JUDGMENT R.M. Borde, J. - Heard. 2. Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3. The petitioner is a medical graduate, having acquired a degree of dental science i.e. B.D.S. in the year 2001, conferred by Dr. Babasaheb Marathawada University, Aurangabad. The petitioner has completed his education from the Government Dental College, Aurangabad which was, at the relevant time, affiliated to respondent No.1-Dr. Babasaheb Marathawada University, Aurangabad. 4. The petitioner, herein is objecting to the order passed by respondent No.2 Vice Chancellor, refusing the request of the petitioner to record an entry of his name in the register of graduates maintained by the University. 5. The Maharashtra Public Universities Act 2016 is enacted repealing the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, with an object to provide for academic autonomy and excellence, adequate representation through democratic process, transformation, strengthening and regulating higher education and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act also provides for economic autonomy to non-agricultural universities in the State of Maharashtra and to make better provisions therefor. 6. Section 28 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 prescribes constitution of Senate. Sub-section 2(t) of section 28 provides that a Senate shall consist of ten registered graduates having graduated at least five years prior to the date of nomination, to be elected from amongst the collegium of registered graduates, of whom one each shall be person belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) or Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and one shall be a woman. 7. Section 30 of The Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 provides for constitution of Management Council and subsection 4(i) provides for election of two registered graduates elected by Senate from amongst elected registered graduates of Senate out of whom one shall be elected from amongst the registered graduates who have been elected from Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) or Nomadic Tribes or Other Backward Class categories, by rotation. 8. Respondent University notified the programme for electing ten graduates from amongst registered graduates to be the members of Senate under the provisions of Section 28(t) of the Act of 2016. The Notification is published on web portal of University, specially designed for elections. Under the Notification, the graduates of the university are entitled to register their names by submitting on-line applications, prescribed there-for on the web portal. The Notification is published on web portal of University, specially designed for elections. Under the Notification, the graduates of the university are entitled to register their names by submitting on-line applications, prescribed there-for on the web portal. The web portal is designed and developed in a manner that the person applying is required to furnish information as per the instructions generated on the portal. 9. According to the petitioner, so far as information as regards names of medical and dental colleges are concerned, the list of colleges is not displayed on the web portal. Since there is no column providing names of the medical faculties displayed on the web portal, the petitioner was not in a position to fill the complete information and as such, was not in a position to submit the form, since the web portal neither accepts incomplete information, nor there is any provision for providing the information by manual typing in the format. The petitioner, as such, made a grievance to the University in this regard. The representation of the petitioner was attended by the Registrar and the Returning Officer and he suggested to chose option "other" as provided in the column of the college. The petitioner as such tendered the application form ''on-line''. The petitioner, however, received a communication on 7.7.2017, informing that it would be open for the petitioner to tender an application to the newly formed Maharashtra University of Health Sciences since petitioner is a graduate from the health sciences faculty, in view of section 131(i) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016. Being aggrieved by the communication, the petitioner approached this Court by presenting Writ petition No.9103/2017 which came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 24.7.2017. In paragraph No.3 of the order passed by the Division Bench, it is observed thus:- "3. The petitioner would submit that the new law, namely, Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 is to provide for academic autonomy, and excellence adequate representation to democratic process, transformation, strengthening and regulating higher education and for matters collected therewith incidental thereto. In paragraph No.3 of the order passed by the Division Bench, it is observed thus:- "3. The petitioner would submit that the new law, namely, Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 is to provide for academic autonomy, and excellence adequate representation to democratic process, transformation, strengthening and regulating higher education and for matters collected therewith incidental thereto. On promulgation of this law, though, the petitioner was earlier a graduate and acquired a bachelors degree in Dental Surgery in the year 2001 conferred by the respondent-University, but he completed his education from Government Dental College, Aurangabad which was falling within the jurisdiction or purview of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences. To the extent the courses of health sciences are concerned they were carved out and brought within the purview of the Maharashtra Health University Act. It may