In this Civil Rule the petitioner has challenged the Annexure IX order dated 19.1.96 issued by the 3rd respondent - Director of Public Instruction, Assam, withdrawing the notification by which the Governing Body of the SB Deorah, College was constituted and Annexure X order dated 20.1.96 constituting a new Governing Body of the said college and the Annexure XI letter issued by the President of the newly constituted Governing Body and also Annexure XII order dated 27.1.96 releasing the petitioner, the then Principal In-charge of the college and directing him to handover charge to Mrs. Malaya Barman and also prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ or a direction for quashing the aforesaid orders and notifications. 2. The subject matter of the present writ petition relates to constitution and reconstitution of Governing Body of the SB Deorah College. In the year 1984 the Ulubari College (later name as SB Deorah College) was established with due permission from Assam Higher Secondary Education Council. At that time the college was managed by a Steering Committee constituted by the public of the locality. The college at the time of filing of the writ petition had classes upto BA. The college was a venture college at that time. 3. The petitioner was a lacturer of Cotton College. He attained the age of superannuation from the Government service in Cotton College in the month of April, 1992. However, his seivices were extended till the month of November, 1992. He retired from the Cotton College as Professor. Thereafter, he was appointed Principal of the said SB Deorah College. His appointment was issued by the then President of the Steering Committee of the college. He tookover charge from Shri B. Das who served the college till then. Pursuant to the order of appointment the petitioner joined the college as Principal. At the time of filing of the writ petition the petitioner was aged about 62 years and according to him under the norms of the University Grants Commission he was entitled to be reemployed upto the age of 65 years. Mrs. Malaya Barman was also appointed teacher of the coUege at the Higher Secondary stage. Petitioner contends that she did not possess the UGC nouns to be appointed teacher of a full fledged college. Mrs. Malaya Barman was also appointed teacher of the coUege at the Higher Secondary stage. Petitioner contends that she did not possess the UGC nouns to be appointed teacher of a full fledged college. By Annexure II notification dated 14,7.94 the 3rd respondent reconstituted a Governing Body of the SB Deorah College appointing Dr. Pratap Pathak, President of the said Governing Body. By Annexure III notification dated 11.8.94, the 3rd respondent in partial modification of the earlier Annexure II notification dated 14.7.94 replaced Dr. Pratap Pathak by nominating the Deputy Commissioner of Kamrup as President of the Governing Body of the said college. According to the petitioner after reconstitution of the Governing Body attempts were made to oust the Steering Committee. In a meeting held on 27.7.95 a resolution was adopted for appointing a qualified regular Principal of the college and till such appointment petitioner was to continue as Principal. 4. The Treasurer of the erstwhile Steering Committee of the college approached this Court by filing a writ application challenging the validity of Annexure II and III notifications contending inter alia that the provisions of the Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1976 did not apply and therefore, the DPI had no authority to constitute or reconstitute a Governing Body of the said college. The said writ application (Civil Rule No.3403 of 1995) was disposed of by this Court on 18.8.95 by Annexure IV order holding inter alia that provisions of 1976 Rules were not applicable in case of the college. An appeal was preferred against the Annexure IV order passed by this Court before the appellate Bench of this Court. The appellate Court, however, did not interfere with the order passed by the Single Judge. However, the appellant was directed to move the Single Judge for review. Accordingly a review application was filed before the Single Judge for review of the order dated 18.8.95. The said review application was entertained and the said order dated 18.8.95 was reviewed and the Civil Rule was thereafter fixed for fresh hearing. Pending disposal of the said Civil Rule there were claims and counter claims by the parties interested in the Management of the said college. The writ petitioner informed the Court regarding unpleasant situations created by some persons and prayed for necessary order to bring a congenial atmosphere in the college. Pending disposal of the said Civil Rule there were claims and counter claims by the parties interested in the Management of the said college. The writ petitioner informed the Court regarding unpleasant situations created by some persons and prayed for necessary order to bring a congenial atmosphere in the college. This Court after hearing the parties directed the petitioner who was holding the charge of the Principal to manage the affairs of the college if necessary by taking help of some teachers according to his choice. This order was passed on 16.11.95 by Anaexure VII. In spite of the order, according to the petitioner certain teachers with the help of some students tried to creat disturbances and a meeting was also held in which the petitioner was threatened with dire consequences. Thereafter the 3rd respondent issued Annexure IX order withdrawing the Annexure II and III notification by which the Governing Body of the college was constituted. 