Judgment: 1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 06/08/2012, passed by the respondent no.1, rejecting the petitioner’s nomination for contesting the election of senate of respondent no.2/University from Professors' Constituency of Aurangabad Region. 2. It is common ground that as per the provisions of Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998, election to the Senate was due on 01/09/2012. As per Section 22A of The Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998, the State is empowered to specify, in consultation with Chancellor, the eligibility conditions for being elected or nominated as Member of any authority of the University. The Medical Education and Drugs Department Act published rules regarding eligibility from the Professor’s Constituency to the Senate of the University. The criteria of eligibility is as under: 1. A Candidate shall possess Post Graduate Decree in Health Science. 2. He shall have minimum 3 years experience as an approved Professor and also have minimum 10 years teaching experience. 3. He shall have published minimum 3 research papers etc. 3. The petitioner submitted his nomination alongwith documents to prove that he possesses required eligibility. The documents reveal that the petitioner is educated upto M.D. (Homeopathy) and is an employee of DakshinKesari Muni Mishrilalji Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad. The Principal of this College issued an experience certificate to the petitioner, in which it is stated that the petitioner has more than 10 years of teaching experience and that he worked as Assistant Professor from 01/01/2004 to 30/06/2007 and as Professor, he worked from 01/07/2007 till 02/01/2011 i.e. the date of issuance of the certificate. The College thus certified that as on 02/01/2011, the petitioner had experience as Professor of 3 years 6 months and 2 days. In addition to this certificate, he has annexed 3 more certificates which are as under: 1. Certificate issued by the University dated 26/03/2008. In this certificate, it is mentioned that the petitioner was given temporary approval to work as Professor, for one year, w.e.f. 01/03/2008. 2. The second certificate is of 06/09/2011, issued by the University, in which it is mentioned that the petitioner was given temporary approval to work as Professor w.e.f. 01/06/2011 for one year. 3. The third certificate is of 20/03/2012, issued by the University, in which it is mentioned that the petitioner is given permanent approval to work as Professor w.e.f. 16/03/2012. 4. 3. The third certificate is of 20/03/2012, issued by the University, in which it is mentioned that the petitioner is given permanent approval to work as Professor w.e.f. 16/03/2012. 4. Despite all these 3 certificates and the 4th one issued by the Principal, referred to above, the impugned order rejecting nomination of the petitioner was passed on the ground that he did not possess adequate experience. The petitioner, therefore, filed this writ petition and asserted that the impugned order is erroneous and that the Court should correct it so that his nomination would be accepted. 5. At interim stage, this Court had allowed him to contest the election. The election has now taken place. The respondent/University and respondent No.6 mainly opposed the petition by justifying the correctness of the impugned order. 6. The Registrar of the University, in his affidavit, asserted that since the petitioner did not have approval of the University for in all 3 years from 01/03/2008, on the date of filing of the nomination/scrutiny, his experience was inadequate. 7. The question therefore is, in the facts situation mentioned above, the Election Officer was able to say that the petitioner did not have adequate experience. The answer to this is in negative. 8. The facts referred to above, clearly established that the petitioner was first appointed as Professor on 01/07/2007 by his College DakshinKesari Muni Mishrilalji Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad. Appointment of the petitioner as Professor of that College was an independent decision taken by the Management of the College. This decision was required to be approved by the University and as said above, the University approved this appointment temporarily for a period of one year. The approval lasted till 28/02/2009. The petitioner, however, was not discontinued or relieved from his post as Professor from 01/03/2009. He continued his work and kept on teaching his students as Professor. Since the approval for his appointment was for limited period of one year, it was for the College to send for further approval. There is nothing on record to suggest that the University refused to grant further approval to the petitioner’s appointment as Professor. He continued his work and kept on teaching his students as Professor. Since the approval for his appointment was for limited period of one year, it was for the College to send for further approval. There is nothing on record to suggest that the University refused to grant further approval to the petitioner’s appointment as Professor. As said above, in fact rather belatedly, the University vide its letter dated 06/09/2011, again gave temporary approval to the approval of the petitioner as Professor w.e.f. 01/06/2011 for one year and before this year could expire, the University granted permanent approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Professor. What is lacking in the case of the petitioner is absence of temporary approval expressly given by the University for the period between 01/03/2009 to 31/05/2011. The respondents thus suggested that during this period, though the petitioner worked as Professor in his College, his appointment as Professor during the said period, was not approved by the University. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner suggested that if the petitioner’s appointment was approved for one year w.e.f. 01/03/2008 and since his appointment was further approved from 01/06/2011, the period in between, must be taken as approved period because there was no change in the petitioner’s position as Professor of his College. 9. As said above, it is no one’s case that the petitioner, in this period, discontinued his work as Professor or that he was removed or suspended during this period or that the University expressly withdrew approval. It is also suggested that obtaining approval for appointment of staff of a College, is responsibility of the concerned College. A Member of Staff is not responsible for getting approval for his appointment from the University. In fact, he is not heard before approval is granted or refused Approval is granted mainly upon examination of the performance of a College and its conditions. Every year, the University conducts inspection of each College for the purpose of continuation of affiliation of such College. If affiliation of a College is not continued, the approval of appointments of its staff also gets affected. If in such situation, a Professor, whose appointment is approved earlier, takes a new job in other affiliated College, such appointment is required to be approved by the University again. 