ORDER : SANJAY YADAV, J. Petitioner, Pro Bono vide this Writ Petition seeks quashment of Memorandum of Association 2014 (referred as MoA 2014) framed under the provisions Mahdya Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 1973 being ultra vires section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and the Regulations framed thereunder, viz, UGC (Institutions Deemed To Be Universities) Regulations, 2010. As a consequence of Memorandum of Association being declared ultra vires petitioner seeks quashment of appointment of respondent No. 4 as a Vice Chancellor, of respondent No. 3 – University by declaring that the Search Committee constituted under MoA 2014 is invalid. Further relief sought by the petitioner is direction to respondents to follow MoA 2013 which was duly approved by the UGC and Regulations, 2010. 2. Relevant facts, briefly are that, Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development (Department of Education) in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, on advice of the commission declared vide Notification No. F.9-14/92-U.3 dated 21-9-1995 the Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education as Deemed to be University for the purpose of the Act of 1956 with effect from the date approved Memorandum of Association and Rules come into force. The said University is wholly funded by the Central Government. 3. That in order to regulate, in an orderly manner, the process of declaration of institutions as deemed to be Universities, preventing institutions of dubious quality from being so declared: and, further to maintain equality of higher education imparted by institutions deemed to be Universities consistent with the ideas of the concept of University, the UGC is conferred powers under clauses (f) and (f) of sub-section (1) of section 26 of 1956 Act to make Regulations. In furtherance whereof, the UGC framed Regulations called as UGC (Institutions Deemed To Be Universities) Regulations, 2010 vide Notification No. F.6-1(II)/2006 (OPPI) dated 21-5-2010. As per Article 1.2 thereof the Regulation applied to every institutions seeking declaration as an institution deemed to be University under Act as also, prospectively, to an institution which has been declared as an institution deemed to be University under section 3 of 1956 Act. 4. That, vide communication dated 25-6-2010 these deemed Universities were requested to make necessary changes in the existing MoA/Rules. 4. That, vide communication dated 25-6-2010 these deemed Universities were requested to make necessary changes in the existing MoA/Rules. The alterations, amendments and additions to the MoA/Rules governing the functioning of the institution deemed to be the University were to be as per Article 25 which is in following terms :— “25.0 Alteration, Amendments and Additions to the Rules governing the functioning of the institution deemed to be university No Rule and Bye law governing the functioning of the institution deemed to be university may be altered, amended and added to by the Board of Management or such other competent body to the effect that it is in conflict with or to the detriment of the provisions of these Regulations: and, no alteration, amendment or addition to the Rules and bye laws shall be given effect to without the prior approval of the Commission in accordance with the provision of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or the relevant Public Trust Act as in force for the time being.” 5. Pertinent it is to note at this juncture that Article 5 of the Regulations, 2010 provided for a governance system for an Institution To Be Declared As An Institution Deemed To Be University. It stipulates : “5.0 GOVERNANCE SYSTEM FOR AN INSTITUTION TO BE DECLARED AS AN INSTITUTION DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY An institution to be declared as a deemed to be university shall adhere to the following criteria : 5.1 The proposed institution deemed to be university shall be registered either as a not-for profit Society under the Societies Registration Act, or as a not-for profit Trust under the Public Trust Act with the Society/Trust strictly in accordance with the following provisions. 5.2 Among the authorities of the deemed to be universities, there shall be a Chancellor who shall be appointed by the sponsoring Society or the sponsoring Trust. He/she shall be an eminent educationist or a distinguished public figure other than the President of the sponsoring Society or his/her close relatives. 5.3 There shall be no position of Pro-Chancellor(s). 5.4 The highest governing body of the deemed to be university shall be a Board of Management to be headed by the Vice Chancellor or a distinguished academic. This body shall consist of a minimum of ten members and a maximum of twelve members. 5.3 There shall be no position of Pro-Chancellor(s). 5.4 The highest governing body of the deemed to be university shall be a Board of Management to be headed by the Vice Chancellor or a distinguished academic. This body shall consist of a minimum of ten members and a maximum of twelve members. 