5. The DPI (3rd respondent) again passed an order (Annexure X) on 20.1.96 reconstituting the Governing Body of the college for another period of three years with respondent Nos.4 to 9 as President and Members. 6. The 4th respondents issued Annexure XI notice dated 20.1.% to the petitioner which was received by the petitioner on 25.1.96. By the said notice, the 4th respondent describing himself 4 of the Governing Body would be held on 27.1.96. On 27.1.96 a meeting was held accordingly with 4th respondent as President. 5th respondent Shri Dangashi Barman and 8th respondent Shri Bangshidhar Das were present in the meeting. Its the meeting Ms. Malaya Barman, wife of Shri Dangshi Barman and Shri Niranjan Kalita, teachers of the college participated. According to the petitioner, though they participated in the meeting without any authority nothing was mentioned in the proceedings of the meeting. A decision was taken in the said meeting when the petitioner was not present. Immediately after the petitioner had left in the evening of 27.1.96, copy of Annexure XII order under the signature of the 4th respondent was sent to the petitioner. By the said Annexure XII, the petitioner was released from the service with effect from 29,1.96 and was directed to handover charge to Ms. Malaya Barman. 7. Immediately after the petitioner had left in the evening of 27.1.96, copy of Annexure XII order under the signature of the 4th respondent was sent to the petitioner. By the said Annexure XII, the petitioner was released from the service with effect from 29,1.96 and was directed to handover charge to Ms. Malaya Barman. 7. On receipt of the said Annexure XH order on 25.1.96, the petitioner contacted the 3rd respondent over phone and enquired as to whether the notification dated 20.1.96 had been issued on the basis of any order in respect of deficit grant in aid for trie college. The 3rd respondent* in reply, informed the petitioner that he received an order to that effect from the Government. He assured to give a copy of the said order to the petitioner. However, the order was not supplied. Notification dated 20.1.96 issued by the 3rd respondent, according to the petitioner, was illegal and guided by malafide intention to put Ms. Malaya Barman, wife of 5th respondent as Principal of the college. The petitioner contends that the impugned notification dated 20.1.96 issued by the 3rd respondent - the DPI, constituting the Governing Body with 7 members on the basis of the provisions of Management Rules was illegal and without jurisdiction and in utter violation of the provisions of the said Rules. The petitioner could not be released on the basis of the said order. Being aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the above Civil Rule. 8. 3rd respondent and respondent Nos.4 to 9 have filed affidavit-in-opposition controverting the averments made by the petitioner. The petitioner also has filed reply affidavit. 9. I heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 to 9. 10. Mr. PC Deka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended before me that the entire action of respondent No.3 and the notice issued by respondent No.4 releasing the petitioner from service and directing him to handover charge to Ms. Malaya Barman was illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of law. According to Mr. Deka, the 4rd respondent had no jurisdiction whatsoever to constitute or reconstitute a Governing Body of venture college. Even in deficit grant college also, the 3rd respondent had no jurisdiction to do so. 11. Malaya Barman was illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of law. According to Mr. Deka, the 4rd respondent had no jurisdiction whatsoever to constitute or reconstitute a Governing Body of venture college. Even in deficit grant college also, the 3rd respondent had no jurisdiction to do so. 11. The Government Advocate Mr. S. Kataki supported the action of the respondent No.3. The learned Government Advocate also contended that 4th respondent had the jurisdiction and powers to issue impugned notice. According to him the 4th respondent had not done anything contrary to the provisions of law by releasing the petitioner from his service and directing him to handover charge to the seniormost teacher Ms. Malaya Barman. 12. Mr. AR Barthakur, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 9 also strenuously argued in support of the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4. According to him, 3rd respondent had the full authority to constitute or reconstitute Governing Body inasmuch as the DPI had been delegated with the power to constitute or reconstitute a Governing Body after the 1976 Management Rules came into force. He had drawn by attention to the note made in Rule 3 whereby the DPI had been delegated with the power. 