JUDGMENT 1. - The Petitioners have challenged the order of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Disputes Tribunal, Jaipur dated 6.9.1995 by which the order of the petitioner dated 27th July, 1994 was quashed and it was held that Dr. Shanta Mehtani is eligible and has requisite experience for appointment on the post of Principal of Post-Graduate College. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Kanoria Charitable Trust under which the Kanoria Mahila Mahavidhyalaya (here-in-after called as College) is functioning, is affiliated to the University of Rajasthan. The non-petitioner No.2 was appointed as Lecturer in Philosophy Department and on account of the post of Principal having fallen vacant, it was advertised and she was appointed as Principal of the college which was a degree college at that time, on 13.6.1989. It is stated that her lien on the post of Lecturer in Philosophy Department came to an end when she was appointed as Principal. The petitioner college was up-graded as post-graduate college and the provisional affiliation was also granted by the University of Rajasthan on the condition that the Ordinance, Statute, Rules and Regulations of the University would be followed. In accordance with Ordinance 65 of the Rajasthan University, non-petitioner No. 2, is not eligible for continuing and a letter was received from the University of Rajasthan on 11.12.1993 that some of the affiliated colleges to the University are not having duly selected Principals of the college/post graduate college. On 18.12.1993, the syndicate observed that the affiliated colleges are under obligation to follow the ordinance and according to the resolution of the Syndicate vide letter dated 7.2.1995, the University directed the petitioner to appoint a qualified person on the post of Principal of the post of Graduate College with a threat that if the college fails to comply with the direction, it would be dis-affiliated. Number of reminders in this regard were received. The non-petitioner No. 2 was given an opportunity to explain her position in the Governing Body's meeting dated 3.3.1994. Further opportunities were given, but the respondent No. 2 absented from the meeting and accordingly by order dated 23.7.1994 she was reverted from the post of Principal to the post of Lecturer. 3. Number of reminders in this regard were received. The non-petitioner No. 2 was given an opportunity to explain her position in the Governing Body's meeting dated 3.3.1994. Further opportunities were given, but the respondent No. 2 absented from the meeting and accordingly by order dated 23.7.1994 she was reverted from the post of Principal to the post of Lecturer. 3. The above order was challenged before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Disputes Tribunal on the ground that the procedures as required under Section 18 have not been followed and the principles of natural justice have been violated and she is qualified under the Rules of 1986 and Rules of 1986 will override the Ordinance of the University. It is also stated that there was no dismissal or removal or reduction in rank by way of punishment nor it is a case of reversion, but is a case of retrenchment and absorption and the opportunities were given. The Rules of Government Colleges are not applicable to non-government colleges because the post of Principal of Post-graduate College is filled-in 100% by promotion whereas in Non-Government College the post is filled by open selection. The qualifications under Ordinance 65 and the Rules of 1986 are different and no benefit can be taken from the Rules of 1986. The directions under Ordinance of the University are binding and have been followed. The non-petitioner No. 2 was not having the requisite qualification in accordance with the Ordinance. The Tribunal quashed the order and declared the non-petitioner No. 2 as qualified to hold the post of Principal which has been challenged on the ground that she has never appointed as Principal of the Post-graduate college and that a person who is continuing as Principal of the Degree College would not automatically be entitled to continue on the post of Principal of the Post-Graduate College when the college is up-graded. A procedure for selection has to be followed. According to the petitioner the post of Principal of Degree College came to an end on up-gradation of the college. There were only two options left, either to relieve the non-petitioner No. 2 or absorb her in college. If the latter option has been exercised by the Governing Body, it cannot be considered to be illegal. 4. According to the petitioner the post of Principal of Degree College came to an end on up-gradation of the college. There were only two options left, either to relieve the non-petitioner No. 2 or absorb her in college. If the latter option has been exercised by the Governing Body, it cannot be considered to be illegal. 