenure According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No.3 is continuing in office despite the fact that more than nine months have already elapsed. 3 In support of the contention that Sec.10 (1) of the Act Is mandatory in nature, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of M Pentiah and others V/s. Muddala Veeramallappa and others, reported in AIR 1961 SC 1107 and Lachmi Narain etc V/s. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 1976 SC 714 . 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn our attention to the statement made in para-36 of the writ petition as also order dated 9.11.93 passed in CWJC No.9830/93 (Madhurendra Kumar Singh and others V/s. State of Bihar and others) and submitted that serious structure have been passed respondent No.3 and as such be must be held to be incompetent to hold the post. 5. Mr. Roy appearing on behalf of the University, however, submit-mitted that orders referred to were in relation to the action of respondent no.3 in his capacity as Commissioner of the Division and not as Vice chancellor of the University. 6. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Chancellor, wherein it has inter alia been stated that process of selecting qualified and proper Vice Chancellor, as envisaged under the Act has already been started. In para 12 of the said counter-affidavit, it has further been stated that appointment shall be made before commencement of next academicsessions. 7. Sub-sections (1), (2) and 3 (a) of Sec.10 of the Act read thus :- "10. The Vice-Chancellor.- (1) No person shall be deemed to be qualified to hold office of Vice-Chancellor unless such person is, in the opinion of the Chancellor, required for his scholarship and academic interest, and no person shall be deemed to be qualified to hold the office of the Vice-Chancellor of the kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University unless such person is, in the opinion of the Chancellor, reputed for bis scholarship in Sanskrit or has made notable contribution to sanskrit education. (2) The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor in consultation with the State Government. (3) The Vice-Chancellor shall be whole time officer and shall hold office during the pleasure of the Chancellor. (2) The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor in consultation with the State Government. (3) The Vice-Chancellor shall be whole time officer and shall hold office during the pleasure of the Chancellor. 8 In view of the fact that the impugned notification as contained in annexure-1 to the writ petition has been issued by the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of his power under Sec.10 (1) of the Act, in our opinion, it is not necessary for this Courc to pronounce its judgment on construction of Sec.10 of the Act. Mr. Prasad, as noticed hereinbefore, has sobmitted that qualification for appointment of a Vice-Chancellor as contained in Section 10 (1) of Act must be held to be also requisite for appointment of a Vice chancellor in terms of Sec.13 (2) thereof. In our opinion, the contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. A Vice-Chnacellor is appointed on tenure basis in terms of Sec.10 (1) of the Act in consultation with the state Government. Sec.13 of the Act, however, comes into operation absolutely in different situation. Under Sec.13 (1) of the Act, during temporary absence of Vice-Chancellor, the Chancellor may make such arrangement for performance of the duty for the Vice-Chancellor, as he deems tit. Sec.13 (2) of the said Act comes into play where vacancy is caused for the post of Vice-Cnanceller due to resignation, death, completion of the term or any other reason. In terms of Sec.13 (2) of the Act tne Chancellor is required to make such arrangement for the performance of duty of a Vice-Cnancellor as he deems tit. In case of appointment made by the chancellor in terms of Sec.13 (2) of the said Act even he is not required to have consultations with the State Government. It is now well-settled principle of law that a statute should be construed in such a way that litcreate meaning should be given to the statutes under context thereof requires to be interpreted in a different manner. In our opinion, the provision of Sec.10 (1) and Sec.13 (2) of the said Act operate in different situation and thus it cannot be said that requirements of Sec.10 (1) are to be read into Sec.13 (2) thereof. 9. It is now well known that the Court does not have any jurisdiction to add or subtract words nor does it nave any jurisdiction to re-write the statute. 9. It is now well known that the Court does not have any jurisdiction to add or subtract words nor does it nave any jurisdiction to re-write the statute. If the submission of learned counsel is accepted, the provision of section 13 (2) of the Act shall have to be re-written which is not permissible in law. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever as has been submitted by mr Prasad that an arrangement required to be made according to Section 13 (2) of the Act State must be a temporary one We are also of the opinion that Chancellor in such cases keeping in view the object and passport of appointment of a person as a Vice-Chancellor whicn is explicit under the provision of Sec.10 (1) of the Act should appoint a person who fulfills the conditions laid down therefore the very fact that provision for Sec.10 (1) of the Act mandates the chancellor to appoint a person as Vice-Chancellor of a University who fulfills the criteria thereof, the same manifests the intention of the legislature. Keeping in view the intent and purport of Sec.10 (1) of the Act there cannot be any doubt whatsoever, that an arrangement made in terms of section 13 (2) thereof can neither be perpetual nor can be unreasonably for a long period However, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be in a position to fix outer limit inasmuch as the duration of such appointment may vary from the facts and circumstances of each case. 10. Keeping in view the order proposed to be passed by us. we also do not intend to pronounce our judgment taking in consideration the observation made by this Court in cwjc No 7281/93 (Bhola Nath Chatterjee V/s. State of Bihar and others) and cwjc No.9830/93, respondent No.3 should have been appointed as Vice-Chancellor in terms of Sec.13 (2) of the act or not particularly in view of the fact that admittedly one of the aforementioned matters is pending consideration befote the Supreme Court of india. 11. However, keeping in view the statements made in paras 9 and 12 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Chancellor and having heard learned Advocate-General appearing on behalf the State of Bihar and Mr. 11. However, keeping in view the statements made in paras 9 and 12 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Chancellor and having heard learned Advocate-General appearing on behalf the State of Bihar and Mr. Ram Balak Mahto appearing on behalf of the Chancellor, we direct that a regular Vice-Chancellor in terms of Sec.10 (1) of the Act should be appointed by 31st May, 1994. 12. This application is disposed of with the aforementioned directions and observations. Application Disposed.