JUDGMENT S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.:- The petitioner vide the present Writ Petition takes exception to the resolution passed by the management council of respondent no. 1 dated 25/11/1994 withdrawing the approval granted to the appointment of the petitioner as Principal of Arts, Science and Commerce College, Warangaon, Tq.-Bhusawal, Dist.-Jalgaon, so also seeks direction against respondent no. 1 to allow the petitioner to contest the election of the Senate and further bodies of the University scheduled to be held on 20/12/1994. 2. In so far as the relief regarding allowing the petitioner to contest the election of the Senate and other bodies of respondent no. 1 is concerned, the same does not survive with the efflux of time as the petitioner has retired. 3. The respondent no.2 on 5/5/1992, published advertisement inviting applications for filling up the post of Principal of Alis, Science and Commerce College, Warangaon. 4. On 30/7/1992, the Selection Committee interviewed the candidates and recommended the name of the petitioner to the Vice Chancellor of respondent no. 1 University for his approval. On 23/9/1992, the Vice Chancellor of respondent no. 1 University approved recommendation of the Selection Committee and accordingly the petitioner was appointed as Principal of Arts, Science and Commerce College, Warangaon. The petitioner is working as the Principal of the said college since then. 5. The Registrar of respondent no. 1 vide letter dated 8/12/1994 communicated to the Chairman of the Society that the Management Council of the University in its meeting held on 25/11/1994 has resolved to withdraw the approval of the University granted to the appointment of the petitioner as Principal of the College on the ground that in meeting of the Selection Committee, the Chairman of the Governing body of the college was not present as such the meeting was not held as per the Statute 413(B)(2), the approval was wrongly granted. This communication is a subject matter of challenge in the present petition. 6. The petition was admitted by this Court on October 14, 1998 but prior to that, pending admission, this Court on 13/1/1995 had granted interim relief by virtue of which respondent nos. This communication is a subject matter of challenge in the present petition. 6. The petition was admitted by this Court on October 14, 1998 but prior to that, pending admission, this Court on 13/1/1995 had granted interim relief by virtue of which respondent nos. 1 and 2 were restrained from giving effect to the decision of the Management Council in respect of the withdrawal of the approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Principal of the Arts, Science and Commerce College, Warangaon and it appears that now the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation. 7. Respondent no. 1 - University has filed affidavit-in-reply contending that as the appointment of the petitioner as a Principal was not by duly constituted Selection Committee, the appointment and subsequent approval by the Vice Chancellor is illegal and as such the Management Council has passed the resolution withdrawing the approval. According to respondent no.1 - University, one of the members of the Selection Committee has to be the Chairman of the governing body of the college. In the constituted Selection Committee, the Chairman of the governing body of the college was not present. 8. Respondent no.2 has not filed any affidavit-in-reply. 9. Mr. Bora, the learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed before us following submissions - (i) The Management Council of respondent no.1 - University has no right, power and authority to withdraw the approval already granted by the Vice Chancellor to the recommendation of the Selection Committee for the appointment of the Principal of an affiliated college. (ii) As per Section III of the Maharashtra University Act, the acts and proceedings are not invalid merely on the ground of defect in Constitution of the Selection Committee or irregularity in procedure. 10. Mr. Choudhari, the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 - University and Mr. V. D. Hon, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that when a statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner only. As the Selection Committee which had recommended the appointment of the petitioner as a Principal was not duly constituted as per Section 413(B)(2) of the Statute, the recommendation made by such Committee is 'non est' and subsequent approval granted by the Vice Chancellor will have no sanctity. As the Selection Committee which had recommended the appointment of the petitioner as a Principal was not duly constituted as per Section 413(B)(2) of the Statute, the recommendation made by such Committee is 'non est' and subsequent approval granted by the Vice Chancellor will have no sanctity. According to them, the Management Council is supreme authority and has the necessary power to withdraw the approval granted by the Vice Chancellor and for that purpose referred to Section 28 of the Maharashtra Universities Act. 11. Before adverting to the arguments advanced by the respective counsels it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant Sections for consideration. Clause 413(B )(2) of the Statute reads thus: "The appointment of Principal of the college shall be made by the competent authority on the recommendations of the selection committee consisting of the following: (a) Chairman, Governing Body of the College (b) One Member of the Governing Body (c) Two nominees of the Vice Chancellor; and (d) One nominee of the Director of Higher Education." Section 111 of the Maharashtra Universities Act reads thus: "Acts and proceedings not invalid merely on ground of defect in constitution, vacancies, irregularity in procedure, etc. : No act or proceeding of the Senate or the Management Councilor Academic Council or any other authority or any body or committee of the university including a committee appointed by the Chancellor for the appointment of a Vice Chancellor shall be deemed to be invalid at any time merely on the ground that, (a) any of the members of any such authority, body or committee are not elected, appointed, nominated or co-opted or for any other reason are not available to take office at the time of the constitution or to attend any meeting thereof or any person is a member in more than one capacity, or there is any other defect in the constitution thereof or there are one or more vacancies in the offices of members thereof; (b) there is any irregularity in the procedure of any such authority, body or committee not affecting the merits of the matter under consideration, and the validity of such act or proceeding shall not be questioned in any Court or before any authority or officer merely on any such ground." 