4. It is stated that under the University of Rajasthan Act, 1946, every college has to satisfy the University that it maintains the satisfactory standard, of educational efficiency for the purpose for which recognition is enjoyed or sought (Statute 28). The teaching staff has to be in accordance with the Rules prescribed by the Rajasthan University (Statute 30). In ordinance 65(x) the minimum qualifications for the principal of affiliated colleges have been given and in respect of Post-graduate colleges, it is provided as under "(a) A doctorate degree with at least a second class (C in the seven point scale) Master's degree in any subject taught in the College from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign University; and (b) At least 15 years' experience of teaching degree/post-graduate classes out of which at least 5 years' experience should be of post graduate classes or 7 years' experience should be as Principal of a Degree College." 5. Under the Rajasthan Educational Services (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1986, the qualification for the post of Principal of Post-Graduate College is as under- 100% by Promotion Minimum qualifications and As laid down by the experience for Promotion/Selection As laid down by the University of Raj. from time to Selection. time with 5 years experience on the post of Principal/Vice Principal. 6. Under the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 it is provided under Section 40 that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding inconsistency contained in any instructions having effect by virtue of any law. Under the Rules of 1986 the minimum qualification is as under Minimum qualifications and experience for Promotion/Selection As laid down by the University of from time to time with 5 years' experience on the post of Principal /Vice Principal. 7. According to the Rules of 1986, two words have been used, namely; `qualification' and 'experience' and, therefore, the qualification should be as laid down by the University from time to time but the experience should be in accordance with the Rules of 1986. 7. According to the Rules of 1986, two words have been used, namely; `qualification' and 'experience' and, therefore, the qualification should be as laid down by the University from time to time but the experience should be in accordance with the Rules of 1986. It is stated that Rule 26 speaks only of qualification as laid down by the Government and not about experience. The qualification has to be laid down by the University and the Rules of 1986 are themselves subject to the, qualification to Ordinance 65 of the University. The experience as contained in the Rules, 1986 could not have been extended to the non-petitioner No. 2. The principals of Government Colleges or Post-graduate College and Principals of Post Graduate Colleges of non-Government Colleges are not similar categories of employees. In accordance with Rule 26(b) as the mode of selection is 100% by promotion in Government while it is 100%` by selection in non Government colleges the petitioner. The assistance of Rule 26(b) could not have been taken. Similarly Section 40 of the Act of 1989 has wrongly been invoked as it deals with the inconsistency between any provision of Act and any instrument having effect by virtue of any law and it does not have in consistence between the provisions of Act of 1989 and the provisions of any other Act, Ordinance, Statute, Rules or Regulation having force of law. The word 'instrument' refers to a contract or constitution of a Managing Committee or the Constitution of the Private College itself and it cannot be considered to be a statutory law. Since, there are number of other senior Lecturers, the non-petitioner No. 2 cannot claim her right as Principal of Post-graduate college, even if it is considered to be a promotional post and she was never appointed as Principal of the Post-graduate College. No right to continue on the said post or to hold the post accrued in her favour. Once, the post of Principal of Degree College was abolished by up-gradation, the non-petitioner No. 2 was a surplus employee who could be absorbed or relieved. The petitioner has to follow the Ordinance and could not have taken the risk of dis-affiliation. 8. In the order of the Tribunal dated 6.9.1994 it was found that so far as argument with regard to violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, it has not been violated. The petitioner has to follow the Ordinance and could not have taken the risk of dis-affiliation. 8. In the order of the Tribunal dated 6.9.1994 it was found that so far as argument with regard to violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, it has not been violated. The decision of the petitioner was considered to have been taken in haste which was objected by the Director, College Education. It was also found that the experience under the Schedule to the Collegiate Branch Rules is of 5 years on the post of Principal Vice-principal while under the Ordinance it is seven years and the Rajasthan Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1986 would have over-riding effect. On that basis, the order of the petitioner was quashed by the Tribunal. 9. