ORDER : The petitioner, claiming himself a widely acknowledged Dental Surgeon and the one who has been engaged by different Universities as Honorary Professor, is aggrieved of the order contained in Memo dated 01.09.2016 issued under the signature of the Registrar, Nilamber Pitamber University. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed as Honorary Visiting Professor in the Vananchal Dental College & Hospital, on 12.02.2013 by the Governing Body of the College. He has been appointed as Honorary Visiting Professor for Vananchal Dental College by the Nilamber Pitamber University also, and this decision was communicated to him by letters dated 24.09.2013 and 27.04.2015. In the meantime, the University issued Notification dated 17.10.2013 for election under sub-section (d) to section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1948. The petitioner was elected a member under section 3(d) representing Nilamber Pitamber University in Dental Council of India (hereinafter referred to as DCI) on 23.10.2013. On 22.06.2016, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner for termination of his appointment as Honorary Visiting Professor and for annulment/withdrawal/cancellation of his election as a member of the Dental Council of India, which was replied by the petitioner on 16.07.2016. The University vide its order dated 01.09.2016 terminated appointment of the petitioner as Honorary Visiting Professor in Vananchal Dental College, and cancelled his election as a member under section 3(d) of the Dentists Act, 1948 from the University to DCI. It is this order which has been impugned by the petitioner in the present proceeding, primarily raising a question of jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor, Nilamber Pitamber University to terminate his appointment in the College and his election as a member of DCI. 3. In its counter-affidavit, the respondent-University has taken a stand that appointment of the petitioner to a post which was not duly sanctioned by the State Government and which was more in the nature of a nomination rather, an appointment, was in the teeth of the statutory provisions under Jharkhand Universities Act, 2000, in particular, sections 57-A and 58. Petitioner's election as member of DCI under section 3(d) has been challenged on the ground that there was no Dental Faculty in the University and, in fact, the Senate of Nilamber Pitamber University, which was carved out from Ranchi University on 17.01.2009, was never constituted and notified. The respondent-University has asserted that meeting of the Senate of the University, for this reason, has never been called. The respondent-University has asserted that meeting of the Senate of the University, for this reason, has never been called. The University supports the impugned order dated 01.09.2016 by pleading that before a final decision was taken in the matter, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to defend his appointment in the College and election from the University as member of DCI. Denouncing its letters and notifications, the University has taken a position that the whole exercise of appointment and election of the petitioner was on account of a mistake, inadvertently committed by the University. 4. Joining issue with the respondent-University on the question of existence of Dental Faculty and his appointment in the Vananchal Dental College by the College, the petitioner has filed a rejoinder-affidavit running into 49 pages; the writ-petition goes on to 23 pages and the counter-affidavit is confined to 17 pages. 5. The College-respondent no.7 has filed an affidavit supporting the stand taken by the petitioner. It has produced a copy of Notification dated 09.11.2010 to show that one Prof.(Dr.) S.N. Choudhary, Dean, Faculty of Medicine, Ranchi University, Ranchi was adopted as the Dean, Faculty of Medicine, Nilamber Pitamber University. A copy of letter dated 11.01.2017 issued by the Department of Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development, by which 9 members for the Senate of Nilamber Pitamber University were nominated, has also been brought on record by the College. 6. The Dental Council of India-respondent no.3, a statutory body, which has no lis with the parties to the proceeding, has filed an affidavit categorically supporting appointment of the petitioner as Honorary Visiting Professor in the Vananchal Dental College and his election under section 3(d) of the Dentists Act, 1948 as a member of DCI from Nilamber Pitamber University. DISCUSSIONS : 7. Plea taken by the petitioner is that his appointment to the post of Honorary Visiting Professor is "by the College", an unaided Dental College, which can always make an appointment on the teaching and non-teaching posts without seeking approval of the University. On the autonomy of the College, Sri Abhay Kumar Singh, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner extensively referred to several passages in "T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. vs State of Karnataka & Ors." [ (2002) 8 SCC 481 ], [: 2003 (1) JLJR (SC) 1] in particular, paragraph nos. 50, 53 and 69. On the autonomy of the College, Sri Abhay Kumar Singh, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner extensively referred to several passages in "T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. vs State of Karnataka & Ors." [ (2002) 8 SCC 481 ], [: 2003 (1) JLJR (SC) 1] in particular, paragraph nos. 50, 53 and 69. For the same proposition the learned Senior counsel has also referred to a decision in "Brahmo Samaj Education Society & Others vs. State of W.B. & Others" [ (2004) 6 SCC 224 ]. In the same breath, the petitioner contends that the prevailing practice in the State of Jharkhand has been that the teachers in the Dental Colleges have been appointed by negotiation and not upon recommendation of the Commission. This practice has been adopted since inception which, even assuming that section 57A of Jharkhand Universities Act, 2000 is attracted in the present case, on account of contrary practice in derogation to provision under section 57A, would render section 57A obsolete. To fortify this contention, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision in "Monnet Ispat And Energy Limited vs. Union of India & Others" [ (2012) 11 SCC 1 ]. While challenging the power and jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor to review its order appointing the petitioner as Honorary Visiting Professor, reliance has been placed on the decision in "Dr. Debashis Banerjee vs L.N.Mithila University & Ors." (CWJC No.5954 of 2015). 