JUDGMENT : Jayant M. Patel, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Shelat, learned Counsel for the respondents, waives service of notice of Rule. The petitioner, by this petition, has prayed for the appropriate writ to direct the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the Electorate Roll of the election of Syndicate and the list of members of Senate under Sec. 15(A)(iii) of the Sardar Patel University Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner has also prayed for to direct the respondent No. 2 to include the name of the petitioner as an ex-officio fellow of the Senate of the Sardar Patel University (hereinafter referred to as 'the university'). 2. We have heard Mr. Dhaval Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Kapadia for the petitioner and Mr. S.N. Shelat, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Mitul Shelat, for the respondents. 3. It appears after hearing the learned Counsel for both the sides that the controversy to be considered in the petition is on a limited point as to whether the ex-officio member in the capacity of the Vice-Chancellor can be included in the Voters' List of the Syndicate or cannot be continued as a member of the Senate upon attaining the age of 62 years or not. 4. In order to examine the aforesaid aspects, reference to certain statutory provisions of the Act would be relevant. Section 15(i)(A) as to ex-officio fellows reads as under: "I. Ex-officio Fellow: (A)(i) The Chancellor, (ii) The Vice-Chancellor, (iii) The last Ex-Vice Chancellor of the University residing in the State, (iiia) The Pro-Vice-Chancellor, (iv) The Heads of University Departments, (v) The Registrar" 5. The aforesaid provision shows that the last Ex-Vice-Chancellor of the University residing in the State, by ex-officio position, is entitled to be a fellow member of the Senate. In the aforesaid provision, there is no express bar or automatic cessation of the office as Ex-Vice-Chancellor. 6. Section 8A(1) of the Act reads as under: "8A(1). The aforesaid provision shows that the last Ex-Vice-Chancellor of the University residing in the State, by ex-officio position, is entitled to be a fellow member of the Senate. In the aforesaid provision, there is no express bar or automatic cessation of the office as Ex-Vice-Chancellor. 6. Section 8A(1) of the Act reads as under: "8A(1). Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations and Rules, no personnel shall be appointed, nominated or, as the case may be, co-opted,- (i) on the post of officers referred to in clauses (iii), (iv) and (v) of Sec. 8; (ii) on the post of teacher; or (iii) as a member of any of the authorities of the University, any committee or any other body thereof after he attains the age of 62 years: Provided that nothing in this Section shall apply to the Chairman or a member of any of the authorities of the University, Committee or any other body thereof, who holds the Chairmanship or membership by virtue of his office as a Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor or, as the case may be, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor." 7. The aforesaid shows that there is non-obstante clause that no person shall be appointed, nominated or as the case may be co-opted as provided under clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) but as per the proviso to clause (iii), such bar after attaining the age of 62 years, would not apply to a Chairman or the member of any of the authorities of the University which would include Senate if one is by virtue of his office as a Chancellor or the Vice-Chancellor or the Pro-Vice-Chancellor. 8. In our view, when by express provision, the person can hold the office of Vice-Chancellor after attaining the age of 62 years, the so-called disqualification upon attaining the age of 62 years can never be made applicable to a person who is to become a member of the Senate as per Sec. 15 of the Act, under the head of Ex-Officio fellow in capacity as Ex-Vice-Chancellor of the university residing in the State. It is hardly required to be stated that when there is special provision, general provision cannot be made applicable nor its effect can be diluted by general provision. It is hardly required to be stated that when there is special provision, general provision cannot be made applicable nor its effect can be diluted by general provision. In the present case, such is the position and the reasonable construction of the aforesaid both the statutes read together would show that the disqualification would not be attracted even if one attains the age of 62 years and is to hold the office as ex-officio member of the Senate in capacity as Ex-Vice-Chancellor of the University residing in the State. 9. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, the impugned decision to exclude the name of the petitioner in the list of the Electorate Roll and in capacity as the member of the Senate is quashed and set aside with the further direction that name of the petitioner in capacity as Ex-Vice-Chancellor of the University residing in the State shall stand restored as the fellow of the Senate in capacity of Ex-Officio Vice-Chancellor of the University residing in the State. 9.1. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. The learned Counsel for the respondents shall communicate the decision to the University.