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the respondent No. 2 was not possessing the minimum requisite qualification for the post of Principal of a Post-graduate College, it was resolved that her services as Principal may be dis-continued and she was continued as Lecturer in Philosophy. This was done in accordance with the mandate of the Ordinance 65 of the University and the letter dated 11.12.1993 of the Deputy Registrar, University of Rajasthan which was written to the Director of College Education and the Principals of affiliated colleges and letter dated 5/7.2.1994. The view of the Tribunal that the qualification and experience are two different things and Rule 26(a) refers to the qualification independently of experience while a candidate will be required to possess the qualification as laid down by the University and experience would be of 5 years is not in accordance with law. Attention has been drawn to Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-aid and Service Conditions etc.) Rules, 1993 which has given the procedure for recruitment and in clause (b), it is mentioned that the qualification shall be as prescribed by the Government for similar category of employees in Government Educational Institutions except for the post of Organising Secretary. Under Statute 26(5) of the University of Rajasthan and book part II Vol. I, the procedure for selection for appointment of Principal has been given and under Statute 30(1) every college has to satisfy the University that the qualification of its teaching staff is in accordance with the Rule prescribed by the University. Under Statute 26(5) of the University of Rajasthan and book part II Vol. I, the procedure for selection for appointment of Principal has been given and under Statute 30(1) every college has to satisfy the University that the qualification of its teaching staff is in accordance with the Rule prescribed by the University. For post-graduate colleges, a doctorate degree with at least a second class Master's degree in any subject taught in the college from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign University and at least 15 years experience of teaching degree/post-graduate classes out of which at least 5 years experience should be of post-graduate classes or 7 years as Principal of the degree college, provided that the person working in the same college or in any other college affiliated to the University on whole time basis continuously from any date before 31.3.1977 shall be eligible even if he does not possess the qualification prescribed but possess at least a second class Master degree. 10. Under the Rajasthan Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1986, Rule 11 has prescribed academic and technical qualification and experience and under Rule 24 eligibility has been given in which the posts of Principals and Vice-Principals of colleges has to be filled-in by promotion through selection from amongst the Heads of Departments and lecturers. A procedure has been provided under Rule 25 for such selection. Under Rule 26(ii) it is provided that selection for promotion to the post of Principal of specified PG. Colleges/Joint Director shall be made strictly on the basis of merit and on the basis of seniority-cum-merit in the proportion of 50 : 50. In the schedule the minimum qualification and experience for promotion/selection has been shown and Principals of specified Post-graduate College/Joint Director as laid down by the University of Rajasthan from time to time with 5 years experience on the post of Principal Vice - Principal and the post is to be filled-up 100% by promotion from the post of Principal/Vice-Principal of the colleges. 11. On the basis of the above provision, it is stated that the post of Principal of the degree college and that of Post-graduate colleges are different and since, respondent No. 2 was not having the requisite academic qualification and experience, the action of the petitioner was in accordance with law. 11. On the basis of the above provision, it is stated that the post of Principal of the degree college and that of Post-graduate colleges are different and since, respondent No. 2 was not having the requisite academic qualification and experience, the action of the petitioner was in accordance with law. The abolition of post is prerogative of an employer and for that reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1982 SC 1107 . The court cannot go behind the wisdom of the employer and substitute its own opinion. The same proposition has been reiterated by the Apex Court in T. Venkata Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1985 (2) SLR 82 where it was observed that the abolition of posts of Part-time Village Officers by throwing them out of post is not violative of Article 21 of the Constitution and the petitioners cannot be said to have been deprived of their right to life and liberty by the abolition of posts of Part-time Village Officers or by ceasing to be holders of those posts. The moment the degree college is raised to Post-graduate college in view of the provisions of University Ordinance, the post of Principal stands abolished impliedly and the selection has to be made for Principal of Post-graduate college. The post of Principal of degree college is dealt with differently. In Ordinance 