ORDER: The controversy centres around the right of the Vice-Chancellor of the University to be a member of the faculty of the University. The question arose when the Vice-Chancellor offered himself as a candidate for the election to the medical council of India under the category of member of medical faculty of the University for whom representation is provided in Sec.3(1)(b) of the Indian. Medical Council Act, 1956 (Central Act 102 of 1956) The relevant part of that Act reads as under: “3(1)(b): One member from each University to be elected from amongst the members of the medical faculty of the university by members of the Senate of the University or in case the University has no senate by members of the court…” University is defined in Sec.2(1) to mean any University in India established by law and having a medical faculty. The Council constituted under Sec.3, consists of one representative from each State and Union Territory in the country to be nominated by the Central Government in consultation of the State Government, subject to such nominee being one possessing medical qualifications; a member from each university in the country to be elected from among the members of the medical faculty of the university such election to be by members of the senate of the university and in the absence of senate, by the members of the court; one member from each State from among the persons enrolled on the register of medical practitioners and who possesses the medical qualifications included in the first or the second schedule or in Part II of the third schedule to the Act; seven members to be elected from amongst themselves by persons enrolled on any of the State Medical Registers who possess the medical qualifications included in the Part I of the third schedule; and eight members nominated by the Central Government. The Council thus predominantly consists of persons who possess medical qualifications. 2. The Council thus predominantly consists of persons who possess medical qualifications. 2. The representation of the University on the Indian Medical Council is required to be by a member of the medical faculty, as an University normally has many other faculties besides medicine, such as Basic Science, Social Science, Engineering, law etc., and member of such other faculties who do not possess medical qualifications would not be suitable for serving as members of the Indian Medical Council which inter alia, is charged with the responsibility of advising upon grant of recognition to medical qualifications granted by Universities in India and abroad, and maintaining the standards of medical education in the Country. 3. The question now raised is in relation to an university which is a specialised university constituted solely for the purpose of teaching and research in medical sciences. The Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Tamil Nadu, constituted under Tamil Nadu Act 37 of 1987, was constituted with the object inter alia, of providing instruction and learning in such branches of learning as it may determine in the field of medical science, and to provide for research and for the advancement and dissemination of knowledge in the field of medical sciences. 4. The petitioner who is a Professor in one of the faculties of this University contends that the Vice-Chancellor cannot be a member of any of the faculties as he is not a ‘teacher’ as defined in Sec.2(p) of the Act and only teachers can be members of the Faculties. 5. Teacher’ is defined in Sec.2(p) of the Act as meaning “such Lecturers, Readers, Assistant Professors, Professors and other persons giving instructions in the University including the University Laboratories, in affiliated colleges or approved institutions and Librarian as may be declared by statutes to be teachers.” ‘The Faculties’ is specified as one of the authorities of the University in Sec.17 of the Act. The Faculties of the University are enumerated in Sec.30 of the Act. They are the Faculty of Basic Medical Sciences; of Medicine, Paediatrics and medical speciality; of Surgery obstatrics, Gynaecology, and surgical specialities; of Community health, social sciences; and history of medicine; and such other faculty as may be prescribed by statutes. The Faculties of the University are enumerated in Sec.30 of the Act. They are the Faculty of Basic Medical Sciences; of Medicine, Paediatrics and medical speciality; of Surgery obstatrics, Gynaecology, and surgical specialities; of Community health, social sciences; and history of medicine; and such other faculty as may be prescribed by statutes. Sec.30(2) provides that the constitution and functions of Faculties shall, in other respects, be such as may be prescribed by the Regulations, The University has not so far framed Regulations regarding the constitution and function of the Faculties. The Standing Academic Board, which is also an Authority of the University and is charged with the responsibility of exercising general supervision over the academic affairs of the University under Sec.29(l) of the Act, is empowered under Sec.30(3) of the Act to appoint, on the recommendation of the General Council constituted under Sec.21 any teacher of the University as a member of a faculty. 6. The Governing council of the University has on 26.5.1995 decided that the1 Director, Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director of Medical Education are not to be considered as ‘teachers’. The Governing council subsequently revised its decision and passed a resolution later in the same year on 28.8.1995 by which it modified its earlier resolution and resolved that the Dean, Directors and Principals of all affiliated institutions be considered as teachers for inclusion in the various faculties of the University. By the same resolution it also resolved that the Director of Medical Education be also considered as teacher for appointment as President/ Member of a faculty especially in the Faculty of Community healthy, Special Science and History of medicine. 7. The present Vice-Chancellor who was the holding the post of Dean of the Madras Medical College had been informed by the University on 30.11.1994 that he had been appointed as a Member of the Faculty in the Community, Health, Social Sciences and History of Medicine for a period of three years from the date of issue of the order. During the currency of that three year period, he ceased to be a Dean and became the Director of Medical Education. During the currency of that three year period, he ceased to be a Dean and became the Director of Medical Education. While he was holding the office of Director of Medical Education, as an ex-officio member of the Governing council, he had proposed to the Governing council that the resolution of the Council of May, 1995 declaring that the Director of Medical Education is not a teacher be modified. The Governing Council modified its earlier resolution and declared that the Director of Medical Education is also a member of the Faculty, as the definition ‘teacher’ in the Act includes apart from the regular teaching staff’… other persons giving instruction in the University. 8. The 2nd respondent retired from Government Service and ceased to be Director of Medical Education in December, 1995. It is the stand of the University that though he retired as Director of Medical Education, nevertheless, he continued to be on the Faculty of the University, till the end of the academic year, which came to an end only on 31.5.1996. Before the end of the Academic year, he was appointed as Vice-Chancellor in January 1996. 