Order 1. Since, in both these W.P. Nos. 28312 and 23087 of 2012, common issues are involved and the parties are also the same, they were heard together and they were disposed of together by means of this common order. 2. The petitioners in both Writ Petitions are all working as Assistant Professors and they have joined in the respondent Indian Institute of Information Technology, Design & Manufacturing (IIIT D&M), Kancheepuram, prior to 18th August 2009. The Indian Institute of Information Technology (hereinafter referred to as "IIIT"), is an autonomous Institute and registered as a Society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act (No.1/2007). It is governed by a bye-law. The respondent IIIT is fully funded by the Central Government and it is under the direct control of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. According to Clause 5(c)(ii)(d) of the bye-law of the respondent IIIT, the Board of Governors shall have power to create posts - both academic and non-academic, determine their numbers, qualifications and cadres with the prior approval of the Central Government and make appointments on such posts on the basis of the recommendations of the Selection Committee. Bye-law No.9 speaks of the composition of the Selection Committee and the procedure to be followed by the Selection Committee, for making recommendations to the Board of Governors for appointment to various posts, such as, Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors etc. In the instant case, the petitioners were all appointed by following the said selection procedure as Assistant Professors by the Board of Governors, prior to the crucial date, viz., 18th August 2009. 3. As per the bye-laws of the respondent IIIT, there is no avenue of promotion for the Assistant Professors to the next cadre, viz., Associate Professors. For the post of Associate Professor also, the Selection Committee has to recommend the eligible candidates for appointment and thereafter, it is for the Board of Governors to make appointment to the post of Associate Professor also. These are all the provisions which have been made in the bye-laws of the respondent IIIT. 4. For the post of Associate Professor also, the Selection Committee has to recommend the eligible candidates for appointment and thereafter, it is for the Board of Governors to make appointment to the post of Associate Professor also. These are all the provisions which have been made in the bye-laws of the respondent IIIT. 4. While so, the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, Technical Section-II, decided to implement a "Career Advancement Scheme" for the faculty of the Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad and Indian Institutes of Information and Technology (IIITs) consequent to the implementation of the revised pay structure notified by the Ministry of Human Resource Development by order dated 18th August, 2009. The Central Government, therefore, issued an order on 30th December, 2009, under Order No.3-27/2009-TS.II. 5. For better understanding, let us extract the said order of the Central Government, dated 30.12.2009, which reads as follows:- " I am directed to state that the Government of India has decided to implement a Career Advancement Scheme for the faculty of the Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad and Indian Institutes of Information and Technology (IIITs) consequent to the implementation of the revised pay structure notified vide this Ministry order dated 18th August, 2009. 2. For teachers who joined the institutions after issue of the revised pay structure i.e., 18th August, 2009, the Career Advancement Scheme will be as follows:- i. An Assistant Professor possessing the degree of Ph.D in the relevant discipline and with regular service of 3 years at AGP of Rs.6000/- p.m. shall be eligible for moving to AGP of Rs.7000/- p.m. ii. An Assistant Professor possessing the degree of Ph.D in the relevant discipline and with regular service of 3 years at AGP of Rs.7000/- p.m. shall be eligible for moving to AGP of Rs.8000/- p.m. and shall be re-designated as Associate Professor. iii. An Assistant Professor possessing the degree of Ph.D in the relevant discipline and with regular service of 3 years at AGP of Rs.8000/- p.m. shall be eligible for moving to AGP of Rs.9000/- p.m. and shall be re-designated as Associate Professor. iv. iii. An Assistant Professor possessing the degree of Ph.D in the relevant discipline and with regular service of 3 years at AGP of Rs.8000/- p.m. shall be eligible for moving to AGP of Rs.9000/- p.m. and shall be re-designated as Associate Professor. iv. Associate Professor completing 4 years of regular service in the AGP of Rs.9000/- and possessing a Ph.D degree shall be eligible for appointment and shall be designated as Professor, subject to other conditions of academic performance as laid down by UGC and by the university, if any. v. Of the sanctioned posts of Professors, 20% shall be given AGP of Rs.12000/- after regular service of 6 years as Professor with AGP of Rs.10000/-. 