JUDGMENT P. K Palli, J.—The petitioner No. 1 is a Professor in History Department of the H P. University, Shimla, whereas the petitioner No. 2 is the Director of the Correspondence Courses-cum-Professor in Education in the same University. 2. The petitioners have laid challenge in this petition to the amendments made in the Statutes 13 (1) and 3 (1) followed by the Ordinance approved by the Executive Council of the University dated July 10, 1986. The proceedings taken from the meeting of the Executive Council proposing the desired amendments have been placed as Annexure P-l and the notification approving the amendments by the Executive Council has been placed as Annexure P-2. 3. The case of the petitioners as projected by them in the writ petition is that the amendments carried out are wrong, harmful to the public interest, vague, discriminatory, ultra vires and illegal and have been taken through without following proper procedure as laid down in the University Act. According to the petitioners, the respondent-University had two sets of the Departments of Studies and this was in terms of the Statute 13 (1) (iii) read with Ordinance 1.1 in the subjects of Commerce, Economics, Education, English, Hindi, History, Mathematics, Political Science and Sanskrit. The first set popularly termed as Directorate of the Correspondence Courses and the second set is stated to be the Post Graduate Centre. It is further stated that in the Department of the Directorate of Correspondence Courses, there are about 40 teachers available though the sanctioned strength is 50. The number of teachers in the Post Graduate Centre in the same Department is about 60. The teachers in the Department of the Directorate of the Correspondence courses are said to be catering to not less than 10,000 students spread all over the country and their number is quite high, whereas the teachers in the Department of Post Graduate Centre cater to the needs of about 1000 students The teachers in the two sets of the Departments possess similar qualifications and their mode of appointment is the same. They are further said to be enjoying the same pay scales and there is a combined seniority list. Both are said to be teaching the same courses and degrees. 4. They are further said to be enjoying the same pay scales and there is a combined seniority list. Both are said to be teaching the same courses and degrees. 4. The petitioners have further pleaded that the Departments of Study in the University in both the sets as referred to above have not been established as per requirement of the Statute J3 (1) (iv) nor either of these two Departments stand specifically assigned to the Faculty. 5 The Executive Council is said to have become vigilant by a decision given by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 278 of 1986, decided on 19th May, 1986 and in order to fill up a lacuna, the Executive Council of the University adopted the amendments which have been challenged in this petition These amendments are said to be vague and ambiguous as the respondent-University had recognized the Departments of Post Graduate Centre as the Departments of Study in terms of Statute 13 (i) which has the effect of simultaneously de-recognizing the Departments of the Directorate of the Correspondence Courses as the Departments of Study in the University The amendments are further said to be disqualifying them the parts of the various faculties besides depriving the teachers belonging to the Directorate of the Correspondence Courses and the several important rights and privileges which their counter-parts enjoy in the Post-Graduate Centre The amendments proposed and accepted vide Annexures P«-l and P-2 are thus desired to be quashed by this Court. 6. In reply, the respondent-University has pleaded that the petitioners have not specifically pleaded as to how their rights and interests are affected and further how the amendments are said to be vague, discriminatory or ultra vires It is also said that the provisions relating to the existence of various Departments in the University are clear. There are two sets, academic and institutional entities for all practical and functional purposes. The comparison between the Directorate of the Correspondence Courses and other Departments as defined in Statute 13 (1) (iii) is said to be ill-founded and misconceived. It is further stated in the reply that realising the lacunae in the creation of regular teaching Departments, the relevant Statutes and Ordinances have been amended and notified. 7. The comparison between the Directorate of the Correspondence Courses and other Departments as defined in Statute 13 (1) (iii) is said to be ill-founded and misconceived. It is further stated in the reply that realising the lacunae in the creation of regular teaching Departments, the relevant Statutes and Ordinances have been amended and notified. 7. In order to appreciate the points that are agitated before us, it would be useful to reproduce hereunder the existing provisions and the proposed amendments which stand approved by the Executive Council of the University as given in Annexure P-i : — "State 13 (1) (iv) Statute 13 (I) (iv) Existing provisions Proposed Amendments "No department shall be established or abolished except by statutes." The existing sub-clause (iv) to Clause (1) of statute 13 be read as sub-clause (iii) with the following addition :— The following shall be departments of study of each Faculty in terms of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the H. P. University Act, 1970 in the University :— 1. Faculty of Languages, Humanities and Fine Arts :— (1) Department of English. (2) Department of Hindi. (3) Department of Modern European and Foreign Languages. (4) Department of Music. (5) Department of Sanskrit. 