13. On the rival contention of the parties it is now to be seen (a) whether Annexure IX order dated 19.1.96 issued by the 3rd respondent withdrawing the office notifications dated 14.7.94 and 11.8.94 which were already quashed by this Court in Civil Rule No.3403 of 1995 was just and proper, (b) whether Annexure X order dated 20.1.96 issued by the 3rd respondent constituting the Governing Body of the SB Deorah College was hi-accordance with law, (c) whether the Annexure XI notice dated 20.1.96 issued by the 4th respondent and the Annexure XII decision taken by the Governing Body in a meeting held on 27.1.96 can sustain in law. 14. It is an admitted fact that the SB Deorah College was a venture college. The petitioner says that the college is still a venture college, but the respondent No.3 in his affidavit denies the same. 14. It is an admitted fact that the SB Deorah College was a venture college. The petitioner says that the college is still a venture college, but the respondent No.3 in his affidavit denies the same. In paragraph 3, the said respondent has stated that the averments made by the petitioner to the effect that the SB Deorah College was a venture one is not true inasmuch as the college was brought into deficit grants-in-aid system by the Government vide order dated 11.1.96 issued by the Officer on Special Duty, Government of Assam, Education Department. Learned counsel appearing for the parties, however, submitted that the provisions of the Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1976 was applicable and these Rules were made by the Government of Assam in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to clause (g) of section 21 of the Gauhati University Act, 1947 and proviso.the clause (f) of section 32 of the Dibrugarh University Act, 1965. 15. In Chandra Nath Phookan vs. State of Assam & others, AIR 1995 Gauhati 115 (1995 (20 GLJ 305), this Court considered the applicability of the said Rule in respect of Aided College. While considering this aspect of the matter, this Court held that the college must receive deficit grant-in-aid from the State Govt to become an Aided College. Besides, the colleges receiving the deficit grant-in-aid were governed by the aforesaid 1976 Rules. As per Rule 1 (2), immediately after coming into force of the said Rule the Governing Bodies of Aided Colleje constituted or reconstituted or under Rule 3 of the Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1965 and Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1966 stood dissolved from the date of the aforesaid Management Rules, 1976. Therefore, at the relevant point of time, the provisions of the Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1976, for short 'the 1976 Rules' was applicable. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties it will be expedient and apposite to look to some of the relevant provisions of the said 1976 Rules. 16. Under Rule 2 of the 1976 Rules, every Government Aided College shall be governed by a .Governing Body and such Governing Body has to be approved by the Director of Public Instructions, Assam, save in cases where the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department allow as an exception under special circumstances. 16. Under Rule 2 of the 1976 Rules, every Government Aided College shall be governed by a .Governing Body and such Governing Body has to be approved by the Director of Public Instructions, Assam, save in cases where the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department allow as an exception under special circumstances. From a reading of the said Rule, it is I abundantly clear mat the Director of Public Instructions has power only to approve the constitution of a Governing Body. The Director of Public Instructions shall give such approval after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The Director of Public Instruction may not in an appropriate case approve such Governing Body. Therefore, Rule 2 of the 1976 Rules, empowers the Director of Public Instructions to approve or not to approve a Governing Body. In case of non approval of a Governing Body such Body shall not have the power to function. The plain reading of this Rule clearly indicates that Governing Body can be constituted by some body other than the Director of Public Instructions. However, in exceptional circumstances under Rule 3 of 1976 Rules, the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department, may constitute a Special Body under special circumstances, If such Body is constituted by the Secretary under such circumstances as envisaged under Rule 3, it shall consist of the members as mentioned in the said Rule 3 (a) (i) to (viii) and one of them shall be the President and one Secretary. Under Rule 3, the Government shall have the power to nominate President from the members nominated under clause (a) (vi). Again in a Deficit Aided College the Principal of the college shall be nominated by the Government with ex-officio Secretary. In Rule 3 there is a note below Rule 3 (e) which reads thus : "The power of nomination under this rule is delegated to the Director of Public Instruction, Assam." The petitioner has challenged the power of constitution or reconstitution of the Governing Body. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 9 submitted that the power of nomination under Rue 3 had already been delegated in the Rule itself at the bottom by way of a note at the time of birth of the Rule itself. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 9 submitted that the power of nomination under Rue 3 had already been delegated in the Rule itself at the bottom by way of a note at the time of birth of the Rule itself. This power of Director of Public Instructions according to the learned counsel was an original power and not a delegated one as in no circumstances the Secretary (Education) of the Government has been exercising the said power in exceptional cases. All the Governing Bodies of the Deficit Colleges of Assam are being formed by the Director of Public Instructions since 1976 and at no point of tune this has been objected from any corner. Rule 3 (a) (vi) and Rule 2 of the Rules read with the foot note would clearly indicate that the Director of Public Instructions had the power to constitute, reconstitute a Governing Body of an Aided College. Learned counsel further submitted that the Director of Public Instructions had the power to nominate five persons under sub-rule (vi) and others to be nominated/elected/co-opted by the teaehers/donors/GB Members/ University. Therefore, the DPI should constitute the Governing Body of his own and sent it to the college for co-opting/electing nominating the remaining members etc. Mr. Barthakur also submitted that the college having been brought under Deficit Scheme with effect from 11.1.96 by the Government the DPI had the power and jurisdiction to constitute/reconstitute the Governing Body as per the provisions of the 1976 Rules. 17. I have perused Rules 2 and 3. It is true that there is a note just below Rule 3 (e) as indicated above. Foot note or a mariginal note render assistance while interpreting a provision of a statute or Rule. It has, however, to be considered whether such note has got any force. Notes (be side notes or foot notes) often found printed in an Act or Rule. Foot note or a mariginal note render assistance while interpreting a provision of a statute or Rule. It has, however, to be considered whether such note has got any force. Notes (be side notes or foot notes) often found printed in an Act or Rule. In Maxwell of Interpretation of Statutes, Twelfth Edition, it has been held thus : "But the weight of the authorities is to the effect that they are not parts of the statute and so should not be considered, for they are "inserted not by Parliament nor under the authority of Parliament, but by irresponsible persons." This latter view was confirmed by the House of Lords in Chandler vs. DPP, were the side note ('Penalties for saying') to section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 was held not to restrict the wide words of the section, which made it an offence for any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety to the interests of the State to approach or be in the neighbourhood of or entry any prohibited place. The offence could, therefore, be committed by demonistrators who had no intention of saying. Lord Reid said (at pp 789,790) : "In my view side notes cannot be used as an aid to constuction. They are mere catchwords and I have never heard of it being supposed in recent times that an amemdment to alter a side note could be proposed in either House of Parliament. Side notes in the original Bill are inserted by the draftsman. During the passage of the Bill through its various stages amendments to it or other reasons may make it desirable to alter a side note. In that event I have reason to believe that alteration is made by the appropriate officer of the House - no doubt in consultation with the draftsman. So side notes cannot be said to be enacted in die same sense as the long title or any part of the body of the Act." Sometimes a marginal note will in any case be inaccurate, and it will then be "on its own merits of no assistance whatever." 18. The side notes though in some cases may indicate the intention of the Legislature, it may not always be conclusive. But then, there are certain notes which are incorporated by the Rule Making Authority. Such notes may have force. The side notes though in some cases may indicate the intention of the Legislature, it may not always be conclusive. But then, there are certain notes which are incorporated by the Rule Making Authority. Such notes may have force. But going through the notes quoted above, I find that this note cannot be said to be an original note because by this note it has been stated that the power of nomination had been delegated to the DPI, Assam. This means, such delegation took place prior to the making of the Rule. Therefore, these notes cannot be said to be notes made by the rule making authority who made the 1976 Rules. In that view of the matter, this note has got no significance at all. Besides, if the delegation is made prior to the making of the 1976 Rules, it is not known who actually delegated the power to DPI. Even assuming, if the note was there and valid, a close scrutiny of the note would clearly