3. In the case of existing incumbents, parity of the pay structure with the IITs partially takes care of the issue of Career Advancement Scheme. The Career Advancement Scheme for incumbent faculty of IITs and ISM shall be as follows:- i. The existing Asstt. Professors in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.12000-18300 will be placed in PB-3 with AGP of Rs.8000/-and pay in the Pay Band fixed as indicated in para 8(iv)(a) of MHRD Order dated 18th August, 2009. ii. As per the notification issued in 16th Sept.2009, such Asstt. Professors on completion of 3 years will move to PB-4 in the minimum of Rs.37400 with AGP of Rs.9500/- and will be designated as Associate Professors. iii. Such Associate Professors, as in service on 18.8.09 after completion of 4 years of regular service in the AGP of Rs.9500/-and possessing a Ph.D. degree in the relevant discipline shall be eligible for appointment and designation as Professor subject to other conditions of academic performance as laid down by the UGC and the University, if any. As Professor, they will be given the Grade Pay of Rs.10500/- and the pay in the Pay Band fixed as per the normal pay fixation rules of giving one increment of 3% at the time of promotion. iv. Lastly, existing Associate Professors who are being placed in the revised Academic Grade Pay of Rs.9500/-may be eligible to move after 4 years in this AGP to AGP of Rs.10,500/-with pay in the Pay Band fixed as per normal pay fixation rules of giving one increment of 3%. Eligibility of Professors for AGP of Rs.12,000/- will be the same as laid down in para 2 (v) of this order. 4. Eligibility of Professors for AGP of Rs.12,000/- will be the same as laid down in para 2 (v) of this order. 4. There will be no further fresh recruitment at the level of Associate Professor with Grade Pay of Rs.9500/-or at the level of Professor with entry pay of Rs.48,000/- along with Grade Pay of Rs.10,500/-. Fresh recruitments will be made in the grades approved for National Institutes of Technology (NIT)." (emphasis supplied) 6. The grievance of the petitioners is that, though, the Central Government issued such direction to all the Indian Institutes of Information and Technology (IIITs) through out the Country to implement the said Career Advancement Scheme with letter and spirit, the respondent IIIT did not implement the same, so as to designate the petitioners as Associate Professors by moving them to PB-4 in the minimum of Rs.37400/-with AGP of Rs.9500/-. Therefore, the petitioners have come up with W.P.No.23087 of 2012, seeking a mandamus to the respondents 2 and 3 to implement the said Career Advancement Scheme to all the petitioners in accordance with order of the Central Government in Order No.3-27/ 2009-TS.II, dated 30th December 2009. 7. When the said Writ Petition is still pending before this Court, the respondent IIIT issued an order in Office Memorandum No.IIITDM/CAS/2012-13, dated 01.10.2012, which reads as follows:- "Indian Institute of Information Technology, Design and Manufacturing, Kancheepuram, is a Centre of Excellence in IT and IT enabled Design and Manufacturing Education and Research. The faculty members of this Institute are expected to have high academic credentials, carry out quality research, publish original research work in renowned journals, guide doctoral students and carry out sponsored research projects in addition to teaching and assisting in institute administration. The competent authority has decided to conduct a Performance Assessment Process to facilitate the movement of eligible and qualified faculty members, who have joined prior to 18.08.2009 as Assistant Professors and have 03 years of experience (in the pay band of Rs.15600-39100 with an Academic Grade Pay of Rs.8000) to the pay band of Rs.37400-67000 with an Academic Grade Pay of Rs.9500 as Associate Professors. The faculty members willing to participate in the Performance Assessment Process may intimate their willingness to the undersigned on or before 30.10.2012." 8. The faculty members willing to participate in the Performance Assessment Process may intimate their willingness to the undersigned on or before 30.10.2012." 8. The petitioners are aggrieved by the said Official Memorandum, dated 01.10.2012, because, it modifies the Career Advancement Scheme directed to be implemented by the Central Government and as a matter of fact, according to the petitioners, it puts a hurdle for the petitioners to get the benefit of the said Scheme. Therefore, challenging the said Office Memorandum, dated 01.10.2012, the petitioners have come up with W.P.No.28312 of 2012. 9. While admitting W.P.No.28312 of 2012, this Court passed an interim order, dated 16.10.2012 in M.P.No.2 of 2012, granting interim injunction restraining the respondents 2 to 4, not to designate any Assistant Professors as Associate Professors until further orders from this Court. In the same order, this Court further directed the respondents 2 to 4, viz., IIIT to maintain status quo as on the date of the order, viz., 16.10.2012. Alleging that the said order has been violated, the petitioners have filed Contempt Petition No. 1125 of 2013 before this Court. 