5.5 The Board of Management of the institution shall be independent of the Trust (or) Society with full autonomy to perform its academic and administrative responsibilities. The number of representative(s)/nominee(s) of the trust (or) society on the Board of Management shall be limited to a maximum of two. 5.6 The Board of Management shall consist of eminent persons capable of contributing to and upholding university ideals and traditions. 5.7 There shall be a Board of Management consisting of the following :— (i) Vice-Chancellor.........Chairperson (ii) Pro Vice-Chancellor (wherever applicable). (iii) Deans of Faculties not exceeding two (by rotation based on seniority) iv) Three eminent academics as nominated by the Chancellor (v) One eminent academic to be nominated by the Central Government in consultation with UGC (vi) Two teachers (from Professors, Associate Professors) by rotation based on seniority (vii) One nominee of the sponsoring Society (viii) The Registrar, who shall be the Secretary The term of membership of the Board of Management and its powers are as shown in Annexure I. 5.8 The Vice Chancellor shall be an eminent academic and shall be appointed by the Chancellor on the recommendation of a Search-cum-Selection Committee consisting of a nominee of the Government who shall be nominated in consultation with UGC, a nominee of the Chancellor and that of the Board of Management. The Committee shall be chaired by the nominee of the Board of Management. 5.9 All other statutory bodies of the deemed to be university shall be as described in Annexure 2 6. The University, respondent No. 3 framed MoA in 2013 in consonance with the Regulations, 2010, Clause 7 whereof made provision regarding “governance system” in the following terms :— “7 GOVERNANCE SYSTEM a) The Institute shall be registered either as a not-for-profit society under the Societies Registration Act, or as a not-for-profit Trust under the Public Trust Act with the Society/Trust strictly in accordance with the following provisions: b) There shall be a Chancellor, who shall be appointed by the sponsoring Society. He/she shall be an eminent educationist or a distinguished public figure other than the President of the sponsoring Society or his/her close relatives. c) There shall be no position of Pro-Chancellor(s). d) The highest governing body of the Institute shall be Board of Management to be headed by the Vice Chancellor. The Board of Management shall consist of a minimum of ten members and a maximum of twelve members. e) The Board of Management of the Institute shall be independent of the Society with full autonomy to perform its academic and administrative responsibilities. The number of representative(s)/nominee (s) of the society on the Board of Management shall be limited to a maximum of two. f) The Board of Management shall consist of eminent persons capable of contributing to and upholding university ideals and traditions. g) The Board of Management shall consist of: i) Vice-Chancellor - Chairperson. ii) Pro Vice Chancellor (wherever applicable). iii) Dean of faculty (if any) not exceeding two (by rotation based on seniority). iv) Three eminent academics as nominated by the Chancellor. v) One eminent academician to be nominated by the Central Government in consultation with UGC. vi) Two teachers (from Professors, Associate Professor) by rotation based on seniority. vii) Two nominees of the sponsoring Society – Member. viii) Registrar – Secretary. The terms of membership of the Board of Management and its powers are as shown in the Rules as given out in later part of this MoA. h) The Vice Chancellor shall be an eminent academician and shall be appointed by the Chancellor with the prior approval of Appointments Committee of Cabinet on the recommendations of a Search-cum-Selection Committee consisting of a nominee of the Government who shall be nominated in consultation with the UGC, a nominee of the Chancellor and that of the Board of Management. The Committee shall be chaired by the nominee of the Board of Management. i) All other statutory bodies of the Institute shall be as described in Rules.” 7. Sub-clause (h) of Clause 7 thus provided that the Vice Chancellor shall be an eminent academician and shall be appointed by the Chancellor with the prior approval of Appointments Committee of Cabinet on the recommendations of a Search-cum-Selection Committee consisting of a nominee of the government who shall be nominated in consultation with the UGC, a nominee of the Chancellor and that of the Board of Management. 8. 