JUDGMENT : The 1st petitioner is the Manager and the 2nd petitioner is the Principal of Kuriakose Elias College, Mannanam, a First Grade College established and administered by the Carmelites of Mary Immaculate (CMI) Congregation. It is an Aided College affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 Government Order dated 7.7.2007 and also for a declaration that Ext.P7 order is arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires and hence void. 2. On 22.8.2007 this Court admitted the writ petition on file and issued notice to the respondents by speed post. This Court has also granted an interim stay of operation of Ext.P7 order, initially for a period of two months, which was extended from time to time. The writ petitioners filed I.A.No.14525 of 2007 seeking an order to implead 9 teachers who are the beneficiaries of Ext.P7 order, as additional respondents in this writ petition. On 5.11.2007, this Court allowed the said interlocutory application and those teachers were impleaded as additional respondents 6 to 14 and the writ petitioners were directed to take out notice to those additional respondents by speed post. After completion of service of notice, this Court extended the interim stay until further orders on 7.2.2008. 3. Despite service of notice, none of the respondents have chosen to file any counter affidavit. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent University, learned counsel who appeared for the 5th respondent Association and also for additional respondents 6 to 14. 5. The sole issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether Ext.P7 Government order can be sustained in law. 6. In Sojan Francis v. M.G. University ( 2003 (2) KLT 582 ) a Division Bench of this Court held that the management of a minority or non-minority institution can lay down the code of conduct to be followed by the management, teachers and non-teaching staff as well as the students, in order to safeguard the interests of all including the management, teaching and non-teaching staff and student community and to maintain discipline. Pursuant to the said decision of this Court, the 1st petitioner Manager banned political and organisational activities within the college campus, vide an order dated 15.6.2003. Pursuant to the said decision of this Court, the 1st petitioner Manager banned political and organisational activities within the college campus, vide an order dated 15.6.2003. The All Kerala Private College Teachers' Association (AKPCTA), the 5th respondent Association, through its Branch Secretary, Kuriakose Elias College Unit, issued Ext.P1 notice dated 23.6.2003 to the 2nd respondent Principal, stating that the teachers propose to hold demonstration in front of the college on 25.6.2003, from 10.00 am to 1.00 pm, to mark their protest against the proposed 'Unified University Bill'. On receipt of such notice, the Principal forwarded the same to the Manager, who in turn issued Ext.P2 reply to the said Association, informing that the request made in Ext.P1 notice to hold demonstration in front of the college cannot be acceded to, in view of the order dated 15.6.2003 issued banning politics within the college campus. 7. Despite Ext.P2 reply, 7 teachers conducted demonstration (dharna) in the college campus on 25.6.2003, during class hours. Among those teachers, 6 teachers absented from their duty without making any alternate arrangements and without duly applying for leave. A shed (panthal) was also put up in the college campus, without the permission of college authorities. The Manager issued show-cause memo to those 7 teachers, who participated in the demonstration. On 30.6.2003, those teachers gheraoed the Principal. On 12.7.2003, the 5th respondent Association published a notice declaring a protest march to the college on 15.7.2003. Apprehending law and order situation, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.22199 of 2003 and obtained Ext.P3 interim order dated 14.7.2003 for police protection. The said writ petition was later closed by the judgment dated 29.9.2003, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to approach this Court again if need arises. 8. The Principal issued and circulated a notice to the teachers to be present in the college on 15.7.2003, in the best interests of the students and the institution. The teachers were warned that their absence would be treated as unauthorised. According to the petitioners, in violation of Ext.P3 interim order, 9 teachers, namely, additional respondents 6 to 14, entered into the college campus along with demonstrators and conducted dharna and agitation during college hours. The Manager issued Ext.P4(a) to (i) orders dated 21.7.2003 to additional respondents 6 to 14, withholding their salary for the date of unauthorised absence. 9. According to the petitioners, in violation of Ext.P3 interim order, 9 teachers, namely, additional respondents 6 to 14, entered into the college campus along with demonstrators and conducted dharna and agitation during college hours. The Manager issued Ext.P4(a) to (i) orders dated 21.7.2003 to additional respondents 6 to 14, withholding their salary for the date of unauthorised absence. 9. Additional respondents 6 to 14 filed W.P.