8. The College has also claimed that being an unaided professional college it has unrestricted power to make appointments in the College. The petitioner has pleaded that its eligibility for appointment as Honorary Visiting Professor is not under challenge, and it is the College which is his employer and the University has no power to terminate his appointment in the College. It has been contended that election under section 3(d), in case the University has no Senate, can be from amongst members of the Dental Faculty of the University. The petitioner has pleaded that he has been duly elected by the members of the Dental Faculty of Nilamber Pitamber University. It has been contended that election under section 3(d), in case the University has no Senate, can be from amongst members of the Dental Faculty of the University. The petitioner has pleaded that he has been duly elected by the members of the Dental Faculty of Nilamber Pitamber University. The show-cause notice dated 22.06.2016 has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent-University proceeded in the matter with a predetermined mind, and the said show-cause notice was, in fact, in the nature of final order by the respondent-University, even before the petitioner could have responded to the said show-cause notice. In the writ petition, the petitioner has pleaded; 31. That it is categorically stated here that the Respondent Authorities of the University has no jurisdiction to control the management of a private Dental College and undisputedly the Management of Vananchal Dental College is the pay master and the petitioner had been appointed for the benefit of Vananchal Dental College and to crown it all the status of the petitioner as Member of the Dental Faculty of Nilamber Pitamber University is still subsisting. The appointment of the petitioner as Honorary Visiting Faculty is permissible and within the spirit of the provisions of the Jharkhand State University Act and in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in numerous pronouncement as to control and management of private medical and dental colleges. 9. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the University submitted that the petitioner's appointment by the College, does not concern the University, in so long as, the petitioner does not claim any right except, against the College on the basis of such appointment and, it is the appointment of the petitioner by the University, on a post which was neither sanctioned nor created by the State Government, by letters dated 24.09.2013 and 27.04.2015, which has been terminated. His election as a member of the Dental Council of India has been challenged on the ground that the Senate of Nilamber Pitamber University has yet not been constituted and the University has no Dental Faculty. Before election under section 3(d) of the Dentists Act, 1948, no notice from the Dental Council of India under Regulation 23 of Dental Council (Election) Regulations, 1952 was given to the University, is also a plea taken by the University. 10. Before election under section 3(d) of the Dentists Act, 1948, no notice from the Dental Council of India under Regulation 23 of Dental Council (Election) Regulations, 1952 was given to the University, is also a plea taken by the University. 10. The Dental Council of India has supported appointment of the petitioner by the College adding another reason, that is, acute shortage of dental colleges in the country. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, the learned counsel for DCI submitted that rules and regulations of the University are meant for protecting the rights of the teachers and to ensure that their service conditions are similar to the teachers of aided or government colleges. 11. In the first place, if the petitioner does not challenge termination of his appointment by the University, first part of the impugned order dated 01.09.2016 stands affirmed. This is a serious lacuna in the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner. Why this is so, shall become clear in the later part of this order. But then, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has also made a full frontal attack to termination of the petitioner's appointment as Honorary Visiting Professor by the University. Arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner and the supporting respondents seem to protect both his appointments, by the College as well as the University. On the one hand, it was declared that the petitioner's appointment by the College is immune to interference by the University and on the other hand, extensive arguments were made to challenge termination of his appointment by the University. For examining the legality of appointment of the petitioner as Honorary Visiting Professor, few provisions under the Universities Act would be relevant. 12. On 13.12.2000, after the State of Jharkhand was created on 15.11.2000, Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 was adopted by the Government of Jharkhand. With modifications in the previous enactment, it is now called the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000. The Act defines the expression “Lecturer”, “Reader”, “Professor”, and section 2(v) defines “Teacher” to include Principal, University Professor, College Professor, Reader, Lecturer, Demonstrator and "other person" imparting instruction in departments, college or institute maintained by the University. The expression “other person imparting instruction in department, college or institute maintained by the University” has been interpreted differently by both the sides. The Act defines the expression “Lecturer”, “Reader”, “Professor”, and section 2(v) defines “Teacher” to include Principal, University Professor, College Professor, Reader, Lecturer, Demonstrator and "other person" imparting instruction in departments, college or institute maintained by the University. The expression “other person imparting instruction in department, college or institute maintained by the University” has been interpreted differently by both the sides. Under Section 4 one of the functions of the University is to conduct examinations and to grant and confer degrees, diploma, certificate and other academic distinctions. Section 4(5) confers powers upon the University to inspect all Colleges, University, Departments and Hostels. Sub-section (10) to section 4 would clarify that all colleges under subsection (5) would include private colleges also. It has powers to affiliate or disaffiliate a college, however, this power can be exercised in accordance with Statues and with prior approval of the State Government. Vice-Chancellor has also been vested with powers to visit and inspect the Colleges, Laboratories, Workshop etc., and any other institution associated