be that the Maharashtra Health University Act has a provision of registering a graduate, but having not provided for any opportunities and in tune with the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 does not mean that the registration or otherwise of the petitioner under the Health Universities Act would make it ineligible for claiming the registration under the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016. In other words, this registration under Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016/Maharashtra Act VI of 2017 is distinct and can be claimed even by the petitioner. The clarification may not be, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In any event it is a office clarification and not a specific order." The counsel appearing for the respondent university informed the Court that the Vice Chancellor of the University, irrespective of any office clarification will examine the request of the petitioner and pass the requisite orders on merits and in accordance with law, latest by 31.7.2017. In view of the statement made, the writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court. The Vice Chancellor of the University, however, took a view that the medical graduates are not entitled to enroll themselves as registered graduates of the respondent No.1 university. Paragraph No.11 to 16 of the order passed by the Vice Chancellor are relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy and the same are as quoted below:- " 11 In the present case, the Applicant is holding a degree in Health Sciences of Dr. Paragraph No.11 to 16 of the order passed by the Vice Chancellor are relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy and the same are as quoted below:- " 11 In the present case, the Applicant is holding a degree in Health Sciences of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathawada University i.e. existing University for which the university under this Act i.e. the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences is established and hence the Applicant shall be entitled to have his name entered in the register of registered graduates or deemed to be registered graduates maintained by the Health Science University, Nashik. 12. To completely deal with the present issue and to gather the real intention of Legislature behind drafting these acts, it is necessary for me to read both Acts with a combined effect. Hence while dealing with the present issue in the hand it is necessary to go to the proviso clause of Sec. 131(1) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act and it should be read with Clause (b) of Sub Sec. 12 of Sec. 891 of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998. 13 As per the proviso clause Sec. 131(1) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, it is necessary and also obligatory for the Applicant to apply for registration to the new University and he will auto0maticalloy cease to be registered graduate of the present University and Clause (b) of Sub Sec.1 of Sec. 81 of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 specifically states that, graduates who are holding a degree in health Sciences of any existing University for which the university under this Act is established are registered graduates or deemed to be registered graduates, maintained by the Health University, Nashik. 14 As per sub Sec. 11 and 2 of Sec. 2 of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998, the Applicant''s college is already affiliated to the Health University, Nashik and hence this college is outside the jurisdiction of the Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathawada University, Aurangabad. As per sub Sec. 29 registered graduate means a graduate registered or deemed to be registered under the Maharashtra Public Universities Act which ceased the right of the Applicant to be enrolled in the electoral roll of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathawada University, Aurangabad. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathawada University, Aurangabad. As per sub Sec. 29 registered graduate means a graduate registered or deemed to be registered under the Maharashtra Public Universities Act which ceased the right of the Applicant to be enrolled in the electoral roll of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathawada University, Aurangabad. 15 Sub-Sec.1, 2 and 3 of Sec. 6 specifically clarify the intention of the legislature behind establishing this new University for specific purpose and hence the Applicant is not at all entitled to enter his name in electoral roll of this university. 16 As such, considering the all factual aspects of the Applicant''s case and above relevant provisions of law, I come to the conclusion that, the Applicant tis not at all entitled to register his name in the electoral roll of this University as he is expressly and deemed to be registered graduate of the Health Sciences University considering Sec.81 of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998. The applicant is legally disabled to enroll his name in the electoral roll of this university. " 10. Certain provisions of The Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 and Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 are relevant for determination of controversy and those are as recorded below. Section 2(3) defines "affiliated college" means a college which has been granted affiliation by the university. Section 2(15) of the of 2016 defines "Collegium of Graduates of the University" means an electoral college consisting of registered graduates of university, who shall elect from amongst themselves, as members to the different authorities. University has been defined in subsection 63 to mean any of the public universities mentioned in the