(C)No.26866 of 2003 before this Court challenging the action of the management in withholding their salary for 25.6.2003 and 15.7.2003, based on the aforesaid orders dated 21.7.2003, which were marked as Exts.P8, P8 (a) to P8(h) in that writ petition. They have also prayed that appointment of the Principal has to be carried out in accordance with the relevant regulations and that, the continuance of Rev.Fr.K.J. Joseph, the 6th respondent therein, as de facto Principal is unauthorised and his appointment as Principal by the management is also not in order. During the pendency of that writ petition, Mahatma Gandhi University declined to grant approval for the proposal to appoint the said person as Principal, which order dated 9.10.2003 has been subjected to challenge by the management in W.P.(C)No.34202 of 2003. 10. By Ext.P5 judgment dated 14.1.2004, this Court dismissed W.P.(C)No.26866 of 2003 filed by additional respondents 6 to 14 herein challenging the action of the management in withholding their salary, as devoid of merit. However, this Court made it clear that, if aggrieved about the factual aspects or merits, they could take up the matter with appropriate authorities, as prescribed by their service conditions. W.P.(C)No.34202 of 2003 filed by the management was allowed to the extent of treating the University order dated 9.10.2003 as one issued without jurisdiction and the University was directed to reconsider the proposal made by the management, as envisaged by the Statute and take a decision in accordance with law. The reasoning of this Court, as contained in paragraph 8 of Ext.P5 judgment dated 14.1.2004, for dismissing W.P.(C)No.26866 of 2003 filed by additional respondents 6 to 14 herein, reads thus :- “8. Though Ext.P4 has been subjected to challenge in W.P.(C) No.26866 of 2003, I do not think that the challenge deserves to be upheld. This is because the petitioners have not shown any reason as to why there was two years delay in filing the writ petition. Though Ext.P4 has been subjected to challenge in W.P.(C) No.26866 of 2003, I do not think that the challenge deserves to be upheld. This is because the petitioners have not shown any reason as to why there was two years delay in filing the writ petition. Also there is no reason shown as to why such orders are illegal or unwarranted. When formal approval had been granted by the competent authority so as to facilitate the college management to attend to immediate necessities, and when the University had competence to issue appropriate orders (power is invoked under Chapter 45E), if orders in the nature of Ext.P4 had not been passed, the result would be that there might not be any authority for drawing and disbursing of salary of teaching and non-teaching staff of the college. It would have even led to an administrative break-down. Even though Ext.P4 does not specifically grant power on the incumbent for grant of leave, as he was the drawing and disbursing officer, such function could have been only treated as an ancillary power to be attended to by such nominee so appointed, since this authority was inextricably connected with his functioning as a disbursing officer. As per statute 21 of Chapter 45 of the First Statute of the University, the educational agency is expected to pay salary of teachers and taking notice of the above when it is found that the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.No.26866 of 2003 were unauthorisedly absented from duty, the proceedings of the management as Ext.P8, P8(a) to P8(h) cannot be faulted. Further it also has to be taken notice of, that the Rules [Private Affiliated Colleges (Arts and Science Colleges) Staff Direct Payment Salary Rules, 1972] appended to G.O.(P)No.221/72 dated 6.10.1972, in Part II, referred to applicability of Part I of K.S.R. as general guidelines. Of course, if aggrieved about the factual aspects or merits, they could have taken up the matter with appropriate authorities as prescribed by their service conditions. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the members of the staff has no merit and it is dismissed, but reserving such rights, as referred to above.” (underline supplied) 11. Ext.P5 judgment of this Court to the extent of dismissing W.P.(C) No.26866 of 2003 was under challenge in W.A.No.169 of 2004 filed by additional respondents 6 to 14 herein. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the members of the staff has no merit and it is dismissed, but reserving such rights, as referred to above.” (underline supplied) 11. Ext.P5 judgment of this Court to the extent of dismissing W.P.(C) No.26866 of 2003 was under challenge in W.A.No.169 of 2004 filed by additional respondents 6 to 14 herein. The said judgment to the extent of allowing W.P.(C)No.34202 of 2003 filed by the Management was also under challenge in W.A.No.225 of 2004 filed by them, after obtaining leave of this Court. Since the order passed by the Government in the matter of appointment of Principal of the college was under challenge in W.P.(C)No.25465 of 2007 filed by the Manager, a Division Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 7.9.2007 dismissed W.A.Nos.169 of 2004 and 225 of 2004 as infructuous. 12. The additional 6th respondent (1st petitioner in W.P.