ORDER Arun Mishra, J. This writ petition has been filed to quash the order (P. 10) dated 16-1-2003 of appointment of respondent No. 6, Dr. Girish Verma as Principal of New Education Society, Science College, Jabalpur. It is averred in the petition that petitioner No. 1 Prof. M.S. Sandhu and petitioner No. 2 Prof. R.K. Sharma are employed in NES Science College, Jabalpur. The college is the non Government college receiving grant-in-aid run by New Education Society registered under M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. It is further averred that by virtue of eligibility, qualification and seniority Prof. M.S. Sandhu was assigned the work of Principal by the Government body in the year 1995. Respondents No. 4 and 5 had taken illegal action against certain teachers, therefore, requisition meeting was convened on 3-11-2002. Illegal action was struck down. It was resolved that Principal/Secretary of the governing body should follow the Rules and Regulations laid down in college code - statute-28 and should execute only those decisions which have been taken in the meeting of the governing body and not by individual. It is alleged that owing to the above resolution (P.2) dated 3-11-2002 in order to remove the petitioners from their post, strategy was designed. Recruitment advertisement (P.3) dated 2-1-2003 was published in newspaper "Deshbandhu" for appointment to the post of Principal of the college. It is alleged that advertisement was contrary to the statute-28 framed under M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 and M.P. Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karamchariyon Ke Veteno Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1978') and the Rules called M.P. Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karamchariyon Ki Bharti) Niyam, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1979'). Advertisement has been issued to favour certain persons which is evident from the upper age limit prescribed for the post of Principal, prescribing upper age limit of 45 years would supersede 11 seniors eligible and qualified Professors of the College. As per rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules of 1979 the institution shall make a reference to the Commissioner of Higher Education Department, M.P. (Uchha Shiksha Ayog) for the purpose of filling up of a vacancy of a teacher or employee. As per rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules of 1979 the institution shall make a reference to the Commissioner of Higher Education Department, M.P. (Uchha Shiksha Ayog) for the purpose of filling up of a vacancy of a teacher or employee. The rules of 1979 provides procedure for selection of teachers of college; according to Clause (ii) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 14, the selection for the post of Principal of non governmental educational institution shall be made by selection committee. In order to over-reach mandatory provision of recruitment of Rules of 1979. Respondents No. 4 and 5 have taken aid of statute-28 college code which is redundant provision for non governmental aided institution. Respondent No. 4 requested the Rani Durgavai Vishwavidyalaya to nominate the selection committee members from their side. A letter (P.7) was written by the University intimating that selection has to be made in accordance with the provisions of recruitment Rules of 1979 as the college is in receipt of grant-in-aid. Petitioners claim that direction in letter (P.7) was justified and in accordance with law but the same was not acceptable to respondents No. 4 and 5, therefore, they made an effort to obtain a letter (P. 8) dated 9-1-2003 by which Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya, after two days has appointed Dr. K.K. Mishra, Dean, Science faculty and Smt. Vinita Kaur Saluja, member executive council of University and Principal Mata Gujari Women College, Jabalpur, as members of selection committee under clause 17 of statute-28-college code. The constitution of the selection committee for the post of Principal, was incompetent and illegal; it was to be constituted under the Rules of 1979. The appointment has been made in violation of the rule 8 of the Rules of 1979, no nominee of college was there as the college is receiving grant-in-aid, selection committee could not have been constituted by the University under clause 17 of college code - statute-28. A return has been filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2. It is contended in the return that appointment of respondent No. 6 has not been approved as it has been made during the ban period. College has been directed to make the appointment in accordance with the Rules of 1979. A return has been filed by respondent No. 3, University. It is contended in the return by the University that no relief has been sought against the University. College has been directed to make the appointment in accordance with the Rules of 1979. A return has been filed by respondent No. 3, University. It is contended in the return by the University that no relief has been sought against the University. Initially letter was issued on 7-1-2003 to make appointment as per Rules of 1979, thereafter nominations