schedule and includes a cluster university within the meaning of sub section (6) of section 3. University has been defined in subsection 63 to mean any of the public universities mentioned in the schedule and includes a cluster university within the meaning of sub section (6) of section 3. Section 131 of the Act of 2016 provides for "Registered graduates", which reads thus: " Section 131 of The Maharashtra Public Universities Activities The Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 provides for a definition of Health University in sub section 36 of Section 2 of the Act means, "The Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, established under section 3 of the Act" Registered graduate has been defined as in subsection 29 of Section 2 of the Act, means, "a graduate registered or deemed to be registered under the Act." The authorities of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences has been prescribed in chapter IV, section 22 and those are the Senate, the Management Council, the Academic Council, the Faculty, the Planning Board, the Board of Studies, the Board of Examinations and such other bodies of the university as are designated under the statute to be the authorities of the university. On perusal of Chapter IV, it does appear that there is no representation provided for the registered graduates of the university in any of the authorities of the university. Section 81 of the Health Sciences act, 1998 provides for registered graduates which reads as under:- "81. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the following persons shall be entitled to have their names entered in the register of registered graduates or deemed to be registered graduates, maintained by the University, namely :- (a) who are graduates of the University; (b) who are graduates holding a degree in Health Sciences of any existing University for which the University under this Act is established. (2) A person who,- (a) is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; (b) is an undischarged insolvent; (c) is convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude; (d) is a registered graduate of any other University established by law in the State of Maharashtra, shall not be qualified to have his name entered in the register of graduates, or be a registered graduate. (3) Every person who intends to be registered graduate shall make an application to the Registrar in such form and make payment of such fees, as are prescribed by Statutes. (3) Every person who intends to be registered graduate shall make an application to the Registrar in such form and make payment of such fees, as are prescribed by Statutes. (4) The Vice-Chancellor shall, after making such inquiry as he thinks fit, decide whether the person is entitled to be a registered graduate. If any question arises whether a person is entitled to have his name entered in the register of graduates or be a registered graduate or is not qualified to be a registered graduate, it shall be decided by the Vice-Chancellor after making such inquiry as the Vice-Chancellor thinks fit and such decision shall be final." 11. It is vehemently contended by the respondents that since, the petitioner is a graduate having acquired degree in health sciences, on establishment of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, the petitioner as well as other graduates from the health sciences faculty, shall have to apply for registration as registered graduate under the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences to claim enrollment as registered graduates of respondent No.1 university. 12. The petitioner contends that respondent No.1 is the parent University and in view of provisions of section 147-K of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 1916, the registered graduates whose names were entered in the register of registered graduates maintained by the University immediately before the commence of this Act (i.e. Act of 2016) shall be deemed to be the registered graduates of that university under and for the purpose of this Act (Act of 2016) and the register so maintained and the registered graduates whose names are so entered, shall continue to be the registered graduates of the latter University. 13. It is contended that the petitioners name is entered in the register of respondent No.1 and the said entry and register so maintained shall continue and the petitioner and other similarly placed medical graduates from the health sciences faculty shall be deemed to be the registered graduates in view of the Section 131 of Act of 2016. It is the contention of the petitioner that the proviso to section 131 does not interfere with the rights of the petitioner to be a registered graduate of respondent No.1 university. It is the contention of the petitioner that the proviso to section 131 does not interfere with the rights of the petitioner to be a registered graduate of respondent No.1 university. The proviso provides for making an application for registration with new university and upon registration as a registered graduate with the new university, he will automatically cease to be registered graduate of the parent university. It is not a matter of doubt that the name of the petitioner has not been included in the register maintained by the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and the petitioner is not a registered graduate of the new university and as such, his name cannot be struck off from the list of registered graduates maintained by respondent No.1-University. It is the contention of the petitioner that proviso to subsection 1 of section 131 has to be construed strictly and no inference need be drawn against the petitioner with a view to disable him from seeking registration as registered graduate or continuing with the registration of respondent No.1-University. The petitioner contends that since he has not registered himself with the new university, his name does not get deleted automatically from the register of registered graduates of the parent University i.e. respondent No.1 university. 