10. Since, the interim order was passed by me in M.P.No.2 of 2012 in W.P.No. 28312 of 2012, the Contempt Petition No.1125 of 2013, was listed before me. While so, on the orders of the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice, dated 03.07.2013, these two Writ Petitions have also been listed before me. Accordingly, these two Writ Petitions are also before me for disposal as "Specially Ordered Cases". That is how, I have heard all the three matters together and dispose of the same by means of this common order. 11. In the counter filed by the respondent IIIT, inter alia, it is stated that the Board of Governors have got power to take a decision on policy matters relating to the administrative working of the Institution. It is further stated that the Board of Governors have got power to create posts -both academic and non-academic, determine their numbers, qualifications and cadres with the prior approval of the Central Government and make appointments on such posts on the basis of the recommendations of the Selection Committee. It is further contended that no posts in the respondent IIIT could be filled up by appointment without following the procedure contemplated in the bye-laws. It is further contended that no posts in the respondent IIIT could be filled up by appointment without following the procedure contemplated in the bye-laws. According to the bye-laws, there is a Selection Committee for each post and the said Selection Committee has to follow the procedure contemplated in the bye-laws itself and thereafter only on the recommendations of the said Selection Committee, the Board of Governors could appoint an Associate Professor. It is further contended that there is no question of promoting an Assistant Professor to the post of Associate Professor, because, the post of Associate Professor can be filled up only by following the procedure of selection and appointment. It is further contended that of course, it is true that the Central Government had issued the impugned direction to implement the Career Advancement Scheme, but, according to the counter, the directions/communications of the Central Government are not ipso facto applicable to the institute. In paragraph No.26 of the counter, in this regard, it is stated by the respondent IIIT as follows:- "26. As regards Ground (a) raised in support of the above Writ Petition, the same is untenable. Firstly, keeping in view the organizational set up of the Institute and its constitution, the directions/ communications of the 1st Respondent are not ipso facto applicable to the Institute. As per the Memorandum of Association and rules of the Institute, the Board of Governors is responsible for the general superintendence, direction and control of the affairs of the Institute and are empowered to take decisions on questions of administration and working of the institute within the ambit of the MoA and Rules framed there under. The institute has not declined to implement the Career Advancement Scheme but has suitably modified/amended it, keeping in view its objectives, requirements and the peculiar circumstances prevailing therein. The decision of the Institute is well founded, just, reasonable and in line with the guidelines laid down by the 1st respondent for effecting Career Advancement Scheme in the other Centrally funded technical institutions, namely, N.I.Ts." 12. According to the further stand of the respondent IIIT, though, the Board of Governors have decided to implement the Career Advancement Scheme as floated by the Central Government and thus the IIIT has suitably modified/amended the same keeping in view its objectives, requirements and peculiar circumstances prevailing therein. According to the further stand of the respondent IIIT, though, the Board of Governors have decided to implement the Career Advancement Scheme as floated by the Central Government and thus the IIIT has suitably modified/amended the same keeping in view its objectives, requirements and peculiar circumstances prevailing therein. It is the further stand of the respondent IIIT that the Career Advancement Scheme is going to be implemented with modifications, that is, by allowing the candidates to undergo the selection process to be conducted by the Selection Committee and then to make appointment as Associate Professors by the Board of Governors. Thus, according to the counter, the petitioners cannot have any grievance and therefore, both Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed. 13. I have heard Mr. K.M. Vijayan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the Writ Petitions and Contempt Petition; Mr. Vijay Narayan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent IIIT in all the Writ Petitions and the respondent in the Contempt Petition; Mr. Haja Mohideen Gisthi, the learned counsel for the first respondent/Central Government in W.P.No. 28312 of 2012; and Mr. A.S. Chakaravarthy, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the first respondent in W.P. No. 23087 of 2012. 14. Mr. K.M. Vijayan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the Central Government has got executive power under Article 73 of the Constitution of India, under which, the Central Government has got the power to issue such a direction to implement the Career Advancement Scheme. The learned senior counsel would further submit that since the respondent IIIT is fully funded by the Central Government and since, it is directly under the control of the Central Government and since, it is a State instrumentality in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the executive power of the Central Government to issue such a direction to the respondent IIIT in exercise of its power flowing under Article 73 of the Constitution of India, cannot be doubted. 