(C) No.26866 of 2003) was the Head of Department of English, who was relieved from duty with effect from 22.5.2003. Against the order of the Manager relieving the additional 6th respondent from the post of Head of Department, he filed W.P.(C)No.27252 of 2003, which writ petition was later disposed of by the judgment dated 18.12.2006 making it clear that, if he has any subsisting grievance it will be open to him to point out the same before the University, in which case, the matter shall be duly considered with notice to him and also to the Manager of the college, and appropriate action in accordance with law will be taken within another 4 months. 13. It is alleged in the writ petition that the additional 6th respondent (1st petitioner in W.P.(C)No.26866 of 2003) who was the State President of the 5th respondent Association, got appointment as a Personal Staff of the Minister of Education, Government of Kerala, when Left Democratic Front (LDF) came into power. Thereafter, at the instance of the 5th respondent Association, the Government issued an order dated 17.7.2007 ordering an enquiry against Sr.K.M. Leelamma, the former Principal of the college, to initiate criminal proceedings against her under Section 170 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also disciplinary proceedings for personating a public servant. 14. The Government order dated 17.7.2007 was under challenge in W.P.(C)No.24006 of 2007, wherein this Court by Ext.P6 order dated 7.8.2007 stayed the operation of the said Government order, initially for a period of 1 month. 14. The Government order dated 17.7.2007 was under challenge in W.P.(C)No.24006 of 2007, wherein this Court by Ext.P6 order dated 7.8.2007 stayed the operation of the said Government order, initially for a period of 1 month. Since no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents therein, including the 5th respondent Association, this Court by the judgment dated 17.10.2016 made the said interim order absolute and that writ petition was disposed of accordingly. 15. As discernible from Ext.P7 Government order dated 7.7.2007, which is the order impugned in this writ petition, the 5th respondent Association submitted a representation dated 30.5.2006 before the Government requesting to sanction the leave applied for by additional respondents 6 to 14 and disburse their salary withheld for the period referred to therein. The details of the period of regularisation sought for, as discernible from Ext.P7 Government order, read thus; Sl.No. Name of teachers Nature of leave applied for Period Total No. of days 1 Thomas Joseph, Selection Grade Lecturer Casual Leave commuted leave “ 25.6.2003 ; 15.7.2003 to 17.7.2003; 4.7.2003 to 30.7.2003; 4.8.2003 to 7.8.2003 15 2 Wilfred Abraham, Selection Grade Lecturer Casual Leave 25.6.2003; 15.7.2003 2 3 J. Mathew, Selection Grade Lecturer Casual Leave “ 25.6.2003; 15.7.2003 2 4 J.L. Rajan, Selection Grade Lecturer Casual Leave 15.7.2003 1 5 T.T. Jose, Selection Grade Lecturer Casual Leave “ 25.6.2003; 15.7.2003 2 6 K.J. Jose, Selection Grade Lecturer Casual Leave “ 25.6.2003; 15.7.2003 2 7 M.K. Mathew, Selection Grade Lecturer Casual Leave “ 25.6.2003; 15.7.2003 2 8 M. George Sebastian, Selection Grade Lecturer Casual Leave 15.7.2003 1 9 Tomichan Joseph, Selection Grade Lecturer Casual Leave “ 25.6.2003; 15.7.2003 2 16. In Ext.P7 Government order, it is ordered that the entire period of absence of additional respondents 6 to 14 on account of their participation in organisational activities will be regularised by granting eligible leave including casual leave available at the credit of the teachers concerned, as detailed hereinbefore, and their salary withheld for such periods will be disbursed within a period of one month from the date of that order. If no leave is available at the credit of any such teacher, the period of strike will be regularised by treating such period as loss of pay, which will be treated as duty for all other purposes, including pensionary benefits. 17. If no leave is available at the credit of any such teacher, the period of strike will be regularised by treating such period as loss of pay, which will be treated as duty for all other purposes, including pensionary benefits. 17. The reasoning of the Government in ordering regularisation of the entire period of absence of additional respondents 6 to 14, as contained in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Ext.P7 order, reads thus; “2. The issue relates to a dispute over the payment of salary to teachers by the drawing and disbursing officer under the terms and conditions of direct payment agreement and rules framed there under. In this case salary of nine teachers have been withheld for the days on which they had taken part in organisational activities after giving due notice to the management. The teachers had taken part in a rally on 15.7.03. As per the Code of Conduct for College & University Teaches notified by UGC, teachers under the UGC Scheme enjoy organisational & democratic rights. AKPCTA is an organisation of teachers recognised by the Government of Kerala and AIFUCTO is a federation recognised by the Central Government and UGC. The present Government's policy is to protect and strengthen the democratic and organisational rights of teachers. 