S. R. SINGH AND D. R. CHAUDHARY, JJ. ( 1 ) BY means of the present petition, the petitioners have sought the relief of a writ of quo-warranto-setting aside the appointment and removing the 4th respondent from the office of the Principal, Dayanand College of Law. Kanpur and also a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the recommendations of the respondent No. 2 dated 3. 8. 1995 and the order of appointment dated 11. 12. 1995 made in favour of 4th respondent. ( 2 ) DAYANAND College of Law, Kanpur [in short the college] comes within the purview of the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980. To begin with, vacancy in the post of principal of the College was publicised on 31st January, 1995. The 4th respondent, who was one of the applicants for the post in question, was recommended by the Higher Education Services commission vide notification dated 3. 8. 1995 and as a sequel thereto, the Board of Management of the College issued appointment letter dated 11. 12. 1995 in favour of the 4th respondent who joined the College as its Principal. The writ petition was initially instituted by the Board of management, Dayanand College of Law, 15/53 Civil Lines, Kanpur Nagar, through Sri Jagendra swarup who claimed himself to be the Secretary of the Board of Management. A preliminary objection was brought to bear on behalf of the 4th respondent the quintessence of which is that sri Jagendra Swarup was not the Secretary of the Board of Management and hence he was not entitled to institute the petition on behalf of the Board of Management. The application filed on behalf of Sri Jagendra Swarup son of late Sri Virendra Swarup resident of 15/69 Civil Lines, kanpur, for being impleaded as petitioner, was, however, allowed vide order of dated 6. 11. 2000 thereby providing that the petition would be deemed to have been instituted by Sri Jagendra swarup in his individual capacity without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties as to who is entitled to represent the Board of Management of the College. Application filed by the board of Management, Dayanand College of Law, 15/53 Civil Lines, Kanpur Nagar, through its secretary Sri Nagendra Swarup for impleadment too received approbation of the Court vide aforestated order dated 6. 11. 2000. Application filed by the board of Management, Dayanand College of Law, 15/53 Civil Lines, Kanpur Nagar, through its secretary Sri Nagendra Swarup for impleadment too received approbation of the Court vide aforestated order dated 6. 11. 2000. ( 3 ) WE have heard Sri R. N. Singh, senior advocate assisted by S/sri A. P. Sahi and Yashwant verma for the petitioners and Sri Vijai Bahadur Singh for the 4th respondent and Sri P. S. Baghel for Sri Nagendra Swarup. Nucleus of the submission canvassed by Sri R. N. Singh is that dr. M. P. Singh was not qualified for being appointed as Principal of the Law College having regard to Rule 15 of the Rules made by the Bar Council of India, In vehement opposition. counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the 4th respondent was equipped with requisite qualification for the post as envisaged under the statutes applicable to the College and rule 12 of the Rules (wrongly quoted as Rule 15 in the writ petition) made by the Bar Council of india would not invalidate the appointment for it was beyond the competence of the Bar Council of India to lay down qualifications of teachers including principal of an affiliated/associated college. ( 4 ) WE have bestowed our anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Writ of quo-warranto is issued in relation to a public office/post-where the respondent is not legally qualified to hold the post or where the appointment has been made in antagonism of some statutory provisions which cannot be cured as an irregularity so that the title to the office becomes invalid or without Jurisdiction. University of Mysore v. Govind, AIR 1965 SC 491 ; Chandra Prakash v. Chaturbhuj, (1969) SC (CA 2331 of 1968 dated 18. 12. 1969 ). Indubitably, the post of Principal is a public office in respect of which a writ of quo-warranto can issue. The question that surfaces for consideration is whether the 4th respondent was qualified for appointment to the post of Principal of the Law College. (Question is whether Masters degree in law was essential for appointment to the post of Principal of the College ). Concededly, the 4th respondent falls short of being a law graduate. As stated supra, the College comes within the purview of the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980. (Question is whether Masters degree in law was essential for appointment to the post of Principal of the College ). Concededly, the 4th respondent falls short of being a law graduate. As stated supra, the College comes within the purview of the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980. Section 12 (1) of the act provides that every appointment as a teacher of any college shall be made by the management in accordance with the provisions of the Act and "every appointment made in contravention thereof shall be void. " teacher in Section 12 includes Principal. The procedure for appointment of teachers as prescribed by the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services commission (Procedure for Selection of Teachers) Regulations, 1983, was duly followed in the appointment of the 4th respondent. The only ground on which the writ of quo-warranto is sought to be issued is that the 4th respondent was not equipped with Masters degree in law and, therefore, he lacked the requisite qualification for being appointed to the post of Principal of the law College. This ground of challenge, however, does not stand the test of Regulation 3 of the u. P. Higher Education Services Commission (Procedure for Selection of Teachers) Regulations. 