15. Mr. K.M. Vijayan, the learned senior counsel would further submit that there is a vast difference between an institution established by or under an Act of Parliament or State Legislature and an institution governed by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature. 15. Mr. K.M. Vijayan, the learned senior counsel would further submit that there is a vast difference between an institution established by or under an Act of Parliament or State Legislature and an institution governed by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature. He would further submit that the respondent IIIT is an institution neither established by any Act of Parliament or State Legislature nor under an Act of Parliament or State Legislature. The respondent IIIT does not owe its existence to any statute. Therefore, the Central Government which has got direct control over the respondent IIIT has got power to issue any direction or institution which binds the respondent IIIT. The learned senior counsel would further contend that the respondent IIIT has got no power to modify or amend the Career Advancement Scheme, as it is claimed by the respondent IIIT in paragraph No.26 of the counter. The learned senior counsel would further point out that as a matter of fact, the petitioners, under the Right to Information Act, applied to the Central Public Information Officer, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi, to furnish information, as to whether it is possible for the IIIT to modify or not implement the above mentioned direction of the Central Government, without seeking the approval of the Ministry of Human Resource Development. For the said information sought for, the Central Public Information Officer, Government of India, furnished information by letter dated 03.10.2011, wherein, he has stated as follows: "(b) Any modification in clause 3(ii) of letter No.3 -27/2009-TS.II, dated 30th December, 2009, would require the approval of MHRD." Relying on the above information furnished by the Central Government, the learned senior counsel would submit that the respondent IIIT has got no power to either modify or to amend the Career Advancement Scheme, as it is claimed in paragraph No.26 of the counter. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel, the relief sought for in both Writ Petitions are to be granted in favour of the petitioners. 16. Reiterating the grounds raised in the counter filed by the respondent IIIT, Mr. Vijay Narayan, the learned senior counsel, would stoutly oppose both these Writ Petitions. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel, the relief sought for in both Writ Petitions are to be granted in favour of the petitioners. 16. Reiterating the grounds raised in the counter filed by the respondent IIIT, Mr. Vijay Narayan, the learned senior counsel, would stoutly oppose both these Writ Petitions. According to him, the bye-laws of the Society have got statutory force and therefore, the executive power of the Central Government under Article 73 of the Constitution of India, cannot be exercised to override the bye-laws of the Society. The learned senior counsel would further submit that as per the bye-laws of the Society, the appointing authority for the post of Associate Professor, is the Board of Governors and such appointment could be made by the Board of Governors only on the recommendations to be made by the Selection Committee. He would further submit that the Selection Committee has to do the selection strictly in accordance with the bye-laws. When these stringent procedures are contemplated in the bye-laws of the Society, it is not at all possible to ignore these procedures contemplated and to directly appoint these petitioners as Associate Professors by simply implementing the Career Advancement Scheme. That is the reason why, according to the learned senior counsel, the Board of Directors decided to implement the Scheme with slight modification. The learned senior counsel would further submit that the decision to implement the Career Advancement Scheme with slight modification was taken in the meeting of the Board of Governors, which included a representative of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. The learned senior counsel would further submit that the order impugned in W.P.No.28312 of 2012 is strictly in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society and therefore, the same does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. 