8. That in the year 2014, new MoA has been framed by the respondent University which led to supersession of the MoA 2013. In MoA 2014 the governance system also underwent the change. Clause 7 whereof provides for : “7 GOVERNANCE SYSTEM a) The Institute shall be registered either as a not-for-profit society under the Societies Registration Act, or as a not-for-profit Trust under the Public Trust Act with the Society/Trust strictly in accordance with the following provisions: b) The highest governing body of the Institute shall be Board of Management to be headed by the Vice Chancellor. The Board of Management shall consist of a minimum of ten members and a maximum of twelve members. c) The number of representative(s)/nominee(s) of the society on the Board of Management shall be limited to a maximum of three. d) The Board of Management shall consist of eminent person capable of contributing to and upholding university ideals and traditions. e) The Board of Management shall consist of : i) Vice-Chancellor …..........Chairperson. ii) Joint Secretary, in charge of LNIPE from MYAS, GOI as nominee of the MYAS. iii) Deans of Faculties not exceeding two (by rotation based on fitness/suitability cum seniority). iv) Two eminent sports academicians as nominated by the President of LNIPE. v) One eminent sports person to be nominated by the President of LNIPE. vi) Two teachers (from Professors, Associate Professors) by rotation based on fitness/suitability cum seniority. vii) The Registrar – Secretary. The terms of membership of the Board of Management and its powers are as shown in the Rules as given out in later part of this MoA. h) The Vice Chancellor shall be an eminent academician and shall be appointed by the President with the prior approval of Appointments Committee of Cabinet on the recommendations of a Search-cum-Selection Committee. i) All other statutory bodies of the Institute shall be as described in Rules.” 9. Thus, by virtue of sub-clause 7, the procedure for appointment of Vice Chancellor underwent the change stipulating that the Vice Chancellor shall be an eminent academician and shall be appointed by the President with the prior approval of Appointments Committee of Cabinet on the recommendations of a Search-cum-Selection Committee. President as per Clause 5(xxv) of MoA means President of the Society, i.e., Union Minister, Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India. 10. President as per Clause 5(xxv) of MoA means President of the Society, i.e., Union Minister, Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India. 10. That respondent No. 4 by virtue of order dated 23-9-2015 was appointed as Vice Chancellor of respondent No. 3 - University by the President. 11. It is this order which has led the petitioner file this petition Pro Bono on the contentions that being a social worker he has deep concern about the standard of higher education because the same being the backbone for better India. It is urged that the appointment of respondent No. 4 is illegal as the same is on the basis of the provisions of MoA 2014 which has no legal entity as the same has been framed without prior approval of the UGC as contemplated in Article 25 of the Regulations, 2010. 12. The principal challenge in thus to MoA 2014 and if the petitioner succeeds in establishing that the MoA 2014 is contrary to the terms of Regulations 2010 then the superstructure thereon, i.e., appointment of respondent No. 4 would crumble as a necessary consequence. 13. The issue therefore is whether MoA 2014 has been framed in violation of Regulations 2014. 14. But before dwelling on the said issue, preliminary objection raised on behalf of all respondents as to the locus of the petitioner in filing a petition is taken up first. 15. Contentions are that the petitioner is not an affected person, therefore, under the garb of challenging the vires of the MoA he cannot seek a writ of quo warranto. It is further contended that Public Interest Litigation in respect of service matter is not tenable. 16. Countering the contentions as to locus it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that being a vigilant citizen of free country, petitioner has fundamental right to take all such measures and steps to uphold the standard of education and more particularly the higher education. 17. However, the petitioner in his antecedents has not given any details of work undertaken by him to uplift the education system of this country. There is no whisper in the petition nor in the rejoinder there is any averments as to the efforts made by him in past as to his active participation in upliftment of education system, at school level and the higher education. There is no whisper in the petition nor in the rejoinder there is any averments as to the efforts made by him in past as to his active participation in upliftment of education system, at school level and the higher education. It appears that the petitioner is a self proclaimed social worker, a class which has mushroomed in the system who are only concerned with themselves. Petitioner a permanent resident of Ashok Nagar presently residing at Jagriti Nagar, Laxmiganj, Gwalior without disclosing the nature of social work, he is involved in either at Ashok Nagar or at Gwalior cannot claim that the present petition is Pro Bono. 18. In Neetu vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2007) 10 SCC 614 it is observed by their Lordships : 5. The scope of entertaining a petition styled as a public interest litigation, locus standi of the petitioner particularly in matters involving service of an employee has been examined by this Court in various cases. “14. The Court has to be satisfied about : (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. 15. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. 15. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. (See State of Maharashtra vs. Prabhu, 1994 (2) SCC 481 , and Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation vs. M/s GAR Re-Rolling Mills and anr., AIR 1994 SC 2151 . No litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. (See Dr. B. K. Subbarao vs. Mr. K. Parasaran, 1996 (7) JT 265 . Today people rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. They must inspire confidence in Courts and among the public. 16. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that Courts are flooded with large number of so called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, High Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and ors., AIR 1999 SC 114 , this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the Courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the Court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as afore-stated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts.” The aforesaid position was highlighted in Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of W.B., 2004 (3) SCC 349 . 19. In Vinoy Kumar vs. State of U. P., reported in AIR 2001 SC 1739 , it is held : “2. Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 the constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas - corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. It is a matter of prudence, that the Court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of third party where there is an effective legal aid organization which can take care of such cases. Even in cases filed in public interest, the Court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason or poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the Court for relief.” 20. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions in D. C. Wadhwa Dr. and others vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 378 , Union of India and others vs. S. Srinivasan, reported (2012) 7 SCC 683 and Lok Prahari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 389 to meet out the challenge as to his locus to file the Public Interest Litigation. 21. The decision in D. C. Wadhwa (supra) turns on the fact of said case, wherein the petitioner, a Professor in the Gokhle Institute of Politics and Economics, Pune was deeply interested in preservation and promotion of constitutional functioning of the administration in the country. He carried out thorough and detailed research in the matter of re-promulgation of Ordinances by the Governor of Bihar from time to time and published the result in a book titled “Re-promulgation of Ordinances: Fraud on the Constitution of India”. Petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4 who joined petitioner No. 1 were effected by the Re-promulgated Ordinances which were in force when the petition was filed. The question raised was of highest constitutional importance relating to the limitations on the power of the Governor in the matter of re-promulgation of Ordinances. In the case, at hand, the petitioner is nowhere near to the status of the petitioners in D. C. Wadhwa (supra). As noted (supra) petitioner for the reasons well known to him has concealed his antecedents. 22. The decision in Union of India and others vs. S. Srinivasan (supra) is also of no assistance to the petitioner as the locus standi of the petitioners’ therein was not the issue. 23. As noted (supra) petitioner for the reasons well known to him has concealed his antecedents. 22. The decision in Union of India and others vs. S. Srinivasan (supra) is also of no assistance to the petitioner as the locus standi of the petitioners’ therein was not the issue. 23. One more submission has been put forth on behalf of respondent No. 4 that a person who is not an aspirant and eligible for the post of Vice Chancellor but comes to the Court as a relater asking for the issuance of writ of quo warranto can only ask the Court to examine whether the statutory provisions under which the holder of a public office is appointed is complied with and that he cannot question the validity of the law under which such appointment is made. 24. This aspect as pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, came up for consideration before Division Bench of Mysore High Court in D. Rudriah and another vs. The Chancellor, University of Agriculture Sciences, Bangalore and others, reported in AIR 1971 Mysore 84, wherein their Lordships were pleased to answer the issue as under :— “102. The legal position has been summed up thus in Halsbury’s Laws of England, (3rd Edition), Vol. 11, page 48, para 280 : “An information in the nature of a quo warranto would not have been permitted for the purpose of attacking the legality of a charter of incorporation granted to a town through an officer appointed thereunder. Accordingly, an information calling upon the defendant to show by what authority he claimed to be coroner of a borough on the ground that the borough charter had not been properly granted, was refused.” 