Judgment : 1. The petitioner-association has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order in G.O.Ms.No.III, Higher Education, dated 24.3.1999 insofar as it relates to paragraph -2 of Annexure-II to the said order. 2. The petitioner-association has filed this writ petition on behalf of the aided colleges. The Government in the impugned order dated 24.3.99, accepting the recommendations of the University Grants Commission implemented the revision of scales of pay with effect from 1.1.1996. While implementing the said revision of scales of pay, the Government decided to prescribe educational qualifications for the posts of Lecturers, Senior Lecturers and Principals in the colleges. In clause (ii) to Annexure II of the impugned order, they have prescribed qualifications with respect to Principals (Grade-I and Grade-II). The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that qualifications for promotion to the post of Principal is prescribed only to the aided colleges excluding the Government colleges which cannot be sustained. He has also submitted that the Government has no jurisdiction to issue such notification especially when the said field regarding prescribing qualifications for promotion and appointment is occupied by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976. 3. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents has submitted that the impugned Government Order is only to implement the scheme framed by the University Grants Commission and under the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. Such a scheme will bind on the University and the Government and so the Government is having jurisdiction to issue such impugned order. 4. The members of the petitioner-association are aggrieved only by prescribing qualifications by the Government under the impugned order for the purpose of giving promotion or appointment to the post of principals of the aided colleges. As per clause (ii) to Annexure II of the impugned Government Order, the said qualifications will not apply to the appointment for the post of Principals in Government colleges. It is better to extract the said portion of the impugned order, which reads as follows:- “PRINCIPALS (Grade-I) (i) A Masters degree with at least 55% of marks of its equivalent grade “B” in the seven point scale. (ii) Ph.D. or equivalent qualification. (iii) A minimum total experience of 15 years of teaching/research in Universities/Colleges and other institutions of Higher Education. (ii) Ph.D. or equivalent qualification. (iii) A minimum total experience of 15 years of teaching/research in Universities/Colleges and other institutions of Higher Education. PRINCIPALS (Grade II) (i) A Master’s degree with at least 55% of marks of its equivalent grade “B” in the seven point scale. (ii) Ph.D. or equivalent qualification (iii) A minimum total experience of 10 years of teaching/research in Universities/Colleges and other institutions of Higher Education. Explanation However the Principals of Government colleges are presently being placed in two grades on the basis of the following criteria. Professor grade Principals are posted to colleges with at least two P.G. courses and a student strength of not less than 1000 Reader grade Principals are posted to other colleges. Appointment to the post of Principals is being made from among the holders of posts of Lecturers (Selection grade/Reader) in colleges. The Seniority as Selection grade Lecturer is the criteria for promotion. This system which is vogue since 1989 will continue in Government colleges.” 5. If the said Government Order is enforceable, only the persons who are having master’s degree with at least 55% marks, Ph.D., or equivalent qualification and minimum experience of 15 years of teaching/research in Universities/Colleges and other institutions of Higher Education can be appointed as Principal (Grade I). Similar qualifications also have been prescribed for the purpose of appointing Principals (Grade II). But, insofar as the appointment of Principals in Government colleges, the said qualifications need not be insisted. It is the case of the petitioner that the Government has no jurisdiction to contemplate such qualifications. So, it is necessary for us to appreciate the relevant provisions in the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976. 6. It is not in dispute hitherto the appointment of Principals has been made only on the basis of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act and Rules made thereunder. There is no dispute about this fact. Section 15 of the said Act deals with the qualifications of teachers and other persons employed in private colleges. Section 16 of the Act deals with appointment of teachers and other persons to private colleges. Section 17 of the Act deals with conditions of service, etc. of the teachers. The said provisions are extracted hereunder:- “15. Section 15 of the said Act deals with the qualifications of teachers and other persons employed in private colleges. Section 16 of the Act deals with appointment of teachers and other persons to private colleges. Section 17 of the Act deals with conditions of service, etc. of the teachers. The said provisions are extracted hereunder:- “15. Qualifications of teachers and other persons employed in private colleges:- (1) The University may make regulations, statutes or ordinances specifying the qualifications required for the appointment of teachers and other persons employed in any private college. (2) The Government may make rules specifying the qualifications required for appointment to any post, other than teachers, in any private college. 