with the University. Subsection (6) to section 10 provides that the Vice-Chancellor shall have powers to make appointment of the ministerial staffs and other staffs of the University, but not teachers and officers of the University. Section 18 gives composition of the Senate of the University. The Syndicate, under Section 56, shall cause an inspection of every affiliated college from time to time, and it may direct the college concern to take steps for removing the deficiencies. Sections 56, 57A and 58 are relevant for the present:- Section 56 Inspection of Colleges–(1) Every affiliated College shall furnish such reports, returns and other information as the Syndicate, after consulting the Academic council, may require, to enable it to evaluate the efficiency of the College. (2) The Syndicate shall cause every such College to be inspected from time to time. (3) The Syndicate may call upon any College so inspected to take, within a specified period, such action as may appear to it to be necessary in respect of any of the matters specified in any Statutes made under clause (d) of Section 22 or under Section 34. Section 57(A) (1) Appointment of teacher of affiliated Colleges not maintained by the State Government shall be made by the Governing Body on the recommendation of the [Jharkhand Public Service Commission)]. Section 57(A) (1) Appointment of teacher of affiliated Colleges not maintained by the State Government shall be made by the Governing Body on the recommendation of the [Jharkhand Public Service Commission)]. Dismissal, termination, removal, retirement from service or demotion in rank of teacher of such colleges shall be done by the Governing Body in consultation with the [Jharkhand Public Service Commission] in the manner prescribed by the Statutes: Provided that the Governing Bodies of affiliated minority colleges based on religion and language shall appoint, dismiss, remove or terminate the services of teachers or take disciplinary action against them with the approval of the College Service Commission: Provided further that the advice of the College Service Commission shall not be necessary in cases involving censure, stoppage of increment or crossing of efficiency bar and suspension till investigation of charges is completed. (2) Recommendation for the appointment of teachers of Colleges shall be made in accordance with the following provisions:- (a) [* * *] (b) [* * *] (c) For the purpose of absorbing the services of the teacher of the affiliated colleges, who were appointed by the governing body of the college against the sanctioned posts before the establishment of the College Service Commission and whose services have been approved by the University as also the services of such teachers who were appointed by the governing body on the recommendations of the University Service Commission (Dissolved College Service Commission) as the case may be, approval of the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission shall be necessary, and such teachers shall be absorbed in the University Service from the date of making the College constituent and their seniority shall be determined according to the rules prescribed in the Statutes. Section 58(9) [(9)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, a purely temporary appointment on a post of Lecturer, duly sanctioned by the State Government may be made for a maximum period of six months or till the end of session (whichever is earlier) by the following Selection Committee Constituted under the Chairman ship of Vice-Chancellor: 13. From the above provisions, it manifests that the regulatory powers under the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 are such that the University can oversee the appointment of teachers in the affiliated colleges to a large measure. From the above provisions, it manifests that the regulatory powers under the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 are such that the University can oversee the appointment of teachers in the affiliated colleges to a large measure. Affiliation granted to the Dental College by the University, which grants Degree, Diploma, Certificate and other academic distinctions, is not a mere formality but, it comes with certain conditions. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the Nilamber Pitamber University has referred to clause (18) to Regulation 57 of Dental Council of India (Miscellaneous) Regulations, 2007, which provides that appointment of Faculty in private Dental Colleges should be made through proper selection committee, in terms of University Act of the concerned State. Considering the statutory provisions governing the field, it must be held that the stand of the Dental College, that it is an unaided private college which is at liberty to do whatever it likes, runs counter to the scheme of Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000. 14. One of the contentions is, that once the Vice-Chancellor made the appointment it became functus-officio and had no power to review its own decision, as the statute does not confer such a power upon the Vice-Chancellor. This contention is liable to be rejected. Issue of review of its own decision by the Vice-Chancellor would arise only in cases where the Vice-Chancellor exercises quasi-judicial power. On general principles, power to appoint would include power to recall or terminate the appointment. In "Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani Vs. N.M. Shah, Dy. Custodian-cum-Managing Officer, Bombay & Ors." AIR 1966 SC 334 , succinctly putting the principle underlying section 16 of the General Clauses Act, the Supreme Court has observed; "the principle underlying the section is that the power to terminate is a necessary adjunct of the power of appointment and is exercised as an instance to or consequence of that power". An appointment, de hors the statutory provisions, by the Vice-Chancellor, who has limited powers under Section 58(9) to make temporary appointment to the post of Lecturer duly sanctioned by the State Government and, that too, only for six months, cannot be saved questioning power and jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor. 15. Referring to averments in paragraph no. An appointment, de hors the statutory provisions, by the Vice-Chancellor, who has limited powers under Section 58(9) to make temporary appointment to the post of Lecturer duly sanctioned by the State Government and, that too, only for six months, cannot be saved questioning power and jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor. 15. Referring to averments in paragraph no. 20 of the writ-petition, which are not specifically traversed by the University, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner tried to sanctify the appointment of the petitioner by resorting to the doctrine of desuetude. It is contended that the practice of appointing teachers in professional colleges by negotiation, contrary to Section 57-A of the Universities Act, would indicate that this statutory provision was not insisted upon by the Universities in the State and while so, appointment of the petitioner by the College cannot be challenged as illegal. However, no instance of an appointment by the Vice-Chancellor like the present one has been brought on record. The doctrine of desuetude requires not only pleading but proof also. It is primarily a question of fact. A statute does not fall into desuetude or become inoperative through obsolescence or by lapse of time [State of Maharashtra Vs. Narayan Shamrao Puranik reported in (1982) 3 SCC 519 ]. On mere failure of the respondent-University to challenge the stand taken by the petitioner in paragraph no. 20 of the writ petition, petitioner's appointment by the University does not become legal and valid. 16. Not to ignore, none of the contributions of the petitioner to the College or the University, if any, after his appointment has been shown to the Court. The petitioner has not even pleaded that he took classes for teaching the students of the College. There is not a whisper of any teaching activity by the petitioner either in the college or in the University after his appointment, still, he claims that his appointment as Honorary Professor falls under the category of teacher as defined under section 2(v) of the Act. Leaving aside the issue, whether or not Honorary Visiting Professor is covered under the definition of "teacher" under section 2(v) of Jharkhand Universities Act, 2000, the University could not have made appointment in the College on a non-existant post. There is no post of Honorary Visiting Professor created under a Statute. Leaving aside the issue, whether or not Honorary Visiting Professor is covered under the definition of "teacher" under section 2(v) of Jharkhand Universities Act, 2000, the University could not have made appointment in the College on a non-existant post. There is no post of Honorary Visiting Professor created under a Statute. No such post has been sanctioned by the State Government and on the top of it all, there is no provision for appointment by nomination of a teacher by the University in a professional college. The University has admitted that appointment of the petitioner by the University was contrary to the statutory provisions under Jharkhand Universities Act, 2000, however, it has sought to take refuge to mistake of law and misunderstanding of law. 17. The petitioner, it seems, does not even clearly know the nature of his own appointment; the College had written a letter to the University for appointment of the petitioner as Honorary Visiting Professor (Dental and Medical Faculty), the request made was for appointment of the petitioner as Honorary Visiting Professor (National), and in his reply to the show-cause notice dated 22.06.2016 the petitioner claims that he was appointed as Professor/Visiting Professor/Honorary Visiting Professor/Visiting Faculty by the Governing Body of Vananchal Dental College. Ignoring the aforesaid discrepancies, for labelling or nomenclature is not so important, the moment the petitioner becomes a candidate for election as a member from the University to D.C.I, the nature of his appointment and the legality of his appointment become subject to rules and regulations of the University and the provisions under Universities Act. The reason why the petitioner is anxious to save his appointment as Honorary Visiting Professor in the College by the University is for the obvious reasons. His election as member of DCI from Nilamber Pitamber University is founded on his appointment by the University and not by the College. Letter dated 13.06.2013 reveals the intention behind the proposal for his appointment by the University. If the petitioner claims a right flowing from his appointment as a "teacher" by the University, he cannot deny that such a right is available only to a teacher, who has been regularly appointed, through the processes provided in the Universities Act. His appointment by the University in the College was certainly not in consonance with the statutory provisions. If the petitioner claims a right flowing from his appointment as a "teacher" by the University, he cannot deny that such a right is available only to a teacher, who has been regularly appointed, through the processes provided in the Universities Act. His appointment by the University in the College was certainly not in consonance with the statutory provisions. The University has no power to make an appointment, as has been done in the case of the petitioner. Appointment of the petitioner by the University was patently illegal and it was always open to the University to terminate his appointment, even without a show-cause notice. There is no dearth of judgments, laying down a proposition that there is no requirement in law to issue a show-cause notice to terminate an illegal appointment. 18. Asserting that section 5 of the Dentists Act, 1948 is the only remedy available for challenging election of the petitioner under section 3(d) to D.C.I, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contended that right to stand as a candidate for election and a right to elect are neither fundamental right nor a common law right but, it is a pure and simple statutory right, and so is the right to dispute an election. Judgments including the one in "N.P. Ponnuswami vs. The Returning Officer" (A.I.R. 1952 SC 64) were cited by the learned senior counsel to fortify his contention that the University has no jurisdiction to cancel/annul/terminate election of the petitioner under section 3(d) to D.C.I. 19. The Dentists Act, 1948 was enacted for regulation of the profession of Dentistry and for that purpose to constitute Dental Councils. Composition of the Dental Council of India under section 3 includes different category of members; elected as well as nominated. The Dentists Act, 1948 was enacted for regulation of the profession of Dentistry and for that purpose to constitute Dental Councils. Composition of the Dental Council of India under section 3 includes different category of members; elected as well as nominated. It includes (i) one registered dentist possessing a recognized dental qualification elected by the dentists registered in Part A of each State register.; (ii) one member elected from among themselves by the members of the Medical Council of India; (iii) not more than four members elected from among