103. The learned Advocate General argued that the same reasoning as in the above cases, should be applied when the validity of the statutory provisions under which a person is appointed or elected to a public office, has been challenged in a petition for a writ in the nature of quo warranto, and that such petitioner should not be permitted to question the validity of such statutory provisions. 104. 104. We think the contention of the learned Advocate General is well founded : The reasoning adopted by the English Courts in the aforesaid two decisions, has equal application when the validity of the statutory provisions under which an appointment or election to a public office, has been made, is questioned in proceedings for quo warranto. 105. However, Mr. Patil contended that in order to assail the constitutionality of the Act under which respondent 5 had been appointed as Vice-Chancellor it is not necessary that the petitioner should be personally aggrieved by such appointment or should have any personal interest in such office. Mr. Patil sought to derive support for his contention from certain observations of the Supreme Court in Venkateshwara Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh. There, the appellant had brought a petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the Government shifting the Primary Health Centre from his village to another village. He was the representative of the villagers who had deposited Rs. 10,000/- with the Block Development Committee and had also donated two acres of land for the purpose of locating the said Centre in that village and he had represented the village in the proceedings before the Government. It was contended that he had no locus standi to bring that petition. Repelling that contention, Subba Rao, J. (as he then was) said that ordinarily, the petitions who seeks to file a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, should be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject-matter of the petition, that personal right need not be in respect of a proprietary interest, that it can also relate to an interest of a trustee, and that, that apart, in exceptional cases a person who has been prejudicially affected by an Act or omission of an authority, can file a writ petition even though he has no proprietary or even fiduciary interest in the subject-matter thereof.” 25. We are in respectful agreement with view taken by their Lordships in D. Rudriah and another (supra) that when the validity of the statutory provisions under which a person is appointed or elected to a public office, has been challenged in a petition for a writ in the nature of quo warranto, such petitioner should not be permitted to question the validity of such statutory provisions. We hold that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the validity of MoA 2014. 26. Reliance placed by the petitioner on the decision in Lok Prahari (supra) is of no assistance because in said case the issue raised therein by a registered society promoting public welfare represented through its General Secretary, a former officer of All India Services was ventilating the grievances that several former Chief Ministers in the State of Uttar Pradesh had occupied government bungalows of Type VI even after demitting the office of the Chief Minister for several years without any right to retain the same, which is not only immoral and illegal, but it also does not befit persons who were Chief Ministers of the State. It was during the course of hearing of said petition the validity of the provisions of Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules, 1997 on the touchstone of Uttar Pradesh (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981 came up for consideration. Thus, it was not a case of quo warranto as is the present case. 27. The upshot of above consideration is that the petition is not a genuine Public Interest Litigation. Nor the petitioner has locus to challenge the vires of MoA to bring home the writ of quo warranto. 28. Even otherwise, cogent material on record reveals that the Regulations, 2010 was amended on 1-5-2014 vide Notification No. F.6-1(ii)/2006(CPP-I/DU) published in Gazette of India (Extraordinary) dated 24th May, 2014 called as the UGC (Institutions Deemed To Be Universities) (Amendments) Regulations, 2014, whereby following amendments were ushered in Article 5 and in Annexure 2. “3. 28. Even otherwise, cogent material on record reveals that the Regulations, 2010 was amended on 1-5-2014 vide Notification No. F.6-1(ii)/2006(CPP-I/DU) published in Gazette of India (Extraordinary) dated 24th May, 2014 called as the UGC (Institutions Deemed To Be Universities) (Amendments) Regulations, 2014, whereby following amendments were ushered in Article 5 and in Annexure 2. “3. In regulation 5 of the principal Regulation — (a) for clause 5.1, the following shall be substituted, namely:— “5.1 The proposed institution deemed to be university shall be registered as a not-for-profit Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or as a not-for-profit Trust under the Public Trust Act, or as a not-for-profit company under section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Managing Society/Trust/Company), which shall be owned by a not-for-profit Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, or