1983, which postulates that the minimum qualification for appointment of a teacher shall be as given in the Statutes referred to in Section 50 of the U. P. State Universities Act. 1973. Statutes, it is specifically by Section 49 of the U. P. State Universities Act. 1973, shall provide for "the classification and recruitment (including minimum qualifications and experience)" of teachers, among other things mentioned therein. The college in question is affiliated to the Chhatrapati sahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur (in short the kanpur University ). The minimum qualifications for the post of Principal of Colleges affiliated to Kanpur University as prescribed by the Statute 11. 14 are abstracted below : "11. 14. The college in question is affiliated to the Chhatrapati sahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur (in short the kanpur University ). The minimum qualifications for the post of Principal of Colleges affiliated to Kanpur University as prescribed by the Statute 11. 14 are abstracted below : "11. 14. In the case of any college affiliated to the University the following shall be the minimum qualifications for the post of Principals for a (1) Degree College : (a) a consistently good academic record (that is to say, the overall record or all assess-ments throughout the academic career of a candidate) with first or high second class (that is to say, with an aggregate of more than 54 percent marks) Masters de-gree, or an equivalent degree of a foreign University in one of the subject taught in the college or in a subject allied or inter-connected therewith ; and (b) a doctorate degree in one of the subjects taught in the college, with 7 years experi-ence of teaching de-gree class ; provided that if a candidate possesses 12 years or more experience of teaching degree classes or 7 years or more experience of post-graduate class, or if he is or has been a confirmed Principal of four years or more standing of any Degree College the Selection Committee may relax the requirement of doctorate degree. Provided further that if the Selection Committee is of the view that the researches work of a candidate as evident either from his thesis or from his published work is of a very high standard it may relax any of the qualifications prescribed in sub-clause (a ). Provided further that if the Selection Committee is of the view that the researches work of a candidate as evident either from his thesis or from his published work is of a very high standard it may relax any of the qualifications prescribed in sub-clause (a ). (2) Post Graduate College : (a) a consistently good academic record (that is to say, the overall record of all assessments through the academic career of a candidate with first or high second class (that is to say, with an aggregate of more than 54 percent marks) Masters degree, or an equivalent degree of a foreign university in one of the subjects taught in the college ; and (b) a doctorate degree in one of the subjects taught in the college with 7 years experience of teaching post graduate classes or 5 years experience of Principalship of a degree college : provided that if a candidate possesses 10 years experience of teaching post-graduate classes or 20 years or more experience of a degree college or 7 years experience of Principalship of a degree college or if he is or has been a confirmed Principal of five years or more standing of any post-graduate College, the Selection Committee may relax the requirements of doctorate : provided further that if the Selection Committee is of the view that the research work of a candidate as evident either from his published work is of a very high standard it may relax any of the qualifications prescribed in sub-clause (a ). Admittedly, by subsequent amend -ments, the work "consistently" and the expressions "in one of the subjects taught in the college or in a subject allied or inter connected thereto" and "m one of the subjects taught in the college" occurring in Statute 11. 14 of the Statutes have been omitted. Respondent after Dr. M. P. Singh did possess the minimum qualification prescribed under Statute 11. 14 of the Statutes and the appointment to the post of Principal was made in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission Act and the regulations made thereunder. Therefore, assaying on the anvil of the U. P. Higher Education act, 1980, the appointment of Dr. 14 of the Statutes and the appointment to the post of Principal was made in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission Act and the regulations made thereunder. Therefore, assaying on the anvil of the U. P. Higher Education act, 1980, the appointment of Dr. M. P. Singh to the post of Principal of the Law College cannot be said to be invalid and by that reckoning, he cannot be branded as interloper in the office so as to warrant issuance of a writ of quo-warranto. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, it has been canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that Dr. M. P. Singh did not possess Masters degree In law-the requisite qualification prescribed by Rule 12 of the Rules made by the Bar Council of India in exercise of power under Section 7 (h) and 49 (1) (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and hence, he shall be deemed to be an usurper of office. Relevant rule made by the Bar Council on which reliance has been placed for the petitioner reads as under : "full-time teachers of law including the Principal of the college shall ordinarily be holders of a masters degree in law and where the holders of Masters degree in law are not available, persons with teaching experience for a minimum period of 10 years in law may be considered. Part-time teachers other than one with LL. M. degree shall have a minimum practice of five years at the bar. " Admittedly, respondent Dr. M. P. Singh does not hold Masters degree in law nor is he equipped with teaching experience in law for the requisite period. If, therefore, Rule 12 of the Rules made by the Bar Council of India is anything to go by, the appointment of Dr. M. P. Singh to the post of Principal would be contrary to law. For the respondents, however, it has been submitted that the Bar Council of India has no jurisdiction to make Rules prescribing qualifications of teachers of Universities including Principals of the affiliated/associated colleges. It has also been submitted for the respondents that in any case, the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission act, 1980, the Regulations made thereunder and the statutes made under the U. P. State universities Act. It has also been submitted for the respondents that in any case, the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission act, 1980, the Regulations made thereunder and the statutes made under the U. P. State universities Act. 1973, will prevail over the Rules made by the Bar Council of India by virtue of article 254 [2] of the Constitution. In our considered view, the submissions made for the respondent-Dr. M. P. Singh are loaded with substance. The U. P. State Universities Act, 1973, vide Section 49 (d) read with Section 50, visualizes that statutes shall provide for the classification and recruitment (including minimum qualifications and experience) of Principals and other teachers of affiliated/ associated colleges. Advocates Act, 1961, on the other hand, is a general enactment relating to legal practitioners and provides for the constitution of Bar Councils and an All India Bar. It is true that one of the enumerated functions of the Bar Council of India, as provided in Section 7 (1) (h) is "to promote legal education and to lay down standards of such education in consultation with the Universities in India imparting such education" for the discharge of which function, the Bar Council of India is clothed with power under Section 49 (d)to make Rules prescribing the standards of legal education to be observed by Universities in india but such provision, in our opinion, is too general to override the specific provision in the u. P. State Universities Act, 1973, that classification and recruitment (including minimum qualifications and of experience) of Principal and other teachers of affiliated/associated colleges shall be such as may be prescribed by Statutes. Bar Council of India can, of course, give its suggestion regarding qualifications of Principals of law colleges to the concerned University and albeit it would be proper for the Universities to implement the suggestions of the Bar Council of india but so long as its suggestions are statutorily not adopted by the Universities, appointments cannot be invalidated merely because qualifications suggested by the Bar Council of India in its rules are not satisfied. Rules of Bar Council of India cannot be given predominance over statutes made under Section 50 of the State Universities Act. 1973. Scope of Section 7 (h) of the advocates Act, 1961, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in V. Sunder v. Bar council of India, (1999) 2 SCC 176. Rules of Bar Council of India cannot be given predominance over statutes made under Section 50 of the State Universities Act. 1973. Scope of Section 7 (h) of the advocates Act, 1961, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in V. Sunder v. Bar council of India, (1999) 2 SCC 176. It has been held therein as under :"the words "universities in India imparting such education" as found in clause (h) of sub-section (1) leave no room for doubt that the question of imparting legal education is entrusted to the Universities in India and not to the Bar Council of India. All that the Bar Council of India can do is to suggest ways and means to promote such legal education to be imparted by the Universities and for that purpose, it may lay down the standards of education, syllabi in consultation with the Universities in India. It is, therefore, difficult to appreciate how for promoting legal education through the Universities imparting legal education in India, the Bar council of India can itself take up the role of laying down pre-enrolment training for applicants seeking, to enter the legal profession by getting enrolled under Section 24 of the Act. " And further :"a mere look at the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the rule-making power entrusted to the Bar Council of India by the Legislature is an ancillary power for fructifying and effectively discharging its statutory functions laid down by the Act. Consequently, rules to be framed under section 49 (1) must have a statutory peg on which to hang. If there is no such statutory peg, the rule which is sought to be enacted de hors such a peg will have no foothold and will become stillborn. . . . . " ( 6 ) FROM the above, it would be clear that in the garb of promoting legal education, the Bar council of India cannot regulate conditions of recruitment of teachers and their qualifications - a function specifically covered by the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973. There is yet another reason why we are of the view that qualification prescribed by statutes would prevail over those prescribed by Rule 12 of the Rules made by the Bar Council of India. The Uttar Pradesh State universities Act. There is yet another reason why we are of the view that qualification prescribed by statutes would prevail over those prescribed by Rule 12 of the Rules made by the Bar Council of India. The Uttar Pradesh State universities Act. 1973, was originally enacted as Presidents Act 10 of 1973 during the presidents Rule in the State in exercise of power under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh State legislature (Delegation of Powers) Act, 1973, but subsequently, the said Act was amended and re-enacted by the U. P. Act 29 of 1974 which received the assent of the President on September 25, 1974. Article 254 (2] of the Constitution provides that where a law made by the Legislature of State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent list, contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received its assent, prevail in the state provided of course that nothing in clause (2) of Article 254 shall prevent the Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State. education and legal profession are covered by entries 25 and 26 respectively of the List III of the Seventh schedule. From this reckoning, the provisions contained in U. P. Higher Education Service commission Act and those of the U. P. State Universities Act and the Statutes made thereunder will prevail over the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Rules made by the Bar Council of India in exercise of powers under Section 7 (h) read with Section 7 (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961, to the extent of repugnancy. ( 7 ) THERE is no inconsistency between the Advocates Act. 1961 and the U. P. State Universities act, 1973. ( 7 ) THERE is no inconsistency between the Advocates Act. 1961 and the U. P. State Universities act, 1973. Incongruity, if any, is with respect to the qualifications prescribed for the post of principal in the Rules made by the Bar Council in exercise of powers under the Advocates Act, 1961, on one hand and the Statutes made in exercise of powers under Section 49 read with section 50 of the U. P. State Universities Act on the other. In the course of arguments, a question cropped up as to whether Article 254 of the Constitution will be attracted in the event of there being any repugnancy with the subordinate legislation made under the Central Act and the State acts of a matter falling in the concurrent list. In Kerala State Electricity Board v. Indian aluminimum Company. AIR 1976 SC 1031 , followed in M/s. Ram Chandra Mewa Lal v. State of U. P. . AIR 1987 SC 1837 , it has been held that the Article contemplates Presidential assent only to laws made by the Legislature of a State and it does not contemplate Presidential assent to notifications issued under an enactment made by the State Legislation. Sri R. N. Singh, however, submitted across the bar that Article 254 of the Constitution would apply even in relation to subordinate legislation albeit there is in fact no inconsistency between the qualifications made by the Bar Council of India and those prescribed under the Statutes made by the U. P. State universities Act. Sri Singh has placed credence on State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhinyaman education and Research Institute and others, 1995 (4) SCC 104 . The question as to whether article 254 will apply in respect of subordinate legislation as well, lingers within the domain of doubt. However, we do not consider it essential to delve into this question in view of our conclusion that the Bar Council of India has no jurisdiction to prescribe qualifications for appointment of teachers including Principal of an affiliated or associated college. The fact that the Affiliated/associated College happens to be a law college will make no difference. One of functions of the Bar Council of India as enumerated in Section 7 (1) (h) of the Advocates Act. The fact that the Affiliated/associated College happens to be a law college will make no difference. One of functions of the Bar Council of India as enumerated in Section 7 (1) (h) of the Advocates Act. 1961, is to promote the legal education and to lay down the standard of such education in consultation with the Universities in India imparting such education. Section 49 of the said Act empowers the Bar Council of India to make Rules for discharging its functions. Such Rules may prescribe, inter alia. "the standards of legal education to be observed by Universities in India and the inspection of Universities for that purpose. " The power to make Rules prescribing the standards of legal education to be observed by the Universities in India, in our opinion, does not include the power to prescribe qualifications for appointment of teachers in Universities and affiliated colleges and for that purpose, the U. P. State Universities Act. 1973, would be treated as special law having over-riding effect over the Advocates Act. 1961 and the Rules made by the bar Council of India. In such view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the respondent Dr. M. P. Singh is not an interloper or usurper of office and the writ of quo-warranto prayed for, cannot be issued. ( 8 ) AS a result of foregoing discussions, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs to be borne by the respective parties. .