themselves, by the authorities of the Dental Colleges such as, Principal, Dean, Director and Vice-Principal, in the State, however, not more than one member can be elected from the same Dental College; (iv) Heads of dental wings of Medical Colleges in the State; (v) one member nominated by the Government of each State from among persons registered either in a medical register or a dental register of the State; (vi) six nominees of the Central Government; (vii) The Director General of Health Services, who shall be the ex-officio Member; and (viii) one member from each University under sub-section (d) of section 3 of Dentists Act, which reads as under : (d) one member from each University established by law in the States which grants a recognised dental qualification, to be elected by the members of the Senate of the University, or in case the University has not Senate, by the members of the Court, from amongst the members of the Dental Faculty of the University or in case the University has no Dental Faculty, from amongst the members of the Medical Faculty thereof. 20. Section 5 deals with dispute regarding an election. It provides that election under Chapter-II shall be conducted in the prescribed manner, and any dispute arising regarding any such election shall be referred to the Central Government whose decision shall be final. Dental Council (Election) Regulations, 1952 prescribes the manner in which elections under Chapter-II of the Act are to be conducted. Regulation 23 provides that for election under clause (d) of section 3 a notice by registered post, not later than 60 days before the date of occurrence of a vacancy or vacancies, shall be issued by the president to the Registrar of each University concerned, for holding election not later than the date specified in the notice. 21. Regulation 23 provides that for election under clause (d) of section 3 a notice by registered post, not later than 60 days before the date of occurrence of a vacancy or vacancies, shall be issued by the president to the Registrar of each University concerned, for holding election not later than the date specified in the notice. 21. Let us analyze this first: a self-proclaimed renowned Dental Surgeon who was the Principal of Dr. R. Ahmed Dental College and Hospital, Kolkata and reigning President of Dental Council of India approaches a dental college situated at southeastern tip of the State of Jharkhand, the College with utmost urgency constitutes a committee which gives a report recommending that the petitioner shall be appointed as Honorary Visiting Professor of the College, and the College gleefully appoints him as Honorary Visiting Professor. The condition of his appointment is, that he will deliver "one lecture" every year. The College now approaches the University for his nomination as Honorary Visiting Professor(National), purported reason was that his appointment would help the University in improving the dental and medical research, and the Vice-Chancellor appoints him on provisional basis for 5 years as Honorary Visiting Professor in the Vananchal Dental College. Letter dated 13.06.2013 written to the Vice-Chancellor would disclose the intention of the petitioner for getting himself nominated/appointed by the University in the College; representation from the University in the Dental Council of India. It so happens that less than a month of his appointment in the College, the University issues election notice on 17.10.2013; date of filing nominations was 21.10.2013 and date for withdrawal of the nominations was 22.10.2013. On 23.10.2013 the petitioner is declared elected a member under Section 3(d) of the Dentists Act, 1948 from Nilamber Pitamber University. Evidently, extraordinary events had taken place. This is one case which discloses shocking manipulation of the system by a person for his own benefits. Understandably, the 3rd respondent-DCI as well as the 7th respondent-College, both have rushed to support the petitioner. 22. The very initiation of the election process by election notice dated 17.10.2013 by the University was without jurisdiction. Regulation 23 of Dental Council (Election) Regulations, 1952 which deals with manner of election under clause (d) of Section 3 provides that only upon a notice, on occurrence of a vacancy, to the Registrar of the University election can be held. 22. The very initiation of the election process by election notice dated 17.10.2013 by the University was without jurisdiction. Regulation 23 of Dental Council (Election) Regulations, 1952 which deals with manner of election under clause (d) of Section 3 provides that only upon a notice, on occurrence of a vacancy, to the Registrar of the University election can be held. Whether a vacancy had occurred or not and, whether a notice from DCI was given to the Registrar of Nilamber Pitamber University or not, the petitioner and Dental Council of India, both are completely silent in their affidavits whereas, the University has categorically asserted that no notice under Regulation 23 was received by the University. No notice as contemplated under Regulation 23 has been brought on record. Specific stand of the University that election notice dated 17.10.2013 was issued without any notice from the president of DCI stands unrebutted. 23. The petitioner claims that he was elected by the Dental Faculty of the University. Interestingly, the University has issued the list of Dental Faculty on 17.10.2013 itself by labelling it as "List of Dental Faculties of Nilamber Pitamber University/Vananchal Dental College", as if, Dental Faculty of University and the College both are same. Clause (d) of Section 3 provides that in case the University has no Senate one member from each University established by law in the State shall be elected by the members of the court from amongst the members of the "Dental Faculty of the University" or in case the University has no Dental Faculty, from amongst the members of the Medical Faculty. Dental Faculty of the University is different from the Dental Faculty of a College. What is referred to under section 3(d) is Dental Faculty of the University and not the Dental Faculty of the College. There is no Dental Faculty established in Nilamber Pitamber University, is the stand of the University. Under section 26 of the Universities Act, a Faculty can be created by the Senate in the manner prescribed by the Statutes. The Universities Act provides the subject and the manner in which Statutes, Ordnances, Regulations and the Rules can be made. Relevant provisions are contained in Section 35 to 40 of the Act. Under section 26 of the Universities Act, a Faculty can be created by the Senate in the manner prescribed by the