65(x)(A)(i) while the post of Principal of Post-graduate college is referred to Ordinance 65(x)(A)(ii) and even in Collegiate Branch Rules, the separate chapters have been provided for the two posts namely Chapter V and Chapter VI and item Nos. 2 and 3 of the Schedule. It is, therefore, submitted that on the up-gradation of the college, the respondent No. 2 has no right to continue on the post and action which was taken is in accordance with law. 12. It is submitted that the qualification and experience under Ordinance 65(x)(A)(ii)(b), 15 years experience of teaching degree/post graduate classes or 7 years experience should be of Principal of degree college. Since, the respondent No. 2 was not having the requisite experience, therefore, in accordance with the Ordinance she could not have been continued. The view of the Tribunal that in terms of Rule 26(b) of the rules, the qualification as prescribed by the Government for similar category of employees. Since, the respondent No. 2 was not having the requisite experience, therefore, in accordance with the Ordinance she could not have been continued. The view of the Tribunal that in terms of Rule 26(b) of the rules, the qualification as prescribed by the Government for similar category of employees. in Government Educational Institutions is contrary to Ordinance 65 and in case of inconsistency between the Rules and the Ordinance, it is stated that the Ordinance is a special law and the rules being general, therefore, on the maxim of Generalia Specialibus non derogant, the provisions of the Ordinance are otherwise applicable and this principle is well settled and the decision of Apex Court in the case of Sanwarmal Kejriwal v. Vishwa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and others, (1990) 2 SCC 288 where the question was that when competing provisions, vesting jurisdiction under two different laws, open with a non obstante clause and invest jurisdiction in different courts, the court having jurisdiction under the special law among the two which extends protection to a class will prevail to the exclusion of the other even if that law came into force at a later point of time. 13. It was stated that the post of Principal of Post-graduate college is required to be filled by advertisement. Under Rule 26(b) of the Rules of 1986 which refers to the words 'similar category of employee' will not take within its sweep the members of Rajasthan Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1986. It is also stated that under Rule 11 of the Rules, 1986 academic and technical qualification and experience have separately been mentioned and Rule 26(b) will cover only the qualification and not experience. Even if the respondent No.2 possesses the qualification the right to hold the post cannot be claimed, as it is a post which could be filled-up by direct recruitment on the basis of merit. 14. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that the respondent No. 2 possesses the requisite qualification. it was stated that she was appointed temporarily for a period of three years and affiliation has been granted to the college. The University of Rajasthan in its reply has stated that the qualification for the post of Principal of a Post-graduate college is governed by Ordinance 65 of the University of Rajasthan. it was stated that she was appointed temporarily for a period of three years and affiliation has been granted to the college. The University of Rajasthan in its reply has stated that the qualification for the post of Principal of a Post-graduate college is governed by Ordinance 65 of the University of Rajasthan. The said college was up-graded as post-graduate college from the academic year 1993-94 and provisional affiliation was granted with the condition to follow the provisions of the Ordinance and other rules and regulations framed by the University. In the meeting of the Syndicate on 18.12.1993, it was resolved that the management of the colleges granted affiliation for Post-graduate standard be asked to ensure only those persons as Principals who fulfil the minimum qualifications prescribed by the University. A committee under the Convenorship of Prof. R.N. Singh was appointed by the resolution of the syndicate dated 18.12.1993. By letter dated 5/7.2.1994, sent by the University of Rajasthan to all the Post-graduate colleges affiliated to the University in continuation of the order dated 11.12.1993, the requisite qualification for the post of Principal of Post-graduate College was mentioned and the resolution of the syndicate dated 18.12.1993 was also referred and status report was asked for. It was also stated that in case the appointment of the qualified Principal was not started so far, then the process for making appointment on substantive basis may be started as per University Ordinance, otherwise the University of Rajasthan will be bound to take a suitable action as per the University Rules including dis-affiliation of P.G. Classes. Again a letter was sent on 16th April, 1994 by the Registrar to the University to the Chairmen/Secretaries of all the Management Committees requiring the status report from the