17. So far as the relief sought for in W.P.No.23087 of 2012 is concerned, Mr. Vijay Narayan, the learned senior counsel, would submit that the respondent IIIT is going to implement the Career Advancement Scheme, but, in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society and in accordance with the decision taken by the Board of Governors, which is impugned in W.P.No.28312 of 2012. Vijay Narayan, the learned senior counsel, would submit that the respondent IIIT is going to implement the Career Advancement Scheme, but, in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society and in accordance with the decision taken by the Board of Governors, which is impugned in W.P.No.28312 of 2012. The learned senior counsel would further submit that the petitioners are therefore no entitled for any relief as prayed for in both these Writ Petitions and therefore, both Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed. 18. I have considered the above submissions carefully and I have also gone through the records. 19. Admittedly, the respondent IIIT is only a Society registered under the provisions of the "Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act". It was neither established by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature, nor, under an Act of Parliament or State Legislature, such as, the "State Bank of India" established by the "State Bank of India Act" and the "State Financial Corporation" established under the "State Financial Corporation Act". It needs to be borne in mind that the "Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act", neither provides for establishment of a Society by the said Act nor provides for establishment of the Society under the Act. A "Society" in terms of the said Act is formed by the act of a minimum required number of members and the same is subsequently registered under the provisions of the "Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act". Thus, the said Society does not owe its existence to the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, instead, the said Society is only governed by the provisions of the "Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act", the rules framed thereunder as well as the Memorandum of Articles of Association and the bye-laws of the particular Society. 20. In this regard, we may refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalco Engg. (P) Ltd. v. Satish Prabhakar Padhye, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 378 , wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has elaborately dealt with a body established by an Act and a body established under an Act. In paragraph Nos. 21 to 23 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:- "21. Where the definition of establishment uses the term a corporation established by or under an Act, the emphasis should be on the word established in addition to the words by or under. In paragraph Nos. 21 to 23 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:- "21. Where the definition of establishment uses the term a corporation established by or under an Act, the emphasis should be on the word established in addition to the words by or under. The word established refers to coming into existence by virtue of an enactment. It does not refer to a company, which, when it comes into existence, is governed in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act. But then, what is the difference between established by a Central Act and established under a Central Act? 22. The difference is best explained by some illustrations. A corporation is established by an Act, where the Act itself establishes the corporation. For example, Section 3 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 provides that a bank to be called State Bank of India shall be constituted to carry on the business of banking. Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 provides that 3. Establishment and incorporation of Life Insurance Corporation of India. (1) With effect from such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint, there shall be established a Corporation called the Life Insurance Corporation of India. State Bank of India and Life Insurance Corporation of India are two examples of corporations established by a Central Act. 23. We may next refer to the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 which provides for establishment of various financial corporations under that Act. Section 3 of that Act relates to establishment of State Financial Corporations and provides that the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish a financial corporation for the State under such name as may be specified in the notification and such financial corporation shall be a body corporate by the name notified. Thus, a State Financial Corporation is established under a Central Act. Therefore, when the words by and under an Act are preceded by the words established, it is clear that the reference is to a corporation established, that it is brought into existence, by an Act or under an Act. In short, the term refers to a statutory corporation as contrasted from a non-statutory corporation incorporated or registered under the Companies Act. 21. In short, the term refers to a statutory corporation as contrasted from a non-statutory corporation incorporated or registered under the Companies Act. 21. Similar question, as to whether the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, which was registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act is a statutory body, came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India, reported in (1975) 1 SCC 485 , wherein in paragraph No.4 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows :- "4. Extracting the