Statutes. The Universities Act provides the subject and the manner in which Statutes, Ordnances, Regulations and the Rules can be made. Relevant provisions are contained in Section 35 to 40 of the Act. The petitioner does not seem to throw a serious challenge to the stand of the University that the Senate of the University has yet not been constituted, though few recommendations have been received. Existence of the Senate in Nilamber Pitamber University has been sought to be established by the petitioner by resorting to subsection 2 to section 19 of the Universities Act which provides that the Senate shall have perpetual succession. Section 19 reads as under: Section 19. Terms of office of members of the Senate-(1) The term of office of members of the Senate other than the ex-officio members, the members whose terms has been specified under this Act and the Life members, shall be three years from the date of their election or nomination, as the case may be, and shall include any further period which may elapse between the expiration of the said three years and the date of the next succeeding election or nomination not being an election or nomination to fill up any casual vacancy under Section 64 [but such extended period shall not be more than one year]: Provided that a member elected, or nominated as a representative of any body shall be deemed to have vacated office with effect from the date on which he ceases to be a member of the body which elected or nominated him: [Provided that the tenure of office of the elected members under sub-section (19) of Section 18 shall be one year with effect from the date of their election.] (2) The Senate shall have perpetual succession and any of its acts or proceedings shall not be invalid merely because of any vacancy or vacancies in its membership. 24. Before section 19(2) is pressed into service, it must be established that there was a Senate validly constituted for Nilamber Pitamber University in terms of Section 18. After bifurcation of the Ranchi University and consequent establishment of Nilamber Pitamber University, Senate of the erstwhile Ranchi University would not automatically be transplanted as Senate of the newly created University. 24. Before section 19(2) is pressed into service, it must be established that there was a Senate validly constituted for Nilamber Pitamber University in terms of Section 18. After bifurcation of the Ranchi University and consequent establishment of Nilamber Pitamber University, Senate of the erstwhile Ranchi University would not automatically be transplanted as Senate of the newly created University. The petitioner except referring to section 19(2), has not brought on record any notification, issued prior to 17.10.2013 when election notice was issued, which would conclusively establish constitution of the Senate of Nilamber Pitamber University. Recommendations vide letter dated 11.01.2017 cannot be construed as constituting the Senate of Nilamber Pitamber University, for a body comprising of about 100 members, elected as well as nominated, cannot come into existence on mere recommendation of 9 persons. 25. Under Section 26 of the Universities Act each Faculty shall consist of; (i) teacher members of the Senate, (ii) non-teacher members of the Senate, but their number shall not exceed 1/5th of the total number of members of the Faculty, (iii) Experts co-opted by the Academic Council. It is, thus, apparent that most of the members of the Faculty come from the Senate. Under section 18 the Senate shall consist of the following persons namely- Ex-Officio Members (1) the Chancellor; (2) the Vice-Chancellor; (3) the Pro-Vice-Chancellor; (4) [Commissioner and Secretary Higher Education]; (5) the Director of Higher Education, Bihar; (6) the Director of Health Services, Bihar; (7) the Director of Technical Education, Bihar; (8) the Deans of Faculties; (9) half of such of the Heads of University Departments as are not Deans shall be nominated by the Chancellor in rotation; (10) ten Principals of colleges maintained by the University as are not Deans to be nominated by the Chancellor in rotation; (11) five Professors/Readers admitted to the privileges of the University in the manner prescribed in the Statutes, are not Deans shall be nominated by the Chancellor in rotation. Life Members (12) all ex-Vice-Chancellors of the University; Explanation.-For the purpose of this clause, the expression ex-Vice-Chancellor who was appointed to fill a casual or temporary vacancy. Life Members (12) all ex-Vice-Chancellors of the University; Explanation.-For the purpose of this clause, the expression ex-Vice-Chancellor who was appointed to fill a casual or temporary vacancy. (13) every person who has given to the satisfaction of the Chancellor whether in one or more installments, a sum of not less than one lac rupees in cash or in the shape of property of the equivalent value to or for the purposes of the University or of a College: Provided that for being a life member of the Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, the fixed amount shall be twenty five thousand rupees. Representative Members (14) [six] persons to be elected by and from amongst the members of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly in such manner as may be prescribed by the Speaker of the Assembly, one of whom shall be from Scheduled Castes, one from Scheduled Tribes and [one] from other Backward Classes;] (15) [one representative of the Scholar of regional language to be nominated by the State Government;] (16) [(a) Minimum of ten teachers other than Deans, Principals and Head of University Department having at least five years teaching experience on substantive basis to be elected by and from amongst the regular teachers of the respective constituent/Govt. colleges in such a way that at least half of the total number of Constituent/Govt. Colleges get representation on rotational basis based on the seniority of Colleges; (b) University Departments shall be represented by two elected teachers, one from Science/Commerce and other from Humanities/Social Science faculty, other than Deans and Heads of Department, having at least five years teaching experience on substantive basis. Colleges get representation on rotational basis based on the seniority of Colleges; (b) University Departments shall be represented by two elected teachers, one from Science/Commerce and other from Humanities/Social Science faculty, other than Deans and Heads of Department, having at least five years teaching experience on substantive basis. (c) Permanently affiliated colleges (other than Government colleges) shall be represented by one elected regular teacher/principal having at least