12. The factual matrix of the case is not disputed. The factual matrix of the case is not disputed. It is not disputed that the Selection Committee was constituted for selection of the Principal of the Arts, Science and Commerce College, Warangaon run by respondent no.2. It is also not disputed that the Selection Committee had interviewed the petitioner and other 5 candidates for the said post of Principal and had recommended the name of the petitioner to the Vice Chancellor for its approval. It is also not disputed that the Vice Chancellor approved the name of the petitioner as a Principal. It is also not a matter of debate that in the said Selection Committee instead of Chairman of the governing body of the college, the same was represented by one Mr. Tanajirao Bhoite, who was in fact the Secretary of the Governing body of the college. The moot question is whether the selection of the petitioner as a Principal and approval of the Vice Chancellor to the same can be set aside on the ground that the Selection Committee which was constituted involving representative of the University and other members, did not consist of the Chairman of the governing body of the college and instead was represented by the Secretary. 13. Section 413(B)(2) of the Statute no doubt lays down that the appointment of the Principal of the College shall be made by the competent authority on the recommendations of the Selection Committee consisting of the Chairman, governing body of the college, one member of the governing body, 2 nominees of the Vice Chancellor and one nominee of the Director of Higher Education. The Selection Committee consisted of the Member of the governing body, nominee of the Vice Chancellor of the Director of Higher Education, but instead of the Chairman, the Secretary of the governing body of the college was present. The Vice Chancellor also has granted approval to the decision of the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee consisted of the Member of the governing body, nominee of the Vice Chancellor of the Director of Higher Education, but instead of the Chairman, the Secretary of the governing body of the college was present. The Vice Chancellor also has granted approval to the decision of the Selection Committee. Section III as reproduced above, lays down that the Act or proceedings of the Senate or the Management Councilor Academic Councilor any other authority or any body or Committee of the University including a Committee appointed by the Chancellor shall not be deemed to be invalid merely on the ground that any of the members of any such authority, body or Committee are not elected, appointed, nominated or co-opted or for any other reason are not available to take office at the time of the constitution or to attend any meeting thereof. The provisions of Section III is inclusive and not exhaustive. It embraces all the Committees, which includes all the Committees, so also the Committee appointed by a Chancellor. When the language of the provision is unambiguous, then the golden rule of interpretation is the literal meaning should be followed. The provisions of Section III itself lays down that the proceedings of the Committee shall not be deemed to be invalid only because any of the Members not available to take office or attend any meeting or there is some irregularity in the procedure of any such Committee. The governing body of the college had accepted the recommendation of the Selection Committee. The Vice Chancellor after application of his mind, had also granted approval. In such circumstances, by virtue of Section III of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, the said appointment or the recommendations made by the Selection Committee could not be called in a question. 14. More over, the Statute gives the right and authority to the vice Chancellor either to approve or not to approve the decision of the Selection Committee. The Vice Chancellor has granted the approval to the recommendation of the Selection Committee and the petitioner had assumed his office as a Principal. Thereafter, after about more than 2 years, the Management Council decided to reverse the decision of the Vice Chancellor. 15. It is a trite law that the power has to be specifically conferred by the Statute. The Vice Chancellor has granted the approval to the recommendation of the Selection Committee and the petitioner had assumed his office as a Principal. Thereafter, after about more than 2 years, the Management Council decided to reverse the decision of the Vice Chancellor. 15. It is a trite law that the power has to be specifically conferred by the Statute. In absence of the same, the authority of the University can not assume the powers. In absence of confermant of powers by the Statute, if an authority does any act, the same would tantamount to abuse of the provisions of law, interalia a colourable exercise of its functions. The Statute or the enactment nowhere gives any power to the Management Council to withdraw the approval granted by the Vice Chancellor to the Principal of college. Statute gives the power to grant approval to the recommendations of the Selection Committee to the Vice Chancellor, who also has the power of not approving the recommendations and the Statute further prescribes that the decision of the Vice Chancellor is final. In such circumstances, Management Council does not have any authority. In fact by passing the impugned resolution, the Management Council has usurped the powers and authority which can not be allowed to withstand. 16. The arguments advanced by Mr. Hon that as the appointment was not by duly constituted Selection Committee, the Management Council did have this power, does not hold any water nor his arguments that by virtue of Section 28 of the Universities Act, the Management Council has the power being the superior authority, does not stand to any reason. Section 28 nowhere empowers the Management Council to withdraw the approval granted by the Vice Chancellor. 17. The Writ Petition as such succeeds. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause '(C)(i)'. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.