affiliated post-graduate colleges. By circular dated 3.5.1994, the particulars of all teachers including the Principals of colleges duly selected by the committee having the eligibility and experience for the post of Principal of Post-graduate colleges were asked. A letter dated 11.12.1993 was received by the Deputy Registrar (Academic) of the University of Rajasthan from Dr. Shanta Mehtani that she is permanent Principal of the College duly selected by the Committee and is having the eligibility and experience for the post of Principal of Post-graduate college. A meeting of the faculty of Social Sciences was held on 17.2.1994 and on a resolution being moved by Dr. Shanta Mehtani that she is permanent Principal of the College duly selected by the Committee and is having the eligibility and experience for the post of Principal of Post-graduate college. A meeting of the faculty of Social Sciences was held on 17.2.1994 and on a resolution being moved by Dr. Santosh Pandey a protest and displeasure was shown over the action of the University insisting on the appointments of the principals in the up-graded Post-graduate colleges who are having requisite qualification. The syndicate in its meeting held on 18.12.1993 enlarged the scope of Dr. R.N. Singh's committee. The copy of the report of the committee was not placed before the syndicate and University started acting on that report directly. On 17.6.1994, a letter was sent by the Deputy Registrar (Academic) University to the colleges informing the extracts of recommendations of Dr. R.N. Singh Committee that the college administration should appoint duly qualified persons as Principal following due procedure. The Syndicate of the University on 18.7.1994 resolved that the report of Dr. R.N. Singh Committee be placed before the Syndicate and the action of the University office in sending extracts from the Committee's report to the local colleges would be initiated only after the Syndicate considers the report. The said resolution was confirmed on 17.9.1994. The acting Registrar of the University sent a letter on 24.10.1994 to Dr. Mehtani about this resolution. Dr. Mehtani wrote on 28.7.1994 to the Vice Chancellor for certain queries regarding Dr. Singh's Committee inspite of Syndicate resolution dated 18.7.1994 and the communication dated 27.7.1994 that the report of Dr. Singh's Committee is to be placed before the Syndicate. The services of Dr. Mehtani were terminated on 23.7.1994. According to the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No. 4 the report was ultimately considered by the Syndicate and on a request from Ex-Secretary, Rajasthan University Teachers' Association dated 8.5.1995 to amend the Ordinance 65 for relaxation in the qualification for the post of Principal of Post-graduate colleges. The resolution of academic Council of the University was placed before the Syndicate and the Syndicate in its meeting on 20/21.5.1995 accepted the recommendations of the Academic Council to amend Ordinance 65 and according to the said amendment Dr. Mehtani is eligible to continue on the post of Principal of the Post-graduate College. 15. The resolution of academic Council of the University was placed before the Syndicate and the Syndicate in its meeting on 20/21.5.1995 accepted the recommendations of the Academic Council to amend Ordinance 65 and according to the said amendment Dr. Mehtani is eligible to continue on the post of Principal of the Post-graduate College. 15. The State of Rajasthan has stated in its reply that the Rajasthan Educational (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1986 are applicable to the Government Colleges and not to the non-government colleges and Ordinance 65 is applicable which is a different thing. The benefit of Rules of 1986 cannot be given to Dr. Shanta Mehtani. Under Rules of 1986 the appointing authority and the mode of selection and qualifications are different than those provided under Ordinance 65 and if the petitioner fails to implement the Ordinance, Statute and Rules and Regulation of the University, they are bound to take the risk of dis-affiliation. 16. In the reply of Dr. Mehtani, it is stated that she was appointed as Principal of the petitioner's college which has subsequently been up-graded and temporary affiliation has also been granted. In the NOC, it is stated that the college shall appoint teachers in accordance with the qualification prescribed by the U.G.C. and it is for the purpose of affiliation. The said NOC issued by the State Government on 29.7.1990 cannot 'have over-riding effect on the statute, rules and regulations. The report of Prof. Jasbir Singh who is a member of the Managing Committee of the petitioner institution cannot be considered and other Inspectors have not submitted the report. According to the applicability of Ordinance 65 to four colleges of Jaipur City to whom temporary affiliation as Post-graduate college was granted, the Syndicate has ultimately decided not to insist on the requirement of Ordinance 65 and she has experience of more than 5 years as Principal of the degree college. The requirement of 7 years cannot be insisted upon. A temporary