16. Appointment of teachers and other persons in Private Colleges:- (1) No person who does not possess the qualifications specified under section 15 shall, on or after the date of commencement of this Act, be appointed as teacher or other employee in any Private College. (2) Nothing contained in this section or any regulation, statute or ordinance, made under section 15 shall apply to any person who, on or before the date of commencement of this Act, is employed as teacher or other employee in any private college. 17. Conditions of service, etc. of teachers and other persons employed in private colleges:- The Government may make rules in consultation with the University regulating the number and conditions of service (including promotion, pay, allowances, leave, pension, provident fund, insurance and age of retirement and rights as respects disciplinary matters but excluding qualifications) of the teachers and other persons employed in any private college. 7. From the abovesaid provisions, it is clear that the University has to make regulations, statutes or ordinances specifying the qualifications required for the appointment. As specifically contemplated under Section 17 of the said Act, the Government is empowered to make rules in consultation with the University only with respect to promotion, pay, allowances leave, pension, provident fund, insurance and age of retirement and rights of disciplinary matters. The Government’s power to make rules with respect to the qualifications of the teachers employed in private colleges has been specifically excluded under Section 17 of the said Act. 8. Equally, Rule 11(4) (i) and (ii) of the said. The Government’s power to make rules with respect to the qualifications of the teachers employed in private colleges has been specifically excluded under Section 17 of the said Act. 8. Equally, Rule 11(4) (i) and (ii) of the said. Rules deals with promotions of teaching staff, which reads as follows:- “11-(4)(i) Promotions in respect of teaching staff shall be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal, and in respect of non-teaching staff promotions shall be made on seniority basis, provided other conditions regarding qualification are satisfied. (ii) The committee shall fill up the posts by promotion or by direct recruitment. The committee shall, while making promotion, consider the claims of all the qualified teachers in that college. If, however, none of the qualified teachers in the college is found suitable for promotion, the vacancy shall be filled up by direct recruitment by calling for applications from qualified persons through the Press or by calling for a list of candidates from the Employment Exchange by following the rule of reservation ordered by he Government from time to time for direct recruitment.” 9. The abovesaid rule also has been substituted by | the Order dated 20.1.1986 and 21.10.1986. According to the said rule, promotions in respect of teaching staff shall be made only-on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal. So, from the abovesaid provisions, it is clear that the said Act and the Rules as stated above, occupy the field with respect to appointment of teachers. The University can make regulations with respect to the qualifications, and the Government is excluded in prescribing the qualifications. When such provisions are in force, the Government cannot by administrative order alter the qualifications for the purpose of appointing principals. 10. This view of mine is supported by the decision in The Association of Managements of Private Colleges v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1997 (III) CTC 76 . While dealing with the powers of the Government to issue Government Orders, with respect to the matters covered under the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act and Rules, the learned Judges have held as follows:- 52. While dealing with the powers of the Government to issue Government Orders, with respect to the matters covered under the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act and Rules, the learned Judges have held as follows:- 52. Having regard to the tact that the field is already occupied relating to admission of students in the private unaided self-financing colleges, the impugned Government Order invoking executive power under Article 162 of he Constitution cannot be sustained.” 11. Even in the decision in Java Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner and Secretary, Govt. Higher Education Dept., 2000 (III) CTC 165, the Apex Court has; held as follows:- “22. As held in the Tamil Nadu case, the Central Act of 1987 in particular, section 10(k) occupied the filed relating the ‘grant of approvals’ for establishing technical institutions and the provisions of the Central Act also were to be complied with. So far as the provisions of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act or its statutes were concerned and in particular statute 9(7), they merely required the University to obtain the views’ of the State Government. That could not be characterised as requiring the ‘approval’ of the State Government. If indeed, the University statute could be so interpreted, such a provision requiring approval of the State Government would be repugnant to the provisions of section 10(k) of the AICTE Act, 1987 and would again be void. As pointed out in the Tamil Nadu case there were enough provisions in the Central Act for consultation by the council of the AICTE with various agencies, including the State Governments and the Universities concerned. The State Level Committee and the Central Regional Committees contained various experts and State representatives. In case of difference of opinion as between the various consultees, the AICTE would have to go by the views of the Central Task Force. These were sufficient safeguards for ascertaining the views of the State Governments and the Universities. No doubt the question of affiliation was a different matter and was not covered by the Central Act but in the Tamil Nadu case, it was held t hat the University could not impose any conditions inconsistent with the AICTE ACT or its Regulation or the conditions imposed by the AICTE. Therefore, the procedure for obtaining the affiliation and any conditions which could be imposed by the University, could not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Central Act. Therefore, the procedure for obtaining the affiliation and any conditions which could be imposed by the University, could not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Central Act. The University could not therefore, in any event have sought for ‘approval’ of the State Government. 