2. Faculty of Social Sciences :— (1) Department of Economics. (2) Department of History. (3) Department of Pol. Science. (4) Department of Psychology. 3. Faculty of Science :— (1) Department of Bio-Sciences. (2) Department of Chemistry. (3) Department of Mathematics. (4) Department of Physics, 4. Faculty of Education :— (1) Department of Education, 5. Faculty of Law :— (1) Department pf Law. 6. Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration:— (i) Department of Commerce and Business Administration. Statute 13 (1) (iii) Statute 13 (1) (iii) Existing Provisions Proposed Amendments "Each Faculty shall consist of such departments of study as may be assigned to it by the ordinances," The existing sub-clause (iii) to Clause (1) of Statute 13 be read as sub-clause (iv) with the following substitution:— (iv) Each Faculty shall consist of such subjects as may be assigned to it by Ordinance 1.1 of the First Ordinances of H. P. University Statute 3 (1) Existing Provisions Statute 3(1) Proposed Amendments There shall be Dean of each Faculty who shall be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor. The Deans shall be appointed in rotation, by seniority amongst all the Professors of the different departments comprising of Faculty for a period of two years." The main para of Statute 3 (1) be substituted by the following :-— "There shall be Dean of each Faculty who shall be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor. The Deans shall be appointed in rotation, by seniority amongst all the Professors of the different departments comprising the Faculty in terms of sub clause (iii) to Clause (1) of Statute 13 for a period of two years. Statute 3 (1) Last proviso Existing proviso Statute 3 (1) Last proviso Proposed amendment Provided further that Director-cum-Principal, of Medical College, Shimla shall be ex officio Dean, Faculty of Medical Sciences and the Faculty of Ayurveda, The existing last proviso to Statute 3(1) be substituted as under :— "Provided further that Director-cum-Principal of Medical College, Shimla shall be ex officio Dean, Faculty of Medical Sciences and the Faculty of Ayurveda and the Principal of Regional Engineering College, Hamirpur shall be ex officio Dean, Faculty of Engineering and Technology." Amendment of Ordinances Chapter I Existing provisions Amendment of Ordinances Chapter I Proposed Amendments “DEPARTMENTS OF STUDIES." The words appearing “DEPARTMENTS OF STUDIES" in the title of Chapter I of H. P. University Ordinance be deleted. Ordinance 1.1 Existing Provisions Ordinance 1,1 Proposed Amendments 1.1 First Statute 13 (3) :- The Depart-ments of studies shall be assigned to the various Faculties as follows : The existing ordinance 1.1 be substituted as under:— 1.1 : The subject as and when started shall be assigned in terms of Statute 13 (1) (iv) of the First Statutes of University to various Faculties as follows:— I. Faculty of Languages, Humanities and Fine Arts : (1) Sanskrit. (2) Hindi and other Modern Indian Languages. (3) English. (4) French. (5) German, (6) Russian. (7) Music. (8) Drawing and Painting. (9) Pahari Language of Culture. (10) Bhoti 2. Faculty of Social Sciences : (1) Philosophy. (2) Psychology. (3) History. (4) Political Science. (5) Economics. (6) Geography. (7) Sociology and Social Anthropology. (8) Home Science (for girls only). (9) Public Administration. 3. Faculty of Science : (1) Physics. (2) Chemistry. (3) Mathematics and Statistics. (4) Botany. (5) Zoology. (6) Microbiology. (7) Geology. (8) Physical Anthropology. (9) Mining and Metallurgy. (10) Home Science. (11) Computer Science. 4. Faculty of Education : (1) Education, (2) Physical Education. 5. (7) Sociology and Social Anthropology. (8) Home Science (for girls only). (9) Public Administration. 3. Faculty of Science : (1) Physics. (2) Chemistry. (3) Mathematics and Statistics. (4) Botany. (5) Zoology. (6) Microbiology. (7) Geology. (8) Physical Anthropology. (9) Mining and Metallurgy. (10) Home Science. (11) Computer Science. 4. Faculty of Education : (1) Education, (2) Physical Education. 5. Faculty of Law: Law. 6. Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration: (1) Commerce. (2) Business Administration. 7. Faculty of Medical Sciences : (I) Medical Sciences. Existing proviso to Ordinance 1.1 Provided that the Executive Council shall have the power to transfer a Department from one Faculty to another Faculty. Be added as proviso V of Statute13(1). Approved as above, and recommended to the Honble Chancellor for assent." 8. Under the definitions contained in section 2, "Faculty" means a Faculty consisting of an allied group of subjects constituted by the Executive Council Under section 3, the University is said to be a body corporate. Section 18 provides for authorities of the University. Under section 22, there is a provision for the Academic Council and this provision as contained in the Act is reproduced hereunder :— "22. Academic Council.