a not-for-profit Trust registered under the Public Trust Act, or a not-for-profit company registered under section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Sponsoring Society/Trust/Company), or in case of a public funded deemed to be university, by the Government : Provided that the members/trustees/promoters of a Managing Society/Trust/Company of a deemed to be a university, not being a public funded deemed to be university, shall not be directly or indirectly connected with the members/trustees/promoters of the sponsoring Society/Trust/Company.” (b) for clause 5.2 the following shall be substituted, namely :— “5.2 Among the authorities of the deemed to be universities, there shall be a Chancellor who shall be appointed by the sponsoring Society/Trust/Company and shall be an eminent educationist or a distinguished public figure other than the President/Trustee/promoter of the sponsoring Society/Trust/Company or his/her close relative.” (c) in clause 5.4, the words ‘or a distinguished academic’ shall be deleted. (d) in clause 5.5, for the words ‘Trust (or) Society’, the words ‘sponsoring Society/Trust/Company’ shall be substituted. (d) in clause 5.5, for the words ‘Trust (or) Society’, the words ‘sponsoring Society/Trust/Company’ shall be substituted. (e) in clause 5.7, for serial number vii) the following shall be substituted, namely :— “vii) maximum of two nominees of the sponsoring society/trust/company” (f) for clause 5.8 the following shall be substituted, namely :— “5.8 The Vice Chancellor shall be an eminent academic and shall be appointed in the manner laid down under clause 6.2 in Annexure 2.” (g) After clause 5.9, the following shall be inserted, namely :— “5.10 Notwithstanding anything contained in these Regulations, the governance system and management structure of a public funded institution Deemed to be University may be in accordance with the decision of the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be.” 12. In Annexure 2 of the principal Regulation,— (a) for clause 1.2, the following shall be substituted, namely :— “1.2 Composition of the Academic Council The Academic Council shall consist of the following persons, namely : 1. Vice-Chancellor……………..Chairperson 2. Pro Vice-Chancellor 3. Dean(s) of Faculties 4. Heads of the Departments 5. All Professors other than the Heads of the Departments (by rotation of seniority) 6. Two Associate Professors from the Departments other than the Heads of the Departments by rotation of seniority 7. Two Assistant Professors from the Departments by rotation of seniority 8. Three persons from amongst educationists of repute or persons from any other field related to the activities of the Institution deemed to be University who are not in the service of the Institution deemed to be University, nominated by the Vice-Chancellor 9. Three persons who are not members of the teaching staff, co-opted by the Academic Council for their specialized knowledge 10. The Registrar, who shall be the Secretary of the Academic Council Note: The representation of different categories shall be only through rotation and not through election. Three persons who are not members of the teaching staff, co-opted by the Academic Council for their specialized knowledge 10. The Registrar, who shall be the Secretary of the Academic Council Note: The representation of different categories shall be only through rotation and not through election. It may also be ensured that no particular faculty dominates the membership of the Council.” (b) For Clause 5.1 the following shall be substituted, namely :— “There shall be a Selection Committee for making recommendations to the board of Management for appointment to the post of Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors and such other posts as may be prescribed in accordance with the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 as amended from time to time.” (c) For Clause 5.2 the following shall be substituted, namely :— “Every Selection Committee shall be constituted in accordance with the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 as amended from time to time.” (d) For sub-clause (i) of Clause 6.2 the following shall be substituted, namely :— “(i) The Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole time salaried officer of the Institution deemed to be University and shall be appointed in accordance with the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 as amended from time to time: Provided that in case of a public funded deemed to be university, the Vice Chancellor shall be appointed in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be.” (e) In Clause 16.0 the words and figures “every 5 year or earlier, if necessary, by a Committee”, the words and figures “every 5 year or earlier if necessary, by a Committee” shall be substituted. (f) In Clause 23.0 the following proviso shall be inserted namely :— “Provided that in case of a public funded deemed to university, such transfer shall be in favour of the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be.” 29. (f) In Clause 23.0 the following proviso shall be inserted namely :— “Provided that in case of a public funded deemed to university, such transfer shall be in favour of the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be.” 29. Thus, with the insertion of Article 5.10 which is non-obstante having overriding effect on Article 25, it is the decision of the Central Government or the State Government as the case may be, will have the overriding effect on the powers of UGC in granting prior approval. 