23. Thus we hold, in the present case that there was no statutory requirement for obtaining the approval of the State Government and even if there was one, it would have been repugnant to the AICTE Act. The University statute 9(7) merely required that the “views’ of the State Government be obtained before granting affiliation and this did not amount to obtaining ‘approval’. If the University statute required ‘approval’, it would have been repugnant to the AICTE Act. Point I is decided accordingly.” 12. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents relying on the scheme issued by the University Grants Commission has submitted that they have to implement the said scheme in view of the Central Act, namely, University Grants Commission Act, 1956. He has also relied on the decision in University of Delhi v. Raj Singh, AIR 1995 SC 336 in support of the said submission. In the said decision, the Apex Court has dealt with the obligation of the Delhi University to follow the University Grants Commission’s Regulations. White dealing with the same, the Apex Court has held that the University has to follow the said regulations which were notified in the Gazette. There cannot be any dispute about the said proposition, in view of the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. If the University fails to comply with the recommendations of the Commission, under Section 14 of the University Grants Commission Act, the Commission may withhold from the University the grants proposed to be made out of the fund of the Commission. But it cannot be said that the same can be implemented on any method which is not approved in law. It cannot also be said that the said scheme has to be followed irrespective of the Act and the Rules made under the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation Act and the Rules thereunder. The said scheme has to be implemented in accordance with law and after following the procedures known to law. The Universities can regulate or frame rules under Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act. The said scheme has to be implemented in accordance with law and after following the procedures known to law. The Universities can regulate or frame rules under Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act. When the said Act specifically gives power only to the University to contemplate the qualifications, the University can make regulations to implement the scheme and the Government cannot by issuing an administrative order usurp the power of the University to whom the legislature has given power to specify qualifications for appointment of teachers. 13. Moreover, it is admitted in the counter that the said scheme issued by the University Grants Commission applies to all the teachers working in Government, aided and unaided colleges. Under the impugned order, they have exempted the said qualifications with respect to appointment or Principals or the Government Colleges. The reason stated in the counter to justify the action of the Government to dispense with the qualifications with respect to the appointment of principals in Government colleges is as follows:- “The reason for this concession given to the Government colleges alone is that all the Government colleges in the State are considered as one unit and the seniority of teachers is fixed as State level for future promotion and other benefits. Hence, the procedure of promoting them as principals on the basis of seniority whenever, they fulfil the other requirements is still followed, as per the said G.O.” 14. I am not able to accept the said reason as stated in the Government counter for granting such exemption. Even taking into consideration the stand taken by the Government with respect to the implementation of the said scheme, they have to implement it in toto. No such concession is given under the said scheme with respect to Government colleges. The fact that the Government can deviate from the said scheme itself shows that the said scheme need not be given effect to as it is. Moreover, the question of treating the post of Principals of Government colleges and the private colleges for the reasons set out above, cannot be sustained in law. 15. in view of the abovesaid facts, the impugned order in G.O.Ms.No.111, H.E. Department, dated 24.3.1999 insofar as it relates to the qualifications to the post of Principals (Grade I and II), as contemplated in clause (ii) to Annexure II of the said Government Order cannot be sustained. 15. in view of the abovesaid facts, the impugned order in G.O.Ms.No.111, H.E. Department, dated 24.3.1999 insofar as it relates to the qualifications to the post of Principals (Grade I and II), as contemplated in clause (ii) to Annexure II of the said Government Order cannot be sustained. Hence the said portion of the impugned Government Order is quashed and this writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. The connected W.M.Ps. are closed.