affiliation cannot effect the service of a permanent Principal. The University has written number of letters for terminating the' services of the Principals of the Post-graduate colleges who were not having 7 years experience, but it was nowhere mentioned that the process should be started without any delay. A committee of Prof. R.N. Singh was authorised to consider the grievance of the colleges and teachers and also the applicability of Ordinance 65. A committee of Prof. R.N. Singh was authorised to consider the grievance of the colleges and teachers and also the applicability of Ordinance 65. The report has since been submitted and relaxation in the experience of holding the post of Principal has been given. It is also stated that since the affiliation was temporary, a substantive appointee cannot be removed as the affiliation itself may come to an end. The contentions raised by the petitioner have been denied and the order of the Tribunal is supported. It is stated that the amendment is retrospective in nature and the amendment is made to achieve the object. The Act of 1989 is a special law and her service conditions are governed by the said Act. 17. I have considered over the matter. The reliance has been placed by the Tribunal on the provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and Rule 39 of the Rules of 1993. The said provisions relate to removal/dismissal or reduction in rank of an employee and if read as a whole are applicable where it is on account of some misconduct, insubordination, inefficiency, negligence of duty or other grounds of that very nature which makes the employee un-suitable for future retention in service. The words any other ground in Rule 39(2) of the Rules have to be interpreted on the theory of ejusdem generis and should be of the nature of prefix words. The provision, of :3,1c. 18 and Rule 39 are based on the requirement of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The said provisions are not applicable to a situation where the post is abolished as observed by the Apex Court in the case of K. Rajendran v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1982 SC 1107 (referred to above) where it was observed that the termination of service brought about by abolition of post does not attract Article 311(2), of the Constitution of India. The provisions of Article 311(2) have been incorporated in the provisions of the Act and the Rules mentioned above and, therefore, this being a binding judgment, I am of the view that if the termination of the services is on account of abolition of post, the provisions of Sec. i 8 and Rule 39 are not applicable. The provisions of Article 311(2) have been incorporated in the provisions of the Act and the Rules mentioned above and, therefore, this being a binding judgment, I am of the view that if the termination of the services is on account of abolition of post, the provisions of Sec. i 8 and Rule 39 are not applicable. It may also be observed that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules in a situation where the post itself is abolished and it is the. inherent right of the employer to abolish the post. 18. In the present matter the question arises as to whether the post is abolished impliedly or expressly. It is an admitted position that the respondent No. 2 Dr. Mehtani was appointed on the post of Principal of Degree College. The requirement for the post of Principal of Post-graduate College is different than that of degree college. Before deciding this issue another point has to be considered where the Ordinance 65 is applicable or the Rules of 1986 are applicable. The minimum qualification and experience for promotion/selection for the post of Principal of Post-graduate college is specified as laid-down in the University of Rajasthan from time to time with five years experience on the post of Principal vice Principal. The two words which have been used in the said Schedule are the qualification and experience. The provisions of University of Rajasthan Rules/Regulations in this regard have been adopted and that refers to experience of 5 years period as mentioned. The selection to the post of Principal for Post-graduate College under the Rules of 1986 could be only by promotion. Ordinance 65 of University of Rajasthan has prescribed besides the educational qualification experience as 7 years as Principal of the Degree Collage. For the purpose of affiliation it is the mandate of the University which has to be followed by the private colleges. It is not only the fear of dis-affiliation but requirement of law. In the NOC of the State Government, the provisions of University Grant Commission have been made applicable while granting the provisional affiliation by the University. The Rules, Regulations, Ordinance, Act of University have been made applicable and, therefore, no private college can take the risk or act contrary to the requirement under the Ordinance of the University. In the NOC of the State Government, the provisions of University Grant Commission have been made applicable while granting the provisional affiliation by the University. The Rules, Regulations, Ordinance, Act