30. It is further borne out from record that the Central Government vide its letter dated 15-7-2014 communicated the prior approval to MoA 2014. The communication speaks for itself :— “F.No. 70-15/2014-SP-VI Government of India Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports Department of Sports Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi Dated 15th July, 2014 To, The Registrar, Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education, Shakti Nagar, Mela Road, Gwalior 474 002 (MP) Sub. : Amendments in the Memorandum of Association and Rules of Society of LNIPE as per provisions of para 3 (g) of UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) (Amendments) Regulations, 2014 – regarding. Sir, I am directed to invite your attention to the subject captioned and to say that the aforesaid matter has been considered by the Ministry and it has been decided with the approval of competent authority in the Ministry to amend the existing Memorandum of Association and Rules of the Society as per the statement enclosed hereto. You are, therefore, requested to take appropriate action for registration of amended MoA/Rules accordingly immediately and inform the Ministry accordingly, This may kindly be given TOP PRIORITY. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Sunil Garg) Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of India Tele : 011-23383336” 31. Thereafter, the UGC informed vide its Communication dated 21-7-2014 as to the adoption of resolution to amend MoA of respondent No. 3 which tantamounts to the approval as contemplated under Article 25 of the Regulations, 2010. It was informed : Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education, Gwalior (ISO 9001:2008 certified and NAAC Accredited Deemed University) Government of India, Ministry of Youth and Sports OTHER LANGUAGE --------------------- ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION BY CIRCULATION SUB : ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION BY CIRCULATION IN THE MATTER OF AMENDMENTS IN MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF SOCIETY OF LNIPE AS PER PROVISIONS OF PARA 3(g) OF UGC (INSTITUTIONS DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITIES) (AMENDMENTS) REGULATIONS, 2014. RESOLUTION Having gone through the back-ground note on the matter of “AMENDMENTS IN MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF SOCIETY OF LNIPE AS PER PROVISIONS OF PARA 3(g) OF UGC (INSTITUTIONS DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITIES) (AMENDMENTS) REGULATIONS, 2014”, the AGM resolves to approve the proposed amendments in the existing MoA/Rules of LNIPE Society and directs the Institute for registration of amended MoA/Rules and also authorize the Registrar, LNIPE to submit application and sign documents on behalf of the Board of Management before Registrar, Firms and Societies for this purpose. Date. : 21-7-2014 Name : Dr. J. S. Sandhu Place. : Delhi Secretary University Grants Commission Min. of Human Resource Development Govt. of India New Delhi 110002” 32. That Assistant Registrar Firms and Societies approved the amended MoA 2014 on 28-7-2014 and communicated it to respondent No. 3 33. It is further borne out from the material on record that respondent No. 1 by order dated 8-12-2014 set up the Search Committee for the purpose of selection of vice chancellor of respondent No. 3. The process was to be completed within three months in pursuance of order dated 9-2-2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 3572/2014. On 6-1-2015 vide memorandum F.No.4-10/2013-1D(SP-VI) respondent No. 1 Government of India notified eligibility criteria for appointment of Vice Chancellor in Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education, respondent No. 3. And on the recommendations of the Search-cum- Selection Committee and with the approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC), the Minister of State (i/c) Youth Affairs and Sports in his capacity as the President of the Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education, Gwalior appointed respondent No. 4 as its Vice Chancellor. 34. In view whereof besides MoA 2014 being in consonance with Regulations 2010 as amended in 2014; the appointment of respondent No. 4 is also in accordance with stipulation contained in the MoA 2014 as would add any substance to the petitioner’s contention that respondent No. 4 has usurped the public office. 35. Having thus considered we do not find any merit in this Public Interest Litigation which is dismissed with costs quantified to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to be deposited with the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society, 2015.