3. Despite these, the management of KE College withheld the salary of teachers for the days on which they were purported to be engaged in organisational activities. It is further noted that the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the KE College management in 2003 have been partly revoked and partly kept under suspended animation. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against all the teachers have been discontinued and is no longer in force as the same has not been completed within 3 months of its initiation as provided for in Section 63(4) of M.G. University Act 1985. Under Rule 5 of the Direct Payment Scheme, it is specifically provided that, “if any doubt arises as to the interpretation of any rule in this scheme the matter shall be referred to the Government and their decision shall be final.” The management had no so far sought clarification in this regard so as to decide what should be done along with the salary withheld from teachers. As a matter of policy and on legal and equitable grounds, the Government has the authority to intervene in the matter.” 18. As a matter of policy and on legal and equitable grounds, the Government has the authority to intervene in the matter.” 18. Based on the said reasoning, by Ext.P7 Government order, the entire period of absence of additional respondents 6 to 14 on account of their participation in organisational activities is ordered to be regularised by granting eligible leave including casual leave available at their credit and to disburse their salary withheld for such periods within a period of one month from the date of that order. Ext.P7 order provides further that, if no leave is available at the credit of any such teacher, the period of strike will be regularised by treating such period as loss of pay, which will be treated as duty for all other purposes, including pensionary benefits. 19. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that, the Government has issued Ext.P7 order dated 7.7.2007, based on a representation made by the 5th respondent Association dated 30.5.2006, requesting to sanction the leave applied for by additional respondents 6 to 14 and disburse their salary withheld for the period referred to therein. The averments in the writ petition that the 5th respondent Association is an organisation of the Private College Teachers in Kerala, having allegiance to the Communist (Marxist) Party of India, and that the additional 6th respondent, who was the State President of the 5th respondent Association, got appointment as a Personal Staff of the Minister of Education, Government of Kerala, when Left Democratic Front (LDF) came into power, i.e., in May, 2006 stand uncontroverted, as the official respondents and also the party respondents have not chosen to file any counter affidavit refuting such allegations. 20. The fact that, pursuant to the decision of this Court in Sojan Francis' case (supra), the 1st petitioner Manager banned political and organisational activities within the college campus, vide an order dated 15.6.2003, is not in dispute. 20. The fact that, pursuant to the decision of this Court in Sojan Francis' case (supra), the 1st petitioner Manager banned political and organisational activities within the college campus, vide an order dated 15.6.2003, is not in dispute. On receipt of Ext.P1 notice dated 23.6.2003 issued on behalf of the 5th respondent Association, regarding the demonstration proposed to be held in front of the college on 25.6.2003, from 10.00 am to 1.00 pm, to mark the protest of the teachers who are members of the said Association, against the proposed 'Unified University Bill', the Manager issued Ext.P2 reply, informing that the request made in Ext.P1 notice cannot be acceded to, in view of the order dated 15.6.2003 issued banning politics within the college campus. Despite the said reply, 7 teachers conducted demonstration in the college campus on 25.6.2003, during class hours. The Manager issued show-cause memos to those 7 teachers. On 30.6.2003, those teachers gheraoed the Principal. On receipt of a notice dated 12.7.2003 of the 5th respondent Association declaring a protest march to the college on 15.7.2003, the Principal issued a notice to the teachers to be present in the college on 15.7.2003, and they were warned that their absence would be treated as unauthorised. Despite the same, additional respondents 6 to 14 entered into the college campus along with demonstrators and conducted dharna and agitation during college hours. Therefore, the Manager issued Ext.P4(a) to (i) orders to additional respondents 6 to 14, withholding their salary for the date of unauthorised absence. 21. The action of the management in withholding the salary of additional respondents 6 to 8, 10 to 12 and 14 for 25.6.2003 and 15.7.2003 and that of additional respondents 9 and 13 for 15.7.2003 was under challenge in W.P.