of University have been made applicable and, therefore, no private college can take the risk or act contrary to the requirement under the Ordinance of the University. The correct interpretation of law, therefore, is that the petitioner was bound to follow the provisions of Ordinance 65. Under Rule 26 of the Rules of 1986, the procedure for recruitment has been given and clause (b) provides that the qualification shall be as prescribed by the Government for similar category of employees in Government Educational Institutions except for the post of Organising Secretary. In this regard it may be noted that the post of Principal of Graduate Private Institutions cannot be said to be similar to that of Government Educational Institutions because there the post is to be filled up by 100% promotion while the non-government Post-graduate Colleges have to follow Ordinance 65 where the post is to be filled u,. by direct recruitment. The qualification and experience as prescribed under the Rules of 1986 cannot be made applicable. The qualification and experience as required under Ordinance 65(x) and Rules of 1986 have been reproduced above from which it would be evident that so far as qualification is concerned, the Rules of 1985 have adopted the Ordinance and it is only with reference to the experience the period of 5 years experience on the post of Principal vice Principal has been considered sufficient. The requirement under Ordinance is of 15 years teaching in degree/post-graduate classes but of which at least 5 years experience should be of post-graduate classes or seven years experience should be as principal of a degree college. The petitioner was bound to follow the ordinance and the respondent No. 2 was lot having the requisite experience. It may also be noted that the requirement of Principal of degree college with regard to the educational Qualification and Experience for the post of Principal is as under "(i) Degree Colleges : (a) An M. Phil. degree or a recognised degree beyond the Master's level in any subject taught in the college or published work indicating the capacity of candidate for independent research work. degree or a recognised degree beyond the Master's level in any subject taught in the college or published work indicating the capacity of candidate for independent research work. (b) Good academic record with at least second class (C in the seven point scale) Master's degree in any subject taught in the college from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign University, and (c) At least 12 year's experience of teaching degree/post-graduate classes." 19. The post of Principal of degree college as-well as the Post-graduate college cannot be considered to be the same. It is only the Principal of a degree college who can be considered eligible for consideration for the post of Principal, Post-graduate college but cannot ipso facto become himself/herself Principal. It the college is up-graded by implication, the post has to be filled-up afresh in accordance with the procedure laid down under the University ordinance' and, therefore, I am of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is in accordance with law. 20. A question was raised by reference to various correspondence that haste was made by the petitioner in passing the order inspite of the fact that the University has not desired the immediate action and on the contrary a committee was formed. What the University is doing is its internal affair till the said decision comes in the shape of any Act, Rule, Regulation or Ordinance or till such statutory provisions are made the internal correspondence has not relevance and the petitioner was bound to follow the provisions of Ordinance of the University. The petitioner was not only put under the sword of dis-affiliation that the persons having requisite qualification and experience are not posted as Principal, (may be that it was a mistake of the University) but so far as the action of the petitioner is concerned, it cannot be said that it was not in accordance with law. 21. A contention has been raised on behalf of respondent No. 2 that because of the subsequent amendment in the Ordinance, she has become eligible now. I need not examine this aspect as the same was not examined by the Tribunal and was not in dispute before it. The effect of amendment is not considered proper to be examined as the appeal of the respondent No. 2 was not allowed on that ground. I need not examine this aspect as the same was not examined by the Tribunal and was not in dispute before it. The effect of amendment is not considered proper to be examined as the appeal of the respondent No. 2 was not allowed on that ground. The respondent No. 2 would be free to challenge the action of the petitioner on the basis of amendment before the appellate authority. In the circumstances mentioned above, I am of the view that the petitioners were within their right to pass the order dated 23.7.1994 and the Tribunal has erred in quashing the same. The order of the Tribunal dated 6.9.1994 is set aside. 22. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.Writ Petition Allowed. *******