14. Section 81 of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 provides that those who are graduates of the university, those who are graduates holding a degree in health Sciences of any existing University for which the University under this Act is established, their names shall be entered in the register of graduates, or be a registered graduates, maintained by the University. The petitioner claims to be the registered graduate of other university i.e. respondent No.1, established by law in the State of Maharashtra and according to the petitioner, he is qualified to have his name entered in the register of registered graduates under the Act of 1998. 15. Subsection 3 of section 81 provides that every person who intends to be registered graduate shall make an application to the Registrar in such form and make payment of such fees, as are prescribed by the Statutes and subsection 4 authorizes the Vice-Chancellor after making such inquiry as he thinks fit, to decide whether the person is entitled to be a registered graduate. The decision of the Vice Chancellor has been provided finality. The decision of the Vice Chancellor has been provided finality. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has not tendered an application for registration to the University of Health Sciences and his name has not been entered as a registered graduate under the said Act. The name of the petitioner appears in the list of registered graduates of respondent No.1 university and as such, he is entitled to exercise his right to vote and is also entitled to contest the election. On the contrary, it is submitted by the respondents that in view of proviso to section 131 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, it is mandatory for the petitioner to apply for registration as a registered graduate to the new university i.e. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and upon registration, he ceased to be the registered graduate of parent university i.e. respondent No.1. 16. It is not matter of dispute that petitioner has not tendered an application to the new University for registration and as such there is no question of automatic cessation to be the registered graduate of respondent No.1. Proviso to section 131 (1) does not provide for consequences on failure to tender an application to the new university by registered graduate of parent university. Since the Act of 2016 does not provide for any consequence, on failure of registered graduate to tender an application for registration to the new university, any consequence including effect of cessation to be registered graduate of the parent university i.e. respondent No.1 cannot be read in the scheme of the Act. The petitioner, admittedly is a graduate of respondent No.1 university. His name is registered as registered graduate and is entitled to be registered as registered graduate of the university and proviso to section 131 does not provide for bar for said registration or continuance of the registration. 17. Section 81 of The Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 declares the eligibility of the candidate to be a registered graduate of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences. For registration as a graduate of the university of Health Sciences, procedure is prescribed under section 81 which admittedly has not been observed by the petitioner. 17. Section 81 of The Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 declares the eligibility of the candidate to be a registered graduate of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences. For registration as a graduate of the university of Health Sciences, procedure is prescribed under section 81 which admittedly has not been observed by the petitioner. The name of the petitioner admittedly has not been entered in the register maintained by the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences as a registered graduate and as such, there is no impediment for consideration of his application for enlisting his name in the list of registered graduates for the purpose of elections to the Senate of Respondent No.1 university. 18. It is the contention of the respondents that the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 provides for academic autonomy to non-agricultural and non-medical universities and since it does not relate to the health sciences faculty, the petitioner or any graduate of the health sciences faculty shall not be registered as registered graduate of the university established under the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016. The argument deserves to be rejected for the reason that there is no such prohibition prescribed under the Act. 19. The petitioner is a graduate. He has acquired graduation qualification from respondent No.1-University and subsequent establishment of Maharashtra Universities of Health Sciences only enables the petitioner to apply for registration with the said University. As has been recorded earlier, there is no prohibition specifically provided under the Act of 2016 for registration of the petitioner as a registered graduate. The petitioner contends that, while considering the proviso to sub-section 3 of section 134 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, it shall not be construed in the light of intention that the legislature might have had in mind, or what the legislature is expected to have said, or what the legislature might have done, or what was the duty of the legislature. The