were made to selection committee under Clause 17 of statute 28-college code. A return has been filed by respondents No. 4 and 5. It is contended in the return that petitioner No. 1 has not applied for the post, he was not fulfilling the requisite qualification. Petitioner No. 2 was eligible but did not apply for the post, thus, they cannot challenge the selection process. Selection process has been rightly held under college code, statute-28. A letter was written to the Commissioner, Higher Education, no communication was received from him, hence, the answering respondents published advertisement in daily newspapers "Hitawada" and "Deshbandhu". Corrigendum to the advertisement was issued in which the restriction of the age bar of 45 years was removed. The University has allowed the college to fill up the post of Principal in accordance with law, college code, statute-28 framed under Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam and nominated the selection committee as per communication (R.11) dated 11-1-2003, the University has cancelled letter (P.7) on 13-1-2003 by letter (R. 12), hence, the interviews were re-fixed on 15-1-2003 instead of 11-1-2003. Selection was done in presence of two nominees of the Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya. Respondent No. 6 has also filed return. It is contended in the return that he was intensively interviewed by the committee; he is duly qualified. There is no mala fide in appointing him as Principal. He has relied upon the return filed by respondents No. 4 and 5. Petitioners have filed a rejoinder reiterating that rule 8 of the Rules of 1979 has been violated. Executive Council has not approved the appointment due to the pendency of the writ petition. Approval was also sought from the Commissioner of Higher Education. Approval has not been granted. It has been mentioned in letter (P. 14) dated 21-5-2003 by the Commissioner, Higher Education that recruitment procedure shall be as per the Rules of 1979, thus, the advertisement itself was bad in law. Additional rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioners. It is contended that respondent No. 6 is not duly qualified. Approval has not been granted. It has been mentioned in letter (P. 14) dated 21-5-2003 by the Commissioner, Higher Education that recruitment procedure shall be as per the Rules of 1979, thus, the advertisement itself was bad in law. Additional rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioners. It is contended that respondent No. 6 is not duly qualified. Reliance has also been placed on section 6 of the Act of 1978 which supersedes college code - statute-28 framed under M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, governing body headed by respondent No. 5 was not genuine. Registrar, Firms and Society, has appointed Shri R.C. Kureel as Observer in New Education Society. Appointment of respondent No. 6 is opposed to law. Shri Ashok Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that selection has not been made in terms of rule 8 of the recruitment Rules of 1979 framed under the Act of 1978 as the college is receiving the grant-in-aid, it is incumbent upon to follow the procedure prescribed under the Act of 1978 and the rules framed thereunder. The University/college have not acted bonafidely, college code, statute-28 is not applicable. The selection committee was not constituted properly. Selection process is without jurisdiction. Appointment of respondent No. 6 has not been approved by the Commissioner, thus, fresh selection of Principal be directed. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2, has submitted that appointment has not been approved by the Commissioner of Higher Education as it was made during the ban period. Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Senior counsel with Shri Pushpendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, University, has submitted that the University has made the nominations in selection committee under Clause 17 of Statute 28-College Code, earlier under misapprehension, it was advised by the University to the College that selection has to be made in aided college as per the Rules of 1979. Shri A.G. Dhande, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Sudeep Chaterjee, learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 and 5, submitted that college code, statute-28 is applicable; even in the case the Rules of 1979 are held to be applicable. There was substantial compliance of the provision, thus, the selection is valid. Apart from that the petitioners have no locus standi to assail the selection process. Petitioner No. 1 is not eligible and petitioner No. 2 did not file any application for appointment. There was substantial compliance of the provision, thus, the selection is valid. Apart from that the petitioners have no locus standi to assail the selection process. Petitioner No. 1 is not eligible and petitioner No. 2 did not file any application for appointment. Shri R.K. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Rajneesh Gupta, for respondent No. 6, has submitted that selection has been held in accordance with law, no interference is called for in this writ petition. The main question for consideration is whether the selection committee constituted under college code-statute-28 framed under the M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, was competent to make the selection of Principal or the provisions of the Act of 1978 and the recruitment Rules of 1979 framed thereunder are applicable. Section 6 of the Act of 1978 clearly provides "notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or any Rules, Regulations, Bye-laws, Statutes or Regulations made thereunder on and from the appointed date, no teacher or employee shall be recruited without following the procedure prescribed in this behalf. Section 6 is quoted below: 6. Section 6 of the Act of 1978 clearly provides "notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or any Rules, Regulations, Bye-laws, Statutes or Regulations made thereunder on and from the appointed date, no teacher or employee shall be recruited without following the procedure prescribed in this behalf. Section 6 is quoted below: 6. Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or any rules, regulations, bye-law, statutes or regulations made thereunder:- (a) on and from the appointed date - (i) no post of a teacher of other employee shall be created except in such scale of pay as the State Government may, from time to time, determine and no teacher or other employee shall be recruited without following the procedure prescribed in this behalf; (ii) the teachers or employees shall have such qualifications and experience as may be prescribed and (iii) no teacher or other employee shall be dismissed or removed from service or his services terminated without prior approval of the competent authority; Provided that a teacher or other employee may prefer an appeal against his dismissal, removal or termination from service to an appellate authority as the State Government may, by notification, specify within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order by him and such authority may after holding such enquiry may deem fit in the manner prescribes may either set aside or confirm or modify the said order and pending the disposal of appeal, the appellate authority may also stay the operation of order on such grounds as it thinks fit; (iv) no teacher or other employee shall be placed under suspension for more than ninety days without prior approval of the competent authority. Provided that the competent authority shall give its approval only after holding such enquiry and within such time as may be prescribed; Rule 14 of Recruitment Rules of 1979 framed under the Act of 1978 provides constitution of the selection committee in case of Principal for non Governmental aided educational institution for higher education. Provided that the competent authority shall give its approval only after holding such enquiry and within such time as may be prescribed; Rule 14 of Recruitment Rules of 1979 framed under the Act of 1978 provides constitution of the selection committee in case of Principal for non Governmental aided educational institution for higher education. Rule 14(1)(ii) prescribes the constitution of committee thus:- 14(1) For every non-government Educational Institution for Higher education there shall be a selection Committee consisting of- (ii) in the case of Principal - (a) Kulpati..................................Chairman (b) One nominee of the Management...............................Member (c) Dean of college................................Member (d) One nominee of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayuog............Member xxx xxx xxx (2) In the case of a committee constituted under clause (i) of Sub-rule (1) no business shall be transacted at a meeting of such committee unless the chairman, one expert and two other members be present thereat and in the case of the committee constituted under clause (ii) or (iii) of that sub-rule no business shall be transacted of a meeting of the committee unless the chairman and three members be present thereat. College Code, statute-28 has no application in case of selection for a teaching post or Principal in institutions receiving grant-in-aid from State. The stand of the University in letter (P.7) dated 7-1-2003 was in accordance with law, what has transpired in the University after lawfully advising the college to make the selection under the Rules of 1979 is not understandable. It appears that respondents No. 4 and 5 prevailed over the University and got issued subsequent communication just after 2 days for making selection under college code, statute-28. The University was well aware that college is receiving grant-in-aid as mentioned in letter (P.7), hence, selection has to be made in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1978 and the recruitment Rules of 1979 framed thereunder. Accordingly the University has suggested what has to be the constitution of selection committee under the Rules of 1979. The University has suggested in letter (P.7) that under the Rules of 1979 following persons have to be the members of the selection committee: (1) Kulpati (2) Nominee of Management (3) Dean of college (4) One Nominee of Higher Education, Government of M.P. Bhopal. The University has suggested in letter (P.7) that under the Rules of 1979 following persons have to be the members of the selection committee: (1) Kulpati (2) Nominee of Management (3) Dean of college (4) One Nominee of Higher Education, Government of M.P. Bhopal. As per the selection committee constituted under the Rules of 1979 for aided institution beside Vice-Chancellor, there has to be one nominee of Management, Dean of the college and one nominee of M.P. Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog. On abolition of M.P. Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog function, has been taken over by the Higher Education Department, hence, nominee of the Higher Education Department has to be the member of selection committee. Clause 17 of statute-28-college code framed under M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam provides the constitution of the selection committee, thus, 17(1) The Selection Committee for the appointment of the Principal shall consist of- (i) the Chairman of the Governing Body - Chairman. (ii) one representative of the Governing Body nominated by it from amongst its members other than the Teacher's representatives; (iii) one of the Deans of Faculties which comprise-subjects taught/proposed to be taught in the college, nominated by the Kulpati; (iv) one person nominated by the Executive Council: Provided that in the case of the appointment of the First Principal by the Foundation Society instead of the Chairman of the Governing Body the President of the Foundation Society shall be the Chairman of the Selection Committee and one representative of the Foundations Society nominated by it from among its members shall be a member of the Selection Committee instead of the representative of the Governing Body. It is apparent from above quoted clause 17 of the statute-28 and the selection committee provided under rule 14 of the Rules of 1979 quoted above that constitution of selection committee provided under college code is totally different than the selection committee provided in the Rules of 1979. Kulpati is not a member nor any nominee of Higher Education Department is the member of the selection committee under college code, statute-28, thus, selection of respondent No. 6 which has not been approved by the Commissioner of the Higher Education with the advise to make the selection under Rules of 1979 is absolutely proper. Kulpati is not a member nor any nominee of Higher Education Department is the member of the selection committee under college code, statute-28, thus, selection of respondent No. 6 which has not been approved by the Commissioner of the Higher Education with the advise to make the selection under Rules of 1979 is absolutely proper. Selection committee was not properly constituted and the University had no right to form the selection committee for the post of Principal in aided non governmental colleges under college code-statute 28, the constitution of the selection committee was to be as provided in Rule 14(1)(ii) of the Rules of 1979. It is further provided in Rule 14(2) of the Rules of 1979 that no business shall be transacted of a meeting of the committee unless the Chairman - Vice-Chancellor and 3 members are present; Vice Chancellor was not the member. There was no nominee of Higher Education Department (Ayog), thus, I find no merit in the submission raised by Shri A.G. Dhande, learned Senior counsel and Shri R.K. Gupta, learned Senior counsel that there was substantial compliance of Rule 14(1)(ii) of the Rules of 1979. Selection committee is totally different under the Rules of 1979 then the one provided under college code and the University could not have exercised the power under college code. Coming to the submission which has been raised that the petitioners cannot maintain this writ petition as petitioner No. 1 did not possess the requisite qualification and petitioner No. 2 in spite of being eligible, did not submit his application for appointment. It is not in dispute that petitioner No. 1 is holding the post of Principal in the same college, he is to be replaced by Principal, he has personal interest in matter and petitioner No. 2 Prof. Shri R.K. Sharma was also eligible to submit application, thus, they have the interest in the matter and to see that selection is properly made of the Principal by duly constituted selection committee in accordance with law, as the petitioner No. 1 is holding the post of Principal in the same college, he cannot be said to be a person having no locus standi in the matter and petitioner No. 2 has also interest in the matter. The selection has not been properly made in accordance with the Rules of 1979, thus, I find that submission raised by the petitioners is devoid of substance. I find that petitioners have the locus sandi to maintain this writ petition. Resultantly, writ petition is allowed. The selection of respondent No. 6 having made by incompetent selection committee which was not constituted in terms of the Rules of 1979 is illegal and void. Same is hereby quashed. Let the respondents make the selection afresh in terms of the Act of 1978 and the Rules of 1979 framed thereunder in accordance with law. Parties to bear their own costs. Final Result : Allowed