Judgment :- Though the W.V.M.P.No.2086 of 2003 and W.P.M.P.No.33660 of 2003 are listed, by consent of parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal. 2. The matter relates to the election of a candidate to the Syndicate of the University of Madras viz., the first respondent. The said vacancy is to be filled up from among the members of the Academic Council. There are about 217 Academic Council members. The Principals of all colleges affiliated to the first respondent University are ex-officio members in addition to other members. For the said vacancy, election notification was issued on 22.8.2003. The election was scheduled to be held on 27.9.2003. Though the term of office is for a period of three years, in the case in question, it is only for a residual period from 27.9.2003 to 25.9.2004. 3. Pursuant to the election notification, four candidates including the petitioner, the second and third respondents filed their nominations. The nomination of one Dr.S.Gopalan was rejected leaving three valid nominations. The second respondent became successful and was declared elected in the election held on 27.9.2003. The petitioner, who was also one of the candidates contested the election, has filed this writ petition questioning the election of the second respondent by seeking a declaration, declaring the election held on 27.9.2003 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the rules and regulations of the University. 4. The election is basically challenged on the ground that the Government in G.O.Ms.No.325, Higher Education (H1) Department dated 18.8.2003 had directed that no retired teacher after the age of 62 years be appointed in any statutory or even non-statutory position in the Universities/Colleges. The said direction was issued on the basis of the guidelines of the University Grants Commission in its letter dated 9.3.2002 and after considering the resolution of the Syndicate of the University of Madras passed in its meeting held on 7.8.2002. In the said meeting the Syndicate resolved as follows:- "Resolved that the Government be addressed for their considered opinion for fixing the age limit for appointment of Principals and teachers in the self-financing colleges in the light of the University Grants Commission guidelines which stipulated the age limit as 62 years for appointment of any statutory and non-statutory position in Universities/Colleges." 5. According to Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the above decision as many as 15 candidates who had crossed the age of 62 years were ineligible to vote, as by the Government Order, they automatically ceased to hold the respective post of Principals. The permission accorded to these Principals who are ex-officio members of the Academic Council to vote, vitiates the election. For appreciation of the purport of the Government Order dated 18.8.2003, the same is extracted below:- ABSTRACT Universities-Age limit for the appointment of Principals and Teachers in the affiliated self-financing Colleges of Universities in accordance with the University Grants Commission guidelines - Orders issued. HIGHER EDUCATION (H1) DEPARTMENT G.O.Ms.No.325 Dated: 18.8.2003 Read: 1. G.O.Ms.No.319, Higher Education, dated 20.11.2001. 2. From the Registrar, University of Madras, Letter No.A.III/Age limit/1/2002/2048, dated 22.8.2002 and 18.10.2002. ORDER: The orders issued in the Government Order first read above is hereby cancelled. 2. The Under Secretary, University Grants Commission, New Delhi in his Letter No.F.3-1/97(PS), dated 9.3.2002 has stated that it has been brought to the notice of University Grants Commission that some of the Universities are appointing retired teachers to the statutory and non-statutory bodies of the University. The above matter has been examined by the University Grants Commission and decided that no retired teachers after the age of 62 years be appointed on any statutory or even non-statutory position in Universities/Colleges. Based on the above decision of the University Grants Commission, the Syndicate of Madras University at its meeting held on 7.8.2002 has considered the age limit of the appointment of Principal and teachers in the affiliated self-financing colleges of that University and resolved as follows:- "Resolved that the Government be addressed for their considered opinion for fixing the age limit for appointment of Principals and teachers in the self-financing colleges in the light of the University Grants Commission guidelines which stipulated the age limit as 62 years for appointment of any statutory and non-statutory position in Universities/Colleges." 3. The Registrar, Madras University in his letter second read above has requested the opinion of the Government on the resolution of the Universities mentioned in para 2 above. 4. The Government have examined the request of the Registrar, Madras University in detail and decided to implement the University Grants Commission guidelines. The Registrar, Madras University in his letter second read above has requested the opinion of the Government on the resolution of the Universities mentioned in para 2 above. 4. The Government have examined the request of the Registrar, Madras University in detail and decided to implement the University Grants Commission guidelines. Accordingly the Government direct that no retired teachers after the age of 62 years be appointed in any statutory or even non-statutory position in Universities/Colleges. 