—(I) The Academic Council shall be the academic body of the University. (2) The constitution of the Academic Council and the term of office of its members shall be as laid down in the Statutes. (3) The Academic Council 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 and methods of instruction, evaluation, education, examination and research in the University, prescribe courses of study and shall exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be conferred or imposed upon it by the Statutes, (4) The Academic Council shall have the right to advise the Executive Council on all academic matters." 9. Thereafter comes the provisions in respect of Faculties as given in section 23 and it reads as under :—? "23. Faculties.—{1) The University shall constitute such Faculties and each Faculty shall have such departments of study as may be prescribed. (2) The constitution and powers of Faculties shall be, as prescribed by the Statutes." 10. Thereafter comes the provisions in respect of Faculties as given in section 23 and it reads as under :—? "23. Faculties.—{1) The University shall constitute such Faculties and each Faculty shall have such departments of study as may be prescribed. (2) The constitution and powers of Faculties shall be, as prescribed by the Statutes." 10. The reading of section 22 as reproduced above shows that the Academic Council shall have the right to advise the Executive Council on all academic matters, Under section 13, where the provisions have been made for the establishment of Faculties, it is said that the University shall have such Faculties as may be prescribed by these Statutes. Sub-clause (iv) of section 13 prescribes "No department shall be established or abolished except by the Statutes". Under sub-section (5), it is prescribed that Faculties shall have such powers and shall perform such duties as may be assigned to them by these Statutes and Ordinances. They shall also consider and make such recommendations to the Academic Council on any question pertaining to their respective spheres of work, as may appear to them necessary or on any matter referred to them by the Academic Council. 11. The grievance made is that the amendments carried out by the respondents are not in consonance with the procedure laid down by the Statutes. 12. Section 26 lays down as to how the Ordinances are to be made. It also provides for the amendment of the Ordinances, repeal or addition to it by the Executive Council and nothing contained is to be done except after consultation with the Academic Council. 13. It is thus sought to be projected that the impugned amendments have been carried out without consultation with the Academic Council. 14. Thereafter comes the provisions contained in section 38 relating to Statutes It is given thereunder that the Statutes may provide for or any of the matters which are named therein. Then comes another important provision as to how the Statutes are to be made and this provision is contained in section 39 of the Act, It would be useful to reproduce this provision in verbatim:— "39. Statutes how to be made.—(I) The first Statutes shall be made by the Government and a copy thereof shall be laid before the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly. Statutes how to be made.—(I) The first Statutes shall be made by the Government and a copy thereof shall be laid before the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly. (2) The Executive Council may, from time to time, make new or additional Statutes or may amend or repeal the Statutes in the manner hereinafter provided in this section : Provided that the Executive Council shall not make any Statute or any amendment of a Statute affecting the status, powers or constitution of any existing authority of the University, until such, authority has been given an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the proposal, and any opinion so expressed shall be in writing and shall be considered by the Executive Council. (3) Every Statute or addition to the Statute or any amendment or repeal of the Statute shall require the approval of the Chancellor, who may assent thereto or withhold assent of remit to the Executive Council for reconsideration. (4). A new Statute or a Statute amending or repealing an existing Statute shall have no validity unless it has been assented to by the Chancellor." 15. A reading of this provision makes out that the first Statute and the first Ordinance as provided in section 40 has to be made by the State Government and thereafter amendment, repeal or addition in the Statutes and Ordinances is to be carried out in the manner prescribed as aforesaid. The proviso to sub-section (2) of section 39 prescribes that the Executive Council shall not make any Statute or amendment unless or until such authority has been given an opportunity of expressing opinion on the proposals in writing which shall be considered by the Executive Council. It is after the expression of opinion and that too after affording an opportunity in writing that the matter is to be considered by the Executive Council, Identical provision is made in section 40 dealing with the Ordinances We further think it useful to take notice of Statute 12 (iv) (f) which prescribes that in order to recommend to the Executive Council in respect of the introduction of new subjects or opening of new departments in a particular Faculty /Faculties, the Academic Council shall evaluate the performance of the existing Faculty /Faculties before finally recommending to the Executive Council The proviso has also an important bearing on the matter in issue. It prescribes "Provided that if the Executive Council disagrees with the Academic Council, it may adopt the draft in an amended form or reject it by a two-third majority of the members present and voting, and if the two-third majority is not available, the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor whose decision shall be final". 