(C)No.26866 of 2003 filed before this Court by the said respondents. The orders dated 21.7.2003 of the Manager, withholding the salary of additional respondents 6 to 14 herein, were marked as Exts.P8, P8(a) to P8(h) in that writ petition. The said writ petition ended in dismissal by Ext.P5 judgment dated 14.1.2004, as devoid of merit. The orders dated 21.7.2003 of the Manager, withholding the salary of additional respondents 6 to 14 herein, were marked as Exts.P8, P8(a) to P8(h) in that writ petition. The said writ petition ended in dismissal by Ext.P5 judgment dated 14.1.2004, as devoid of merit. This Court held that, as per Statute 21 of Chapter 45 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997 the educational agency is expected to pay salary of teachers and taking notice of the above, when it is found that the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 26866 of 2003 were unauthorisedly absented from duty, the proceedings of the management as Ext.P8, P8(a) to P8(h) cannot be faulted. 22. In Ext.P5 judgment, this Court noticed that, Private Affiliated Colleges (Arts and Science Colleges) Staff Direct Payment Salary Rules, 1972 appended to G.O.(P)No.221/72/Edn. dated 6.10.1972, in Part II, referred to the applicability of the rules in Part I of Kerala Service Rules regulating fixation of pay, as a general guidelines, unless otherwise specified. This Court observed that, if aggrieved about the factual aspects or merits, additional respondents 6 to 14 herein could have taken up the matter with appropriate authorities as prescribed by their service conditions. Accordingly, W.P. (C)No.26866 of 2003 filed by additional respondents 6 to 14 herein, challenging the orders of the Manager dated 21.7.2003 withholding their salary was dismissed as devoid of merit, vide Ext.P5 judgment, but reserving their rights to take up the matter on factual aspects or merits with appropriate authorities, as prescribed by their service conditions. 23. Though, additional respondents 6 to 14 herein filed W.A.No.169 of 2004 against the dismissal of W.P.(C)No.26866 of 2003, the said writ appeal along with the connected matter were dismissed as infructuous by the judgment dated 7.9.2007. Despite Ext.P5 judgment, additional respondents 6 to 14 have not chosen to take up the matter on factual aspects or merits with appropriate authorities, within a reasonable time. In the absence of any such challenge, Ext.P4(a) to (i) orders of the Manager dated 21.7.2003 withholding the salary of additional respondents 6 to 8, 10 to 12 and 14 for 25.6.2003 and 15.7.2003 and that of additional respondents 9 and 13 for 15.7.2003, have attained finality. 24. In the absence of any such challenge, Ext.P4(a) to (i) orders of the Manager dated 21.7.2003 withholding the salary of additional respondents 6 to 8, 10 to 12 and 14 for 25.6.2003 and 15.7.2003 and that of additional respondents 9 and 13 for 15.7.2003, have attained finality. 24. On 30.5.2006, i.e., more than 2 years after Ext.P5 judgment of this Court, the 5th respondent Association made a representation before the Government requesting to sanction the leave applied for by additional respondents 6 to 14 and disburse their salary withheld for the period referred to therein. The 5th respondent Association made such a representation before Government immediately after Left Democratic Front (LDF) came into power in May, 2006. The additional 6th respondent, who was the State President of the 5th respondent Association, has also got appointment as a Personal Staff of the Minister of Education, Government of Kerala. Despite the pendency of W.A.No.169 of 2004 filed by additional respondents 6 to 14, against the dismissal of W.P.(C)No.26866 of 2003, the Government considered the said representation made by the 5th respondent Association, behind the back of the petitioners herein, who are the Manager and Principal respectively of the college, and regularised the entire period of absence of additional respondents 6 to 14 on account of their participation in organisational activities by granting eligible leave including casual leave available at their credit and to disburse their salary withheld for such periods within a period of one month from the date of that order. It is also ordered that, if no leave is available at the credit of any such teacher, the period of strike will be regularised by treating such period as loss of pay, which will be treated as duty for all other purposes, including pensionary benefits. 25. As discernible from Ext.P7 Government order, in the case of additional 6th respondent, unauthorised absence for a total period of 15 days is ordered to be regularised, stating that such absence was on account of his participation in organisational activities. In the case of others such regularisation of unauthorised absence was for either 1 or 2 days. Ext.P7 order would show that, the Government regularised the period of unathorised absence of additional respondents 6 to 14 in purported exercise of its powers under Rule 5 of the Private Affiliated Colleges (Arts and Science Colleges) Staff Direct Payment Salary Rules, 1972. In the case of others such regularisation of unauthorised absence was for either 1 or 2 days. Ext.P7 order would show that, the Government regularised the period of unathorised absence of additional respondents 6 to 14 in purported exercise of its powers under Rule 5 of the Private Affiliated Colleges (Arts and Science Colleges) Staff Direct Payment Salary Rules, 1972. Rule 5 of the said rules, which deals with 'interpretation of rules' provides that, if any doubt arises as to the interpretation of any rule in the said scheme, the matter shall be referred to the Government and their decision shall be final. 