five years teaching experience on substantive basis;] (17) [* * *] ¼18½ ifjfu;e esa fofgr jhfr ls fo'ofo|ky; ,oa egkfo|ky; ds deZpkfj;ksa }kjk fuokZfpr fo'ofo|ky; ,oa egkfo|ky; ds deZpkfj;ks esa ls ,d deZpkjhA [(19) Five students from amongst the students of University to be elected in the manner prescribed in the Statutes, by the members of the Union council of the University Students' Union;] (20) five persons, other than ex-officio and teacher members of the Governing Body of Colleges, shall be elected by and from amongst members of the governing bodies of the University in the manner as may be prescribed in the Statutes; Nominated Members (21) three persons to be nominated by the Chancellor who are persons of scholarly pursuits; (22) one meritorious student to be nominated be the Vice-Chancellor in the manner prescribed in the Statutes, whose tenure will be of one year; (23) one student to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor in the manner prescribed in the Statutes, who has achieved distinction in sports and extracurricular activities, whose tenure will be of one year; (24) one person to be nominated by the State Sports Council, who has achieved a distinction in sports; [(25) six such registered graduates, other than the teachers of the University or its colleges, as have completed a period of five years after graduation, to be nominated by the Chancellor from the panel of registered graduates prepared by the Vice-Chancellor, one of whom shall be from Scheduled Castes, one from Scheduled Tribes and one from other Backward Classes;] [(26) such members of the Syndicate as are not members of the Senate under the above provisions;] [(27) ten persons to be nominated by the State Government who are known for their academic interest, one of whom shall be from Scheduled Castes, one from Scheduled Tribes and three from other Backward Classes.] 26. The University has issued a voters' list which includes 49 persons, all are said to be the members of the Senate. The University has issued a voters' list which includes 49 persons, all are said to be the members of the Senate. When the voters' list is compared with the list of Dental Faculty of the University, a fraud upon the Statute is unravelled. Under section 3(d) of the Dentists Act election of the petitioner as a member from Nilamber Pitamber University must be by the members of the court from amongst the members of the Dental Faculty of the University. Members of the Senate viz. MLAs, HoDs of different departments, Corporate etc. who do not figure in the list of Dental Faculty of the University have been shown in the voters' list. 76 persons are shown in the list of Dental Faculty but, none of the members of Dental Faculty is included in the voters' list. How the petitioner can claim that he was elected under section 3(d) by the Dental Faculty of the University; his election under section 3(d) cannot be by the Dental Faculty of the College, even if the College has any. A representation from the Dental Colleges to DCI is contemplated under section 3(c)(a) of the Dentists Act, 1948. At whose instance an illegal electoral roll was prepared and without notice under Regulation 23 of Dental Council (Election) Regulations 1952 an election notice was issued on 17.10.2013 which concluded by election of the petitioner as member from Nilamber Pitamber University to D.C.I, are the issues I must refrain from commenting upon, for the Central Bureau of Investigation is seized with an investigation in the matter, but I must say that election of the petitioner as a member from Nilamber Pitamber University under section 3(d) was nothing but, a farce. 27. Countering the stand taken by the respondent-University, the 7th respondent-College brought a copy of Notification dated 09.11.2010 to insist that petitioner's election as a member of the Dental Council of India was from the University which has no Senate and Dental Faculty and while so, the members of the Medical Faculty of the University were competent to elect one member from the University as provided under sub-section (d) to section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1948. On this, least to say, this is not the claim of the petitioner that he was appointed by the Medical Faculty of the University. On this, least to say, this is not the claim of the petitioner that he was appointed by the Medical Faculty of the University. It appears that the College has taken a special interest and positioned itself in such a manner, as if, it stands for the petitioner. 28. It is contended that the statutory remedy under section 5 of the Dentists Act cannot be circumvented by the Vice-Chancellor by usurping the power of Central Government to decide the dispute in respect of election of the petitioner. Stressing on finality and sanctity of the voters' list, it was contended that petitioner's election cannot be challenged on the ground of defective or incomplete voters' list. An election, which is founded on fraud, of an ineligible person, by the voters who cannot be the voter, and in the manner not provided under the statute, is per se illegal, and it does not warrant reference to the Central Government and its decision in the matter. By now, it is well settled a legal proposition that the High Court can justifiably refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if interference in the matter would perpetuate illegality. In one of the earliest judgments the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court not to exercise its discretion to quash the orders: one which was passed without giving notice to the affected party and in the later, the Government had no power to review an order made under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samithies and Zila Parishads Act [refer Gadde Venkateshwara Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh ( AIR 1966 SC 828 )]. In Mohd. Swalleh vs. IIIrd Addl. District Judge (1988) 1 SCC 40 , under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 no appeal would lay before the District Judge against an order of the Prescribed Authority, however, such an appeal was entertained and allowed by the District Judge. Finding that the order of the Prescribed Authority was invalid, the High Court did not interfere with the order of the District Judge. The Supreme Court observed that justice has been done though, technically the appellant had a point that the order of the District Judge was illegal and improper. 29. In the above circumstances, I have no doubt in my mind that the impugned order dated 01.09.2016 does not warrant interference by this Court. The Supreme Court observed that justice has been done though, technically the appellant had a point that the order of the District Judge was illegal and improper. 