JUDGMENT : Being apparently threatened by certain orders and actions of the Mahatma Gandhi University, which the petitioners fear would obliterate their constitutionally guaranteed rights under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, they have filed this writ petition. 2. The petitioners in these two cases -which have been heard together, adverting to the common pleadings and reliefs – are stated to be the registered Association of the Managements of Institutions of Higher Education, as also individual Colleges; and all of them assert that said Institutions/Colleges have been declared as Minority Educational Institutions, under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioners say that though the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 (the “M.G. University Act” for short) contain two provisions, namely Sections 54 and 55, requiring all institutions to have a 'Governing Body' or a Managing Committee', they have never been implemented, as far as Minority Educational Institutions are concerned; and that this is crucial because such bodies, which have nominees of the University or the Government, would impinch the constitutionally protected right of self administration. They allege that, however, through the orders impugned in these writ petitions, the University has now directed them to constitute the afore bodies and have nominated a member from their side, thus forcing them to approach this Court through this writ petition. 4. The petitioners contend that the provisions of Sections 54 and 55 of the ‘M.G. University Act’ cannot be enforced against Minority Educational Institutions since it would offend Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. They aver in this writ petition that “the word 'choice' used in Article 30(1) includes, according to various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and of this Hon’ble Apex Court and of this Hon’ble High Court, a score of rights which help to make the object of establishment and administration, a meaningful proposition. They aver in this writ petition that “the word 'choice' used in Article 30(1) includes, according to various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and of this Hon’ble Apex Court and of this Hon’ble High Court, a score of rights which help to make the object of establishment and administration, a meaningful proposition. Such rights include among others, to get recognition and affiliation, to receive financial aid from the State, to select medium of instruction, to select management bodies, to select staff and students, provided they are duly qualified and the like” (sic); “that the right to ‘administer’ made available to minority under Article 30(1) means a right to conduct and manage the affairs of the institutions established by it, which is best exercised through the managing body in whom the founders of the institution or those who represent them have faith and confidence and who have fully autonomy in that sphere” (sic); further “that the ‘right to administer’ and ‘choice’ to select the managing body must be unfettered so that the founders or their representatives can shape and mould the institution as they deem appropriate and in accordance with their ideas on how the interest of the community in general will be best served” (sic). 5. The petitioners thus predicate that “interference with the ‘choice’ may take place when such persons who do not belong to the minority are sought to be inducted into the managing body, thus disturbing the composition as determined by the minority or it may take place when the managing body is sought to be replaced by another body, not of the choice of the minority.” (sic) 6. The petitioners rely on various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including Ahmedabad St.Xavier’s College Society and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others [ AIR 1974 SC 1389 ]; State of Kerala & Others v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial and Others [ AIR 1970 SC 2079 ]; D.A.V. College and Others v. State of Punjab [ AIR 1971 SC 1737 ]; Rt. Rev. Bishop S.K. Patro & Others v. State of Bihar & Others [ AIR 1970 SC 259 ] and a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Benedict Mar Gregorios v. State of Kerala & Others [ILR 1977 (1) Kerala 129] in substantiation of their plea. 7. Rev. Bishop S.K. Patro & Others v. State of Bihar & Others [ AIR 1970 SC 259 ] and a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Benedict Mar Gregorios v. State of Kerala & Others [ILR 1977 (1) Kerala 129] in substantiation of their plea. 7. The petitioners thus seek that Sections 54 and 55 of the ‘M.G. University Act’ be struck down, as being unconstitutional, to the extent to which it provides for the inclusion of nominees of the Government and of the University to the Governing Body/Managing Committee of a Minority Educational Institution; with a further corollary plea that the impugned orders of the said University, nominating members to such Body/Committees and ordering that they be so constituted, be also set aide. 8. The petitioners adscititiously and as an adjunct plea, further pray that a certain Circular issued by the M.G.University, bearing No. 36507/ACB1 SO/2020/AC B 1, dated 27.10.2020, directing the Colleges to forward to them the list of subject experts - to be included in the Selection Committee for appointment of Assistant Professors as per the applicable Regulations of the University Grants Commission (‘UGC Regulations’) - which is duly approved by its Governing Body/Managing Committee, be declared to be unlawful and illegal. 