5. The Registrar of all Universities and the Director of Collegiate Education are requested to take necessary immediate action to implement the orders issued in para 4 above. (BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR) V.K.SUBBURAJ UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT A perusal of the said Government Order would reveal that the University Grants Commission has imposed restrictions on the affiliated self-financing colleges from making appointment of retired Principal and retired teachers who have completed 62 years to be appointed again. Prior to the said recommendation, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.319, Higher Education Department dated 20.11.2001, the date of superannuation of Principal of self-financing college was 65 years. This recommendation of the University Grants Commission was considered by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 7.8.2002 and ultimately resolved that the Government may be addressed for their opinion. After considering the recommendation of the University Grants Commission as well as the resolution of the Syndicate, the Government directed that no retired teachers after the age of 62 years be appointed in any statutory or even non-statutory position in Universities/Colleges. This direction is in the nature of prohibition in the teacher appointments and the same cannot be construed as unseating of those Principals who are already working in the various colleges even after the age of 62 years in terms of earlier service conditions as they are entitled to continue upto the age of 65 years. The Government Order refers only to the appointment of Principal and teachers and it does not relate to the appointment of members of the Academic Council. In view of the same, the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that in terms of the Government Order the Principals who are the ex-officio members of the Academic Council will cease to be the members as they are not entitled to continue as Principals after the age of 62 years cannot be accepted. In view of the same, the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that in terms of the Government Order the Principals who are the ex-officio members of the Academic Council will cease to be the members as they are not entitled to continue as Principals after the age of 62 years cannot be accepted. Factually also, none of the Principals who have crossed the age of 62 years were asked to retire placing reliance on the above Government Order, presumably because, the said Government Order would be applicable only to the fresh appointments. Hence, I find no merit in the grievance of the petitioner. Accordingly, I reject the same. 6. Coming to the second ground of challenge that some of the Principals of engineering colleges who are ex-officio members of the Academic Council are not entitled to vote after the Anna University Act has come into force, Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel drew my attention to the typed-set of papers and contended that as many as nine Principals of various private engineering colleges were allowed to vote. According to the learned counsel, the Anna University Act was enacted in the year 1978. After the said Act came into force, all engineering colleges including private and self-financing engineering colleges hitherto affiliated to University of Madras were affiliated to Anna University. These Principals were only ex-officio members of the Academic Council by virtue of their post as Principal. When once the colleges themselves are disaffiliated from University of Madras and affiliated to the Anna University after the Anna University Act has come into force, they are not eligible to vote. In this regard, the amendment made to the Anna University Act known as the Anna University (Amendment) Act, 2001 may be referred to. When once the colleges themselves are disaffiliated from University of Madras and affiliated to the Anna University after the Anna University Act has come into force, they are not eligible to vote. In this regard, the amendment made to the Anna University Act known as the Anna University (Amendment) Act, 2001 may be referred to. Section 23 of the said amendment Act refers to removal and the same reads as under:- "For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that members of the authorities of the Chennai, Madurai-Kamaraj, Bharathiar, Bharathidasan, Manonmaniam Sundaranar or Periyar University elected or nominated or otherwise as such members under the Chennai University Act, 1923 (Tamil Nadu Act VII of 1923), the Madurai-Kamaraj University Act, 1965 (Tamil Nadu Act 33 of 1965), the Bharathiar University Act, 1981 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1982), the Bharathidasan University Act, 1981 (Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1982), the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Act, 1990 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1990) or the Periyar University Act, 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1997), as the case may be, from the colleges or institutions deemed to have been affiliated to the Anna University under sub-section (5) of section 38-A of the Anna University Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1978) and holding office as such members, in any of the authorities of the University concerned immediately before the date of the commencement of the Anna University (Amendment) Act, 2001 shall continue to be such members till the term of office expires." As per the said section, members of the authorities of various Universities including the University of Madras shall continue to be such members till the term of office expires. Though in respect of the other members representing the Academic Council, the period of term is prescribed, so far as the Principals are concerned, there is no prescribed period except the reference as to their term of office viz., the Principal. The term of office in case of Principal refers only to the term of office as Principal as they are not appointed for fixed term. There is an object to allow the Principals to continue as Academic Council members even after the colleges were affiliated to Anna University. The term of office in case of Principal refers only to the term of office as Principal as they are not appointed for fixed term. There is an object to allow the Principals to continue as Academic Council members even after the colleges were affiliated to Anna University. In this regard, sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) of Section 2 of the Anna University (Amendment) Act, 2001 needs reference and the same reads as under:- "(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the statutes, ordinances and regulations continued in force under sub-section (3) or made under this Act, every person who immediately before the academic year 2001-2002 was a student of a college or institution within the University areas affiliated to, or approved or maintained by, the Chennai, Madurai-Kamaraj, Bharathiar, Bharathidasan, Manonmaniam Sundaranar and Periyar Universities or was eligible to appear for any of the examinations in engineering, technology and allied sciences of the said Universities, shall be permitted to complete his course of study in the respective Universities; and the Anna University shall make