29. In the above circumstances, I have no doubt in my mind that the impugned order dated 01.09.2016 does not warrant interference by this Court. 30. After a writ-petition [W.P.(C) No.25782 of 2015] was filed in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam seeking a writ of Quo warranto alleging that the 3rd respondent (who is the petitioner in the present proceeding) is incompetent to continue as a member of the Dental Council of India as he was unlawfully elected under section 3(d) of the Dentists Act, 1948 from a University which does not have any Dental Faculty, the respondent-University claims that the matter was reexamined and thereafter a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 22.06.2016. The petitioner did not challenge the show-cause notice and awaited the decision of the University. Only after the University terminated his appointment by the impugned order dated 01.09.2016, he came to this Court throwing a challenge to the show-cause notice dated 22.06.2016. Judgment in "Oryx Fisheries (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India" [ (2010) 13 SCC 427 ] was referred by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, to support the challenge by the petitioner to the show-cause notice. 31. In his reply, the petitioner nowhere whispers that the show-cause notice dated 22.06.2016 was illegal. In short, he contended that once the University appointed him with open eyes and he was elected a member from the University for DCI his appointment by the University cannot be challenged on the ground that it was de hors the statutory provisions, and his election as member of DCI is immune from any interference by the University. The factual aspects in the show-cause notice, however, go unrebutted. Absence of notice under Regulation 23 of Dental Council (Election) Regulations, 1952 and nonexistence of Dental Faculty of Nilamber Pitamber University were the specific issues indicated in the show-cause notice which were not traversed by the petitioner in his reply. In "Oryx Fisheries", it was a failed commercial transaction which culminated in cancellation of registration certificate of the appellant. Absence of notice under Regulation 23 of Dental Council (Election) Regulations, 1952 and nonexistence of Dental Faculty of Nilamber Pitamber University were the specific issues indicated in the show-cause notice which were not traversed by the petitioner in his reply. In "Oryx Fisheries", it was a failed commercial transaction which culminated in cancellation of registration certificate of the appellant. The show-cause notice issued to the appellant used the expressions; “At the meeting it was convincingly proved that the cargo ship by you to the above mentioned buyer was defective and you have not so far settled the complaint "and," It has been proved beyond doubt that you have sent sub-standard material to M/s Caskade Marine Foods, LLC, Sharjah”. It was in this context it was held that, “if at a reasonable reading of a show-cause notice a person of ordinary prudence gets the feeling when his reply to the show-cause notice will be an empty ceremony and he will merely knock his head against the impenetrable wall of prejudged opinion, such a show-cause notice does not commence a fair procedure especially when it is issued in a quasi-proceeding under a statutory regulation which promises to give the person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of defence”. In a catena of judgments it has been held that, “a decision is only an authority for what it actually decides”. Quoting the oft-quoted observation of Lord Morris in British Railway Board vs. Herrington (1972) 1 All. ER 749; "There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or a judgment as though they were words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case.”, the Supreme Court has held that one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusion in two cases. Whether a show-cause notice discloses a prejudged mind or, that a decision has already been taken in the matter, a conclusion in this regard can be taken after ascertaining the context in which the notice was issued and the subject matter it dealt with. The show-cause notice dated 22.06.2016 does not disclose that it has been issued with a prejudged mind. The show-cause notice dated 22.06.2016 does not disclose that it has been issued with a prejudged mind. If a show-cause notice to an appointee records that he does not possess a Graduation degree, which the appointee, in fact, does not possess, the show-cause notice cannot be said to be issued in the teeth of the rules of natural justice. Narration of the factual aspects in the show-cause notice has been portrayed by the petitioner, as if the University acted with a pre-judged mind. 32. To conclude, the show-cause notice dated 22.06.2016 and the impugned order dated 01.09.2016, both do not suffer from any legal infirmity. Whether the University detected its mistake after a writ-petition was filed in the Kerala High Court or it was an attempt by the University to give colour of mistake to the appointment of the petitioner as Honorary Visiting Professor in the Dental College, must, in the above facts, pale into insignificance. The fact remains that the whole issue was reexamined by the University and thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 22.06.2016. The impugned order reflects proper and sufficient application of mind. An order need not be an encyclopedia of all the events and facts. The foundation for election of the petitioner as a member from the Nilamber Pitamber University to DCI was his appointment by the University. Once his appointment as Honorary Visiting Professor by the University goes, he ceases to be a member of DCI under clause (d) of section 3. His election no longer subsists and consequently, no dispute on his election would arise. The legal maxim, Sublato Fandamento Cadit Opus which means when foundation is removed super-structure falls, has been accepted by the courts in India. May be, the impugned order uses the expressions annulled, terminated and cancelled, it is mere reiteration of a fact consequent upon termination of the petitioner's appointment as Honorary Visiting Professor by the University, which has been stated in the impugned order. Termination of the appointment of the petitioner in the Dental College by the University and the resultant cancellation of his election from the University to DCI do not warrant interference of this Court. 33. The above discussions lead to the conclusion that the writ petition, bereft of merit, must fail. Accordingly, it is dismissed.