10. If affiliation of a College is not continued, the approval of appointments of its staff also gets affected. If in such situation, a Professor, whose appointment is approved earlier, takes a new job in other affiliated College, such appointment is required to be approved by the University again. 10. In this case, there is nothing on record to show that the temporary approval of the appointment of the petitioner as Professor was continued after 28/02/2009. Does it mean that he did not have approval of the University w.e.f. 01/03/2009? The answer is in negative because the College in which he was teaching as Professor, continued affiliation of the University. Such affiliation and the uninterrupted service of the petitioner as Professor of his College, clearly establish that his appointment was approved even after 28/02/2009. As said above, the petitioner was not responsible for getting continuation of approval from the University and as said above, there is nothing on record to suggest that the University refused to approve the petitioner’s appointment as Professor in time after 28/09/2009. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents asserted that this reasoning should not be applied to the facts of this case because according to them, interpretation of Rule 23(2) (o), which gives eligibility criteria for a Candidate, must be interpreted strictly. According to them, this being a rule relating to an election, the same should be strictly followed. So there is scope for deeming of something which is not stated/expressed clearly. They oppose the idea of holding that the petitioner’s appointment was deemed approved w.e.f. 01/03/2009 till 31/05/2011. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents also suggested that the Court can not assume that once the University gives a temporary approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Professor, the same should continue till it is discontinued specifically because on the face of it, the approvals are given not only temporary but for specific period. They thereby suggested that the approval for appointment of the petitioner would remain valid only when they were in actual force. I am not inclined to accept this submission. Main reasons are already discussed above. Secondly we are dealing with election of senate of a university where all the candidates are senior academicians. The university too needs their assistance for running its affairs. Such people can not be shown door for such a flimsy and technical ground. I am not inclined to accept this submission. Main reasons are already discussed above. Secondly we are dealing with election of senate of a university where all the candidates are senior academicians. The university too needs their assistance for running its affairs. Such people can not be shown door for such a flimsy and technical ground. Besides when a sitting Professor offers his candidature it is not for financial aggrandizement. In addition to his work as a Professor, if elected, he would work as a Member of the Senate and serve the University. If he gets elected, it not only that he would get an opportunity to serve the University, but even the senate of the university gets advantage of his experience. A candidate will get elected to the Senate from amongst his peers. Such responsible person, in my view, can not be nonplussed and thrown out of election race on technicalities. Besides the so called lapse in the candidature of the petitioner is not of his own making. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Narmada Prasad Versus Chhaganlal and others, AIR 1969, SC 395. The appellant got elected as M.L.A. but his election was set aside by the High Court. Although, the appellant was elected by a sizable margin, the election petition was filed not by any of the defeated candidates, but by an elector/voter of the Constituency. The challenge was on two grounds: first that the nomination paper of one Ramkishan was wrongly rejected and the other ground comprised of allegations of corrupt practices. 14. For our discussion, the fact of rejection of nomination paper of Ramkishan is relevant. Ramkishan was registered as Voter not in the electoral roll of the concerned Tahsil but in another Tahsil. Ramkishan alongwith his nomination papers, produced a certificate from the Tahsildar of other Tahsil certifying that his name was entered in the electoral roll of that Tahsil. He was required to produce requisite evidence u/s. 33 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 showing that he was registered as Voter in the Constituency. Ramkishan alongwith his nomination papers, produced a certificate from the Tahsildar of other Tahsil certifying that his name was entered in the electoral roll of that Tahsil. He was required to produce requisite evidence u/s. 33 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 showing that he was registered as Voter in the Constituency. Section 33(5) of the Representation of the People Act requires that where the candidate is an elector of a different constituency, a copy of the electoral roll of that constituency or of the relevant part thereof or a certified copy of the relevant entries in such roll, should be produced before the returning officer at the time of scrutiny. Ramkishan did not submit copy of electoral roll and therefore it was held that there was no compliance with the provisions of Section 33(5). The Supreme Court held that the certificate issued by Tahsildar of the other Tahsil was not sufficient compliance because the Court can not dispense with requirement of Law. Supreme Court reiterated the well understood rule of law that a when a thing is to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all. Other modes of compliance are excluded. The Supreme Court in following judgments laid same principle. Those are, ParmarHimatsingh Jugatsingh Vs.Patel Harmanbhai Narsibhai, reported in AIR 1974, Supreme Court 951. Avadh Raj Singh Versus Jugal Kishore Gupta, reported in AIR 1979, Supreme Court 1148, Birad Mal Singhvi Versus Anand Purohit, reported in AIR 1988, Supreme Court 1796. 15. I am afraid, in this case, the approval of the University for the appointment of the petitioner as a Professor was writ large on the record and therefore by no stretch of imagination, it could be presumed that his appointment was not approved and therefore his experience was inadequate. 16. In my view, this is not a case where I am justifying dispensing with the requirement of Law. The facts of this case does not indicate that I am violating the rule of law that if a thing is to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all. 17. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is set aside. University shall proceed to pronounce the results. The facts of this case does not indicate that I am violating the rule of law that if a thing is to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all. 17. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is set aside. University shall proceed to pronounce the results. Effect of this order is kept in abeyance for the period of 4 weeks from today at the request of respondent no.6. In view of this, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed not to hold election of Standing Committee of the Senate for next four weeks.