9. The question regarding the election of the representative of the University to the Medical Council was considered by the Senate of the University at its meeting held on 26.7.1996. As an objection was raised that the Vice-Chancellor who, had offered himself as a candidate for the election, was not a member of the Faculty, election was not held on that day, or subsequently in view of the institution of this petition. 10. The Governing Council, after the election had been notified on 25.6.1996 and before the meeting of the Senate on 26.7.1996 had passed the impugned resolution which reads as under: “Resolved that Dr.(Major) D. Raja, Vice-Chancellor who was appointed as a Member of the Faculty of Community health, Social Sciences and History of Medicine while he was holding the post of Dean, Madras Medical College in University Letter No.Ac/IlI/ 7143/93, dated 30.11.1994 for a period of three years, and permitted to continue as a Faculty member on his appointment as the Director of Medical Education (as per resolution No. 15 of the 58th meeting of the Governing Council held on 28.8.1995) be continued as a Faculty Member.” 11. The standing Academic Board at its meeting held on 15.7.1996, accepted the recommendation of the Governing Council and resolved as under: “Resolved to accept the recommendations of the Governing Council of the University in its Resolution No.27(1) passed at the 6th meeting held on 28.6.1995 in permitting Dr.(Major) D. Raja, Vice Chancellor of the University to continue as a Faculty Member in Community Health, Social Sciences, History of Medicine in which he was appointed already in the University Lr.NQ.Ac/III/. 7143/93, dated 30.11.1994 for a period of three years from 30.11.1994.” 12. Counsel for the petitioner urged that the resolution of the governing council is mala fide and shows malice in law as the status of member of Faculty purported to be conferred on the Vice-Chancellor was passed after the election had been certified, and is plainly contrary to the definition of the teacher contained in Sec.2(p) of the Act and therefore, the resolution of the governing council dated 28.6.1996 should be quashed. 13. Counsel for the University contended that the petition is not maintainable as the resolution of the -governing council has been followed by the resolution of the Standing Academic Board, which has not been challenged; that the definition of ‘teacher’ cannot be so construed as to limit it to only persons who are teaching on a regular basis and that a person who possesses the qualification for being a teacher and had been teaching, when he was made a member of the Faculty, would continue to retain the status of the member of the Faculty for the designated term even if he ceased to be a full time teacher. 14. Counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that the Vice-Chancellor being the Academic Head of the University, it entitled to be regarded as a member of the Faculty. The Vice-Chancellor is not debarred under the provisions of the Act from teaching or being a member of the Faculty and as the election is to the medical council, and the University is a medical University, there is nothing wrong in the Vice-Chancellor being chosen as the person to represent the Medical University in the Medical Council. 15. The Vice-Chancellor is not debarred under the provisions of the Act from teaching or being a member of the Faculty and as the election is to the medical council, and the University is a medical University, there is nothing wrong in the Vice-Chancellor being chosen as the person to represent the Medical University in the Medical Council. 15. As to whether the Vice-Chancellor can properly be regarded as a Member of any of the Faculties, the Faculties being an Authority specified in Sec.17 of the Act, whether by virtue of his office or under the resolutions passed by the Standing Academic Board and the Governing Council is a matter which falls within the ambit of Sec.54 of the Act, which reads as under: “ Dispute as to election or nomination: If any question whether any person has been duly elected or nominated, as or is entitled to be, a member of any authority of the University or other body of the University, the question shall be referred to the Chancellor whose decision thereon shall be final.” 16. Counsel for the University submitted that it is the Chancellor who should decide this dispute, although in view of the pendency of this writ petition, the matter has not been referred to the Chancellor so far. I find substance in this submission. 17. The University is an academic body and the courts should be slow in interfering with the matters which fall within the ambit of the authorities constituted under the statute by which the university is constituted. The authority designated in the Statute should not normally be by-passed and not be prevented from exercising the jurisdiction vested in that authority. The authority designated under Sec.54 is the Chancellor who is the head of the University and who has intimate knowledge of the affairs and the manner of functioning of the University. The question raised is one which he is required to decide, although his decision will be subject to judicial review within well established parameters. His decision cannot be arbitrary or perverse, must be based on relevant criteria and made bona fide. 18. Prima facie the object for which the Medical Council is constituted is not in any way ill-served if the Academic head of the Medical University represents the University of the Council. His decision cannot be arbitrary or perverse, must be based on relevant criteria and made bona fide. 18. Prima facie the object for which the Medical Council is constituted is not in any way ill-served if the Academic head of the Medical University represents the University of the Council. The question as to whether the Vice-Chancellor can also be a member of one of the Faculties of this University is a matter which should be decided by the Chancellor who has been given jurisdiction to decide the same under Sec.54 of the Indian Medical Council Act. The question raised is also one of policy as the right of the Vice-Chancellor as the academic head to impart instruction to the extent that he finds it possible which discharging his other duties the Faculty in which he has specialised knowledge is a matter which should be decided by the Chancellor who is the Head of the University. 19. I therefore consider it just and proper in the circumstances, to direct the University to immediately seek the decision of the Chancellor on the question as to whether the Vice-Chancellor can properly be regarded as a member of the Faculty of the University. The University shall request the Chancellor to give his decision early as the’ University should not be deprived of its representation on the Medical Council on account of the disagreement between the petitioner and the Vice-Chancellor. It is open to the parties to seek such remedy as may be available to them in law against the decision of the Chancellor if any grievance survives. 20. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to state his point of view and bring the same to the notice of the chancellor. Petitioner may submit his representation to the University which shall forward the same to the Chancellor. 21. With these observations, this writ petition is dismissed. W.M.P. Nos.14429 and 14430 of 1996 are also dismissed. B.S. ----- Petitions dismissed.