features as aforesaid, it was contended that these would indicate that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research was really an agency of the Government. This contention is unsound. The society does not have a statutory character like the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, or the Life Insurance Corporation or Industrial Finance Corporation. It is a society incorporated in accordance with the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. The fact that the Prime Minister is the President or that the Government appoints nominees to the Governing Body or that the Government may terminate the membership will not establish anything more than the fact that the Government takes special care that the promotion, guidance and cooperation of scientific and industrial research, the institution and financing of specific research, establishment or development and assistance to special institutions or departments of the existing institutions for scientific study of problems affecting particular industry in a trade, the utilisation of the result of the researches conducted under the auspices of the Council towards the development of industries in the country are carried out in a responsible manner." 22. From the above judgments, it is crystal clear that the respondent IIIT is not a statutory body. It does not owe its existence to the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, instead, the respondent IIIT is only governed by the provisions of the said Act. Thus, the respondent IIIT is to run its affairs as per the registered Memorandum of Association and the bye-laws of the said Society, of course as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules issued thereunder. 23. The next question is, whether the Memorandum of Association and the bye-laws of the Society, viz., the respondent IIIT will have statutory force. 23. The next question is, whether the Memorandum of Association and the bye-laws of the Society, viz., the respondent IIIT will have statutory force. At this length of time, it is too well settled that the bye-laws of the Society have got no statutory force at all. In this regard, we may refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Co-operative Central Bank Limited vs. Additional Industrial Tribunal reported in 1969 (2) SCC 43 , wherein the Supreme Court has held in paragraph No.10 as follows:- "10. We are unable to accept the submission that the bye-laws of a cooperative society framed in pursuance of the provisions of the Act can be held to be law or to have force of law. It has no doubt been held that, if a statute gives power to a Government or other authority to make rules, the rules so framed have the force of statute and are to be deemed to be incorporated as a part of the statute. That principle, however, does not apply to bye-laws of the nature that a co-operative society is empowered by the Act to make. The bye-laws that are contemplated by the Act can be merely those which govern the internal management, business or administration of a society. They may be binding between the persons affected by them, but they do not have the force of a statute. In respect of bye-laws laying down conditions of service of the employees of a society, the bye-laws would be binding between the society and the employees just in the same manner as conditions of service laid down by contract between the parties. In fact, after such bye-laws laying down the conditions of service are made and any person enters the employment of a society, those conditions of service will have to be treated as conditions accepted by the employee when entering the service and will thus bind him like conditions of service specifically forming part of the contract of service. The bye-laws that can be framed by a society under the Act are similar in nature to the Articles of Association of a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and such articles of Association have never been held to have the force of law. The bye-laws that can be framed by a society under the Act are similar in nature to the Articles of Association of a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and such articles of Association have never been held to have the force of law. In a number of cases, conditions of service for industries are laid down by Standing Orders certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and it has been held that, though such Standing Orders are binding between the employers and the employees of the industry governed by those Standing Orders, they do not have such force of law as to be binding on Industrial Tribunal adjudicating an industrial dispute. The jurisdiction which is granted to Industrial Tribunals by the Industrial Disputes Act is not the jurisdiction of merely administering the existing laws and enforcing existing contracts. Industrial Tribunal have the right even to vary contracts of service between the employer and the employees which jurisdiction can never be exercised by a civil court or a Registrar acting under the Co-operative Societies Act, so that the circumstance that, in granting relief on Issue No.1, the Tribunal will have to vary the special bye-laws framed by the Co-operative Bank does not lead