16. In respect of the formation of the Faculties by the University as may be prescribed by the Statutes, all the Departments of Study in the University shall have a Departmental Council consisting of teaching staff of the concerned Department, Under Ordinance I. If the Departments of Study and the subjects are mentioned. Ordinance 24 5 contained in Hand-Book, Volume II prescribes. "No matter affecting any Faculty shall be disposed of by the Academic Council or the Executive Council without its having been first referred to the concerned Faculty or Faculties for opinion. In case of doubt the Vice Chancellor shall decide what matter shall be referred under this paragraph to any Faculty". 17. A combined reading of the aforesaid provisions thus creates discrimination as projected by the petitioners in the writ petition, The amendments as we look at the matter have not been carried out in accordance with the procedure as laid down by the relevant Statutes and for ready reference, we have taken out those provisions and the same have been reproduced in the earlier part of the Judgment. The reading further makes out that there is a well set procedure of discussion, inviting objections and opportunity to be granted to the various Faculties and the Academic Council before the amendments are to be carried out to its final shape. We quite see that the respondent-University has made extensive changes in the formation of the Faculties through the impugned amendments. The Faculties stand fully defined as referred to above and by these amendments, we see that lot of changes have been made in the Faculties. The amendments thus made on the face of it are not in accordance with the prescribed procedure as these amendments have the result of abolition of the Faculties which were existing before the amendments, the changes in the constitution of the Faculties and the change in the Departments as prescribed under the unamended provision. 18. The amendments thus made on the face of it are not in accordance with the prescribed procedure as these amendments have the result of abolition of the Faculties which were existing before the amendments, the changes in the constitution of the Faculties and the change in the Departments as prescribed under the unamended provision. 18. On a reading of the provisions as contained in the H P. University Act, 1970 as amended and also from the Hank-Book, Volumes I and II, we are o the opinion that the structure of the University is democratic and spirit by separation of powers and division of functions. No authority has been vested with absolute or unlimited powers. The authorities have to be complimental and supplemental to each other so as to work in co-ordination with each other We are also of the opinion that the Executive Council cannot be permitted to act in an autocratic manner and against the spirit of the Act, Statutes and Ordinances governing the functioning of the University. The Statute 12 (4) prescribes that the Academic Council in addition to all other powers vested in it, shall have the additional powers to make recommendations to the Executive Council in respect of a new subject or opening of a new Department in a particular Faculty. The Statute by itself prohibits the establishment or abolition of the Faculties/Departments except through proper procedure as laid down in the Statutes The constitution and powers of the Faculties are also prescribed by the Statutes The petitioners who hold the responsible positions in the University have the locus standi to tile the writ petition in the interest of the institution to see that its management and functioning is carried out by those who man it in accordance with well set rules of procedures. The writ petition thus cannot be said to be frivolous on that account. They have thus sufficient interest to maintain a legal action within the constitutional provisions to get the things done in proper shape, 19. The writ petition thus cannot be said to be frivolous on that account. They have thus sufficient interest to maintain a legal action within the constitutional provisions to get the things done in proper shape, 19. Consequently, we hold that the impugned amendments as carried out vide Annexures P-l and P-2 are not in consonance with the prescribed procedure and are hereby quashed This, however, will not prohibit the respondents to make suitable amendments as are necessitated by the situation, but this shall have to be carried out in the light of the well set rules contained in the Statutes, Hand-Books and the Ordinances. The concerned authorities shall ensure before the amendments are carried out that proper procedure, is followed. 20. Before parting with the judgment, we would like to add a word of caution that nothing contained here in the judgment shall affect the rights of the students who are presently undergoing courses in different Faculties of the University. They shall be allowed to complete their courses. The writ petition is consequently allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs. Petition allowed.