26. The provisions contained in Rule 5 of the said rules do not, in any manner, empower the State Government to order regularisation of the period of unathorised absence of staff, teaching and non-teaching, in the Arts and Science Colleges which are affiliated to the Universities in Kerala and which have acceded to the scheme for direct payment of salary introduced by the Government in its order, i.e., G.O.(Ms.)No.185/72/Edn. dated 30.8.1972. Therefore, the Government have absolutely no authority to interfere with such matters, either on policy considerations or on equitable ground. None of the reasons stated therein would confer authority on the Government to interfere with such matters. 27. Since additional respondents 6 to 14 have not chosen to challenge Ext.P4(a) to (i) orders of the Manager withholding their salary for the period of unathorised absence on factual aspects or merits with appropriate authorities, within a reasonable time from Ext.P5 judgment, those orders have attained finality. Moreover, the 5th respondent Association has no legal right to approach the Government seeking regularisation of the period of unathorised absence of additional respondents 6 to 14. Therefore, the reasoning of the Government, as contained in Ext.P7 Government order, is perverse and patently illegal, warranting interference of this Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 28. In T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka ( 2002 (8) SCC 481 ) one of the submissions made before the Apex Court was that, for maintaining the excellence of education, it was important that the teaching faculty and the members of the staff of the educational institutions perform their duties in the manner in which it is required to be done, according to the rules or instructions. While dealing with the said submission, the Apex Court held that, an educational institution is established only for the purpose of imparting education to the students. In such an institution, it is necessary for all to maintain discipline and abide by the rules and regulations that have been lawfully framed. The teachers are like foster-parents who are required to look after, cultivate and guide the students in their pursuit of education. The teachers and the institution exist for the students and not vice versa. Once this principle is kept in mind, it must follow that it becomes imperative for the teaching and other staff of an educational institution to perform their duties properly, and for the benefit of the students. 29. In Sojan Francis' case (supra) a Division Bench of this Court, after referring to the decision of the Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation's case (supra) held that, the management of a minority or non-minority institution can lay down the code of conduct to be followed by the management, teachers and non-teaching staff as well as the students, in order to safeguard the interests of all including the management, teaching and non-teaching staff and student community and to maintain discipline. The Division Bench held further that, the Mahatma Gandhi University statutes have restricted political activities by the teaching and non-teaching staff within the college campus in order to maintain discipline and efficiency in the college and to achieve excellence in education. If the students indulge in the same activities which are prohibited so far as teachers and non-teaching staff are concerned, the purpose sought to be achieved by those restrictions would be defeated. Students also therefore could be prohibited from indulging in political activities within college campus and from organising or attending meetings other than official ones within the college campus. This is a reasonable restriction which does not in any way violate Article 19(1)(a) or 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. 30. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, I find no merit in the argument advanced on behalf of the 5th respondent Association and its members, namely, additional respondents 6 to 14 that the restriction imposed by the 1st petitioner Manager banning political and organisational activities within the college campus has no application in the case of teaching and non-teaching staff in that college. For maintaining excellence of education in such institutions, it is imperative that the teaching faculty and the staff of such institutions perform their duties in the manner in which it is required to be done, according to the rules or instructions, for the benefit of the students. If the teaching faculty and the staff of such institutions indulge in the same activities which are prohibited so far as the students are concerned, the purpose sought to be achieved by those restrictions would be defeated. For the reasons stated above, I find no valid reason to sustain Ext.P7 Government order. In the result, this writ petition is allowed as prayed for, by setting aside Ext.P7 Government order dated 7.7.2007. No order as to costs.