to the inference that the Tribunal would be incompetent to grant the reliefs sought in this reference. In fact, the reliefs could only be granted by the Industrial Tribunal and could not fall within the scope of the powers of the Registrar dealing with a dispute under Section 61 of the Act. 24. In yet another judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ishwar Nagar Co-operative Housing Building Society v. Parma Nand Sharma, reported in (2010) 14 SCC 230 , has held in paragraph No. 25 as follows:- "25. Bye-laws of the society regulate the management of the society and govern the relationship between the society and members inter se. They are of the nature of articles of association of a company registered under the Companies Act. If they are consistent with the Act and the Rules, the members are bound by them. (emphasis supplied) From the above judgments, now, it is crystal clear that the Memorandum of Articles and bye-laws of the respondent IIIT have got no statutory force. 25. With the above legal position, let us now go into the bye-laws of the Society in respect of the appointments. (emphasis supplied) From the above judgments, now, it is crystal clear that the Memorandum of Articles and bye-laws of the respondent IIIT have got no statutory force. 25. With the above legal position, let us now go into the bye-laws of the Society in respect of the appointments. It is true that as per the bye-laws of respondent IIIT, the appointments to various posts, such as, Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors, are to be made only by the Board of Governors and the Board of Governors have to make appointment on the recommendations of the Selection Committee. It is also not in dispute that the Selection Committee has to follow the procedure contemplated in the bye-laws itself before making recommendations for appointment. In my considered view, these procedures contemplated under the bye-laws are with reference to the fresh appointments to be made to various posts, including the Associate Professors. But, in these Writ Petitions, we are not concerned with any fresh appointment to be made to the post of Associate Professor. These Writ Petitions are concerned only with the implementation of the Career Advancement Scheme, by which, the petitioners are required to be designated as Associate Professors. 26. Mr. Vijay Narayan, the learned senior counsel, would contend that the direction of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, to implement the "Career Advancement Scheme" is not ipso facto applicable to the respondent IIIT. In other words, according to him, the said direction of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, cannot over ride the bye-laws of the respondent IIIT, under which, appointment of Associate Professor is to be made by following the procedure. This argument finds no tenability for many reasons. First of all, as I have already concluded, the bye-laws relating to appointment of Associate Professors pertain only to fresh appointment. Secondly, since, the bye-laws of the respondent IIIT has got no statutory force, any direction issued by the Central Government in accordance with Article 73 of the Constitution of India shall have over riding effect. Therefore, it goes without saying that the direction of the Government of India to implement the bye-law binds the respondent IIIT. Above all, the Memorandum of Association, expressly states that the respondent IIIT is bound by the directions of the Government of India. It reads as follows:- "7. Therefore, it goes without saying that the direction of the Government of India to implement the bye-law binds the respondent IIIT. Above all, the Memorandum of Association, expressly states that the respondent IIIT is bound by the directions of the Government of India. It reads as follows:- "7. The Central Government shall have the powers to issue such directions as it may consider necessary in respect of any of the matters of the Society or the Institute as the case may be and the Society and the Institute shall be bound to comply with such directions." 27. In view of the above provision in the Memorandum of Association and in view of the above discussions, the only conclusion one could arrive at is that the respondent IIIT is bound by the direction of the Government of India to implement the Career Advancement Scheme. It is not, as though, the Government of India is unaware of the provisions of the bye-laws of the respondent IIIT relating to appointments. After all, the respondent IIIT was established only by the Ministry of Human Resource Development with lofty ideals. The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, is a member of the governing body of the respondent IIIT. Mr. Vijay Narayan, the learned senior counsel, would submit that the respondent IIIT cannot be equated to any other ordinary educational institution. This institution is an institute of national importance. Therefore, there cannot be any compromise in the quality of teaching faculty. In this regard, I may say, I have no disagreement. I am in full agreement with the said contention. At the same time, it cannot be said that the Government of India is oblivious of the said ground realities. I have no reason to state that while issuing direction to implement the Career Advancement Scheme, the Government of India had not thought over the impact of the Scheme on the quality of education imparted by the respondent IIIT. When the Government of India, which is the founder of the respondent IIIT and the one who funds the said institution fully, and keeps direct control of the institution has decided to implement the Career Advancement Scheme, it is not at all available for the respondent IIIT to show any reluctance to obey the direction of the Government. 