arrangements for the instruction, teaching and training for such students for such period and in such manner as may be determined by the Anna University, in accordance with the course of study, in the respective Universities, and such students shall, during such period, be admitted to the examinations held or conducted by the respective Universities and the corresponding degree, diploma or other academic distinctions of the Universities shall be conferred upon the qualified students on the result of such examinations, by the Universities concerned. (5) All colleges within the University area which immediately before the notified date,-- (a) continue to be affiliated to, or recognised by, the Chennai, Madurai-Kamaraj, Bharathiar, Bharathidasan, Manonmaniam Sundaranar and Periyar Universities, and (b) provide courses of study for admission to the examination for degrees and diplomas of the Universities specified in clause (a), shall be deemed to be colleges affiliated to the Anna University under this Act and the provisions of this Act shall as far as may be, apply accordingly. (6) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) but without prejudice to the provisions of sub-sections (3) to (5), anything done or any action taken before the notified date under any provisions of the University Acts in respect of any area to which the provisions of this Act apply shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act and shall continue to have effect accordingly unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act." These sub-sections refer to the entitlement of the students who were admitted in the engineering colleges when they were affiliated to the University of Madras. Before the students were conferred their degrees, the colleges were affiliated to Anna University. In such circumstances, those students are permitted to undergo the same syllabi framed by the University of Madras and can complete their course by taking their examinations. In this context, the role of the Academic Council member needs a reference. Section 24 of the Madras University Act, 1923 relates to the power of the Academic Council. Sub-section (f) of Section 24 reads as under:- "to make Regulations regarding courses of study, examinations and the conditions on which students of University colleges and laboratories and of (affiliated and approved colleges) shall be admitted to examinations of the University;" The Academic Council is entitled to frame regulations regarding courses of study, examinations and the conditions on which the students of University colleges and laboratories shall be admitted to examinations of the University. The Academic Council is entitled to make such regulations in the interest of students till they complete their examinations under a particular syllabus. In that event the representation of the members of the Academic Council in respect of colleges which were originally affiliated to University of Madras to continue as Principals becomes relevant. There is a corresponding Statute 2 of Chapter XIII which also refers to the same power of the Academic Council. Hence, the language used by Section 23 of the Anna University (Amendment) Act, 2001 viz., "till the term of office expires" should be read in consonance with the power of the members of the Academic Council under Section 24(f) read with Statute 2(f) of Chapter XIII of the Statutes of the University. Hence, the language used by Section 23 of the Anna University (Amendment) Act, 2001 viz., "till the term of office expires" should be read in consonance with the power of the members of the Academic Council under Section 24(f) read with Statute 2(f) of Chapter XIII of the Statutes of the University. When the above provisions are read together, the only conclusion which could be arrived is that the words "till the term of office expires" should refer only to the tenure of the office of Principal expires. Though the various engineering colleges which were originally affiliated to the University of Madras were subsequently affiliated to the Anna University by virtue of the new enactment, the members of the Academic Council in the capacity of Principals continue to be the members of the Academic Council till they attain the age of superannuation or till such time they hold the office of Principal. In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in allowing those Principals of engineering colleges who are ex-officio members of the Academic Council to vote. Hence, I find no merit in the said grievance of the petitioner. Accordingly, I reject the same. 7. The last submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the nomination of one Dr.S.Gopalan was rejected on the ground that he has crossed 62 years. When that be so, those who have crossed 62 years also should not be allowed to vote. In view of the fact that this Court has held that the G.O.Ms.No.325, Higher Education (H1) Department dated 18.8.2003 as well as the challenge to the entitlement of the Principals of various engineering colleges who were subsequently affiliated to Anna University to vote were rejected by this Court, this submission becomes only academic. Nevertheless, it must be seen that the University of Madras has come up with the stand that the nomination of the said Dr.S.Gopalan was rejected on the ground that he has already crossed 64 years and 9 months and that he would continue to hold the post only for a period of three months and the University has to conduct another election and hence the rejection of nomination on the sole ground that he has crossed 62 years. In that view of the matter also, merely because the rejection of nomination of a member of the Academic Council who has crossed 62 years, the entitlement of the other members to vote cannot be deprived of, as the right to vote is a statutory right governed by the provisions of the Act. Under the University Regulations, all the members of the Academic Council are entitled to vote to elect a candidate from among the Academic Council members to the Syndicate. Hence, allowing all the members of the Academic Council to vote in the election cannot be considered as illegal. I find no illegality or unconstitutionality in the matter of election of the second respondent. 8. For all the above reasons, I find no merit in any of the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.33660 of 2003 and W.V.M.P.No.2086 of 2003 are closed.