Courts have to administer the law as they find it and it is not permissible for the Court to twist the clear language of the enactment in order to avoid any real or imaginary hardship which, such literal interpretation may cause. The Courts have to administer the law as they find it and it is not permissible for the Court to twist the clear language of the enactment in order to avoid any real or imaginary hardship which, such literal interpretation may cause. It is the contention of the petitioner that in the instant matter if the proviso is construed as contended by respondents, it may affect the rights of the present petitioner to participate in the process of election of the Senate of respondent No.1 university. This Court, therefore, may not interpret the proviso beyond its scope or beyond the specific terms and the language employed by the legislature. The petitioner contends that the proviso generally provides for an exception and its intention is to clarify something enacted. Reliance is placed on the Judgment in the matter of Rohitash Kumar versus Om Prakash Sharma , (2013) 11 SCC 451 , for elaborating the concept of interpretation of proviso. Paragraphs No.20 to 29 of the Judgment are relevant for the purpose and are quoted as below:- " Interpretation of the proviso 20. The normal function of a proviso is generally, to provide for an exception i.e. exception of something that is outside the ambit of the usual intention of the enactment, or to qualify something enacted therein, which, but for the proviso would be within the purview of such enactment. Thus, its purpose is to exclude something which would otherwise fall squarely within the general language of the main enactment. Usually, a proviso cannot be interpreted as a general rule that has been provided for. Nor it can be interpreted in a manner that would nullify the enactment, or take away in entirety, a right that has been conferred by the statute. In case, the language of the main enactment is clear and unambiguous, a proviso can have no repercussion on the interpretation of the main enactment, so as to exclude by implication, what clearly falls within its expressed terms. If, upon plain and fair construction, the main provision is clear, a proviso cannot expand or limit its ambit and scope. (Vide: CIT, Mysore etc. v. Indo Mercantile Bank Ltd. , (1959) AIR SC 713; Kush Sahgal v. M.C. Mitter, Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Employees Union, Nagar Palika Nigam v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and State of Kerala v. B. Six Holiday Resorts (P) Ltd. 21. (Vide: CIT, Mysore etc. v. Indo Mercantile Bank Ltd. , (1959) AIR SC 713; Kush Sahgal v. M.C. Mitter, Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Employees Union, Nagar Palika Nigam v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and State of Kerala v. B. Six Holiday Resorts (P) Ltd. 21. The proviso to a particular provision of a statute, only embraces the field which is covered by the main provision, by carving out an exception to the said main provision. (Vide Ram Narain Sons Ltd. v. CST, AIR p.769, para 10 and A.N. Sehgal v. Rajeram Sheoran SCC p.315, para 14.) 22. In a normal course, proviso can be extinguished from an exception for the reason that exception is intended to restrain the enacting clause to a particular class of cases while the proviso is used to remove special cases from the general enactment provided for them specially. Hardship of an individual 23. There may be a statutory provision, which causes great hardship or inconvenience to either the party concerned, or to an individual, but the Court has no choice but to enforce it in full rigor. It is a well-settled principle of interpretation that hardship or inconvenience caused, cannot be used as a basis to alter the meaning of the language employed by the legislature, if such meaning is clear upon a bare perusal of the Statute. If the language is plain and hence allows only one meaning, the same has to be given effect to, even if it causes hardship or possible injustice. (Vide CIT(Ag), v. Keshab Chandra Mandal and D. D. Joshi v. Union of India) 24. In Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar (SCC p . 685, para 43) it was observed by a Constitution Bench of this Court that, if there is any hardship, it is for the legislature to amend the law, and that the Court cannot be called upon, to discard the cardinal rule of interpretation for the purpose of mitigating such hardship. If the language of an Act is sufficiently clear, the Court has to give effect to it, however, inequitable or unjust the result may be. The words, "dura lex sed lex" which mean "the law is hard but it is the law." may be used to sum up the situation. If the language of an Act is sufficiently clear, the Court has to give effect to it, however, inequitable or unjust the result may be. The words, "dura lex sed lex" which mean "the law is hard but it is the law." may be used to sum up the situation. Therefore, even if a statutory provision causes hardship to some people, it is not for the Court to amend the law. A legal enactment must be interpreted in its plain and literal sense, as that is the first principle of interpretation. 