indicate that the power was given to the DPI for nomination under the Rules. The power of nomination under the Rule only means that the power of nomination as mentioned in the said Rule. Therefore, the note does not indicate that the DPI has been empowered to constitute or reconstitute a Rule. Besides, the rule was made in exercise of the power conferred under proviso to clause (g) of section 21 of the Gauhati University Act, 1947 and proviso to clause (f) of section 32 of the Univeristy Act, 1965. On reading of the 1976 Rules it appears that the power of making the Rule was delegated to the Governor. I have gone through the aforesaid sections of the Gauhati University Act and Dibrugarh University Act. The said section empowers the Governor to make the Rules. Therefore, the Rule making power has been delegated. 19. It is well established principle of law that besides delegation, sub-delegation is also used on an elaborate settle as an administrative technique in cases when statute confers legislative power on an agency and that agency may further delegate the Rule making power either to itself or its officers or another person or agency. But such power must be delegated. 19. It is well established principle of law that besides delegation, sub-delegation is also used on an elaborate settle as an administrative technique in cases when statute confers legislative power on an agency and that agency may further delegate the Rule making power either to itself or its officers or another person or agency. But such power must be delegated. On perusal of the relevant 1976 Rules, I find that the DPI has no authority, power or jurisdiction to constitute or reconstitute a Governing Body of an Aided College. It has been claimed by the respondents that pending disposal of this Civil Rule, the said SB Deorah College was brought under Deficit Scheme, which was however, not admitted by the petitioner. Be that as it may, by biringing the said college under Deficit Scheme, the position will not alter. Even if the college was brought under the Deficit Scheme, 4be DPI shall have no power to constitute or reconstitute a Governing Body as per the said Rules. Therefore in my opinion, the DPI has also no power of dissolution of a Governing Body unless there is an exceptional circumstances as indicated. From the records it does not appear that at the relevant time such circumstances existed. 20. It was argued by the learned counsel Mr. Barthakur that the petitioner being a retired person had no requisite qualification to continue in service after the age of 60. However, nothing was placed before me to show that in a Deficit College, the teachers cannot continue in the office after 60 years of age. But then, in this Civil Rule, the petitioner has challenged Annexure IX, X XI and XII. Regarding reconstitution of Governing Body and the appointment of respondent No.4, the decision had been taken in a meeting held on 27.1.96. The eligibility criterion of the petitioner's continuance in office is not the subject matter of the present writ application. The petitioner has challenged only constitution of the Governing Body, appointment of respondent No.4 as President on the basis of such constitution of Governing body and his removal from service by respondent No.4. In case of an appointment of a teacher under Deficit Scheme or Government Aided College for appointment or removal prior approval of DPI is also necessary. In this case, the respondent No.4 removed the petitioner after he became the President of the Governing Body. In case of an appointment of a teacher under Deficit Scheme or Government Aided College for appointment or removal prior approval of DPI is also necessary. In this case, the respondent No.4 removed the petitioner after he became the President of the Governing Body. As I have already indicated that the DPI had no authority and jurisdiction to constitute or reconstitute any Governing Body, therefore, the reconstitution of the Governing Body was illegal and without jurisdiction and the 4th respondent being the President of an illegally constituted Governing Body had no jurisdiction, whatsoever, to remove the petitioner. Besides, even if the reconstitution of the Governing Body is permissible under the Rules, there was no prior permission of the removal obtained and the. order of removal was illegal. 21. In view of the above discussions, I allow this writ petition by setting aside and quashing the Annexures IX, X, XI and XII. 22. However, before parting with the record, I make it clear that by this judgment it should not be understood that the petitioner is qualified to continue as Principal even after his completion of the age of 60. It is for the authority to see whether under the University Grants Commission Rules or under the Rules of the College under Deficit Scheme the petitioner is entitled to continue to serve as Principal or as a teacher upto the age of 65 as claimed by the petitioner. I refrain from deciding this question as this is not the subject matter of this Civil Rule. Besides, no material was placed before me in this regard at the time of hearing of this Civil Rule to come to any finding. 23. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.