28. Now turning to the contention of Mr. 28. Now turning to the contention of Mr. Vijay Narayan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent IIIT that the Board of Governors have decided to implement the Career Advancement Scheme with slight modification, I find it difficult to accept the said contention. As rightly pointed out by Mr. K.M. Vijayan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, the Career Advancement Scheme is introduced by means of an order of the Central Government and if any modification is to be made to the said order, in my considered view, it could be done only by the author of the said Scheme, viz., the Central Government. The respondent IIIT is only an implementing authority, who, in my considered opinion, has got no power to modify the said Scheme. In this regard, I may refer to the information supplied by the Central Public Information Officer, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, Technical Section-I, dated 03.10.2011, referred to above, wherein, he has stated that any modification in Clause 3(ii) of Letter No.3 -27/2009-TS.II, dated 30th December, 2009, would require the approval of Ministry of Human Resource Development. Therefore, I hold that the decision of the Board of Governors, which is impugned in W.P.No.28312 of 2012, is wholly without jurisdiction and authority of law and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. I hold that the respondent IIIT is bound to implement the Career Advancement Scheme without any modification, as per the directions of the Central Government, dated 30.12.2009. 29. Mr. Vijay Narayan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent IIIT, would further submit that there are some anomalies relating to the Rules and Regulations for promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme for faculty members in the National Institute of Technology. This was considered by the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the Government of India, under order in No.F.33-7/2011-TS.III, dated 14.03.2012, had issued certain clarifications in respect of the implementation of the Career Advancement Scheme in the National Institutes of Technology. The learned senior counsel relying on the said order would submit that so far as the IIITs are concerned, a Committee has been constituted to go into the above stated anomalies between the Associate Professors, who were appointed prior to the cut off date viz., 18th August 2009 and those who were appointed subsequent to the cut off date. The learned senior counsel relying on the said order would submit that so far as the IIITs are concerned, a Committee has been constituted to go into the above stated anomalies between the Associate Professors, who were appointed prior to the cut off date viz., 18th August 2009 and those who were appointed subsequent to the cut off date. He would submit that, based on the report to be submitted by the Committee, the Central Government may modify the Scheme and so, until such time, the Scheme cannot be implemented. In my considered opinion, if there are any such anomalies, it is for the appropriate Committee to make recommendation and it is for the Central Government to decide. I only say that until the Central Government modifies or clarifies the Career Advancement Scheme any further, as of now, the respondent IIIT is bound to implement the Career Advancement Scheme, as per the order dated 30.12.2009. In view of the foregoing discussions, I find that the petitioners are bound to succeed in both the Writ Petitions. 30. Now turning to the Contempt Petition, Mr. K.M. Vijayan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that he is not very particular in punishing the respondents IIIT, as the petitioners would be satisfied if an appropriate direction is issued in these Writ Petitions to implement the Career Advancement Scheme. The said statement is recorded. 31. In the result, I am inclined to pass the following order:- i. W.P.No.28312 of 2012 is allowed and the proceedings of the fourth respondent, viz., The Registrar, Indian Institute of Information Technology, Kancheepuram, Chennai, in Office Memorandum No. IIITDM/CAS/2012-13, dated 01.10.2012, is hereby quashed. ii. W.P.No.23087 of 2012 is allowed and the respondents 2 and 3 therein are directed to implement the Career Advancement Scheme to all the petitioners as per the order of the first respondent in Order No. 3-27/2009-TS.II, dated 30.12.2009, in letter and spirit, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iii. Contempt Petition No. 1125 of 2013 is closed and the respondent in the Contempt Petition is discharged. iv. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. v. No costs.