25. In Mysore SEB v. Bangalore Wollen Cotton & Sillk Mills Ltd (AIR p.1139, para 27) a Constitution Bench of this Court held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statue. In Martin Burn Ltd v. Corpn. of Calcutta this Court, while dealing with the same issue observed: (AIR p.535, para 14) "14. ... A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation. A statute must of course be given effect to whether a court likes the result or not." (See also CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. and Tata Power Co. Ltd. V. Reliance Energy Ltd.) 26. Therefore, it is evident that the hardship caused to an individual, cannot be a ground for not giving effective and grammatical meaning to every word of the provision, if the language used therein, is unequivocal. Addition and Subtraction of words 27. The Court has to keep in mind the fact that, while interpreting the provisions of a Statute, it can neither add, nor subtract even a single word. The legal maxim "A Verbis Legis Non Est Recedendum" means, "From the words of law, there must be no departure". A section is to be interpreted by reading all of its parts together, and it is not permissible, to omit any part thereof. The legal maxim "A Verbis Legis Non Est Recedendum" means, "From the words of law, there must be no departure". A section is to be interpreted by reading all of its parts together, and it is not permissible, to omit any part thereof. The Court cannot proceed with the assumption that the legislature, while enacting the Statute has committed a mistake; it must proceed on the footing that the legislature intended what it has said; even if there is some defect in the phraseology used by it in framing the statute, and it is not open to the court to add and amend, or by construction, make up for the deficiencies, which have been left in the Act. The Court can only iron out the creases but while doing so, it must not alter the fabric, of which an Act is woven. The Court, while interpreting statutory provisions, cannot add words to a Statute, or read words into it which are not part of it, especially when a literal reading of the same, produces an intelligible result. (Vide Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar, Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. State of Bombay, M. Pentiah v. Muddala Veeramallappa, The Balasinor Nagrik Coop.Bank Ltd. v. Babubhai Shankerlal Pandya and Dadi Jagannadham v. Jammulu Ramulu, SCC pp.78-79, para13.) 28. The Statute is not to be construed in light of certain notions that the legislature might have had in mind, or what the legislature is expected to have said, or what the legislature might have done, or what the duty of the legislature to have said or done was. The Courts have to administer the law as they find it, and it is not permissible for the Court to twist the clear language of the enactment, in order to avoid any real, or imaginary hardship which such literal interpretation may cause. 29. In view of the above, it becomes crystal clear that, under the garb of interpreting the provision, the Court does not have the power to add or subtract even a single word, as it would not amount to interpretation, but legislation. 20. In view of the reasons recorded as above, we are of the view that the contention raised by the petitioner that there is no impediment for claiming registration by the petitioner as a registered graduate of respondent No.1 deserves acceptance. 21. 20. In view of the reasons recorded as above, we are of the view that the contention raised by the petitioner that there is no impediment for claiming registration by the petitioner as a registered graduate of respondent No.1 deserves acceptance. 21. The Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with the aspect, on earlier occasion (Writ Petition No.9103/2017 in the matter of Narendra Hiralal Kale versus Registrar, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, decided on 24.7.2017) has observed, "it may be that the Maharashtra Health University Act has a provision of registering a graduate, but having not provided for any opportunities and in tune with the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, does not mean that the registration or otherwise of the petitioner under the Health Universities Act would make it ineligible for claiming the registration under the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016. In other words, this registration under the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 is distinct and can be claimed even by the petitioner. " 22. The petitioner fulfills the requirement for claiming registration as a registered graduate with respondent No.1. The respondent university is in error in refusing the registration claimed by the petitioner and not to include him in the list for facilitating to participate in the process of election of Senate and the subsequent process of constitution of the general council. The order passed by the Vice-Chancellor on 29.9.2017 is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside and the same is accordingly quashed and set aside. 23. The respondent University is directed to record and enter the name of the petitioner in the register of registered graduates maintained by respondent university with further direction to allow the petitioner to exercise rights created under the Act of 2016 available to the registered graduate including right to vote, participate and contest for election to the Senate from the graduates constituency. 24. It may be noted at this stage that this Court, while passing order on 12.10.2017 directed the University that the name of the registered graduates who have tendered their applications for enrollment as graduates from health sciences discipline shall be considered and their names be entered in the provisional electoral roll and such graduates from health sciences discipline, shall be permitted to participate in the process of election, subject to further orders those may be passed in the instant petition. 25. 25. Since we are allowing the petition and since the process of election is already over and in view of the enrollment of the eligible graduates from the health sciences discipline and their participation in the election process, no further orders need be passed. 26. Rule is accordingly made absolute. 27. There shall be no order as to costs.