9. I have heard Sri.Babu Varghese – learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Abhay Ferdinand, learned counsel for the petitioners in these two cases; Sri.Surin George Ipe – learned Standing Counsel for the M.G.University and Smt.Parvathy K. -learned Government Pleader for the official respondents. 10. Sri.Babu Varghese – learned Senior Counsel began explaining that Section 54 of the “M.G. University Act” relates to the constitution of a “Governing Body” for a private college under Unitary Management; while Section 55 thereof provides for the constitution of a “Managing Council” for colleges under Corporate Management. He argued that since both these bodies are vested with the right of management of the colleges in question, the ‘inclusion of two outsiders’ - namely the nominee of the University and the nominee of the Government - would render to deracinate the functional autonomy of the Management of the Minority Institution, as is guaranteed by Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. He submitted that the afore cited decisions would substantiate his pea; and thus prayed that both these provisions, to the extent impugned, be set aside, finding it to be ultravires the Constitution. 11. He submitted that the afore cited decisions would substantiate his pea; and thus prayed that both these provisions, to the extent impugned, be set aside, finding it to be ultravires the Constitution. 11. Sri.Babu Varghese – learned Senior Counsel then argued that the Circular of the University mentioned above, namely, that bearing No.36507/ACB1 SO/2020/AC B 1, dated 27.10.2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Circular’ for short), which mandates that the subject experts, to be included in the Selection Committee for selection of Assistant Professors, will only be chosen from a list suggested or approved by the ‘Governing Body’/Managing Council’, is also bad for the same reasons above; and thus pleaded that it be set aside, finding it to be an attempt to rob his clients of their right to manage and administer the Minority Educational Institutions. 12. Sri.Surin George Ipe – learned Standing Counsel for the University, au contraire, predicated that the apprehensions voiced by the petitioners in these cases are wholly apocryphal and without any rational edifice at all because, the statutory “Governing Body” or the “Managing Council”, as the case may be, are distinct from the Management -whether it be corporate or unitary; and that their province is only to advise the latter in all matters relating to the administration of the college under them. He pointed out that, in fact, in Benedict Mar Gregorios (Supra), identical provisions as Sections 54 and 55 of the “M.G. University Act”, namely those relating to the Kerala University, were approved by a learned Full Bench, noticing the afore. He thus prayed that these writ petitions, to the extent to which it challenges Sections 54 and 55 of the “M.G. University Act” be dismissed; adding that, as far as the impugned “Circular” of the University is concerned, it has been issued in implicit compliance of the requirements of 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, 2018’ (hereinafter referred to as the ‘UGC Regulations, 2018’ for short). 13. 13. The learned Standing Counsel further explained that, Regulation 5.1 (V)(a) (iv) of the ‘UGC Regulations, 2018’ unambiguously provide that the Selection Committee to the post of Assistant Professor in Colleges shall consist the Chairperson of its governing body or his nominee from among the members of the governing body - who shall be Chairperson of the same; along with the Principal of the College; Head of the Department/Teacher-in-Charge of the subject concerned; two nominees of the Vice Chancellor and two subject experts not connected with the University. He then added that in the case of Minority Educational Institutions, the afore mentioned nominees - that of the Vice Chancellor, as also the subject experts – are to be chosen by the Chairperson of the College from out of two different panels of five names each, recommended by the Vice Chancellor of the University, who in turn, makes such recommendations from a panel suggested/approved by the relevant statutory body of the college in question. 14. Sri.Surin George Ipe contended that, therefore, the petitioners cannot assail the Circular of the University without having impeached the afore provisions of the ‘UGC Regulations’; and concluded saying that, in any event of the matter, they suffer no prejudice, including qua their autonomy of management because, the final nomination of both sets of the two members is to be made by the Chairperson of the College himself, from a list of persons recommended by the Vice Chancellor, out of the names given to him by the Governing Body of the College. He then argued that, since Sections 54 and 55 of the “M.G. University Act” provide that all decisions of the “Governing Body” or the “Managing Council”, as the case may be, are to be taken by a simple majority, the Management would encounter no detriment because, out of the eleven or so members in them, they have a brute majority of nearly nine or so. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 15. Smt.Parvathy K. -learned Government Pleader, began her submissions, arguing that the petitioners cannot challenge Sections 54 and 55 of the “M.G.University Act” at this point of time, when they have chosen to accept it for the last more than four decades. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 15. Smt.Parvathy K. -learned Government Pleader, began her submissions, arguing that the petitioners cannot challenge Sections 54 and 55 of the “M.G.University Act” at this point of time, when they have chosen to accept it for the last more than four decades. She submitted that the requirement of a nominee of the University and that of the Government, in the “Governing Body/Managing Council” for private colleges is to ensure transparency and fairness in procedure; and that in any case, a Full Bench of this Court has already approved analogous provisions in the Kerala University Act in Benedict Mar Gregorios (Supra). She then added that, as regards the impugned Circular of the University, though she does not have any comment to make on it specifically, it is clear that it has been issued solely in terms of the ‘UGC Regulations, 2018’; and thus asserted that it cannot be impugned by the petitioners, as has been attempted to be done by them in these writ petitions. She, also thus prayed that these writ petitions be dismissed. 16. Having recorded the afore rival submissions as above, I deem it necessary to exordially say that this Court is fully obliged by the Constitutional provisions and the declarations of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, to preserve the autonomy in management of a Minority Educational Institution to its fullest warrant, save within the ambit of reasonable restrictions, as are sanctioned in law. 17. In that context, if, as argued by Sri.Babu Varghese, learned Senior Counsel, the “Governing Body” or the “Managing Council”, as the case may be, were statutorily prescribed to be the bodies vested with the management of the Institutions, I would have certainly stepped in and set it aside, being in violation of the inviolable constitutional protections. However, a close look at these provisions would show that both the “Governing Body” and the “Managing Council” are to be constituted by the Management – Unitary Management in the case of the former and the Corporate Management in the case of latter; and Sub Section 3 of both these Sections stipulate that their duty is to advise the Management in all matters relating to the administration of the private college. 18. 18. As rightly stated by Sri.Surin Geroge Ipe and Smt.Parvathy K., identical provisions, as available in the Kerala University Act, were earlier brought into question before this Court in Benedict Mar Gregorios (Supra); and the observations of the learned Bench makes very interesting reading, for which purpose, I deem it appropriate to reproduce it as under: “These Sections have been attacked as constituting a serious in road on the right of management and administration of the institution vested by the Constitution in the minority itself. Prima facie, at any rate, the attack appears to us to be well-founded. But the learned Advocate-General stressed before us that the Council is a purely advisory body, and that there is no provision in the Act even for rendering the advice tendered by the Council binding on the minority institution. What the Council in such circumstance is expected to serve, is not for us to conjecture. If the legislature wishes to have it as an unnecessary cog in the administrative wheel or set up, we see nothing to deny it that luxury. By confining the power of the governing body under Section 52 and of the managing council under Section 53, to purely advisory functions and with no provision to make the advise binding on the minority institution, we see no ground to hold that these sections violate Article 30(1). We would confine the provisions of the sections accordingly, and were they to have any wider effect or purpose than purely advisory, we would hold that they trench on Article 30(1) of the Constitution” 19. Indubitably, in Benedict Mar Gregorios (Supra), this Court approved analogous provisions of the Kerala University Act, recording the submissions of the learned Advocate General that both the “Governing Body” and the “Managing Council” are only advisory bodies and that there is no statutory provision in the said Act to render their advice binding on the Management of the Minority Institution. The further observation of the learned Full Bench, to the effect that, where these provisions to have any wider impact or purpose than purely advisory, it would trench on Article 30(1) of the Constitution, is certainly very portentous. 20. The further observation of the learned Full Bench, to the effect that, where these provisions to have any wider impact or purpose than purely advisory, it would trench on Article 30(1) of the Constitution, is certainly very portentous. 20. In the afore contextual perspective, a look through the “M.G.University Act” would show that the word ‘Educational Agency’ has been defined under Section 2(9) thereof, to mean any person or body of persons who or which establishes and maintains a private college or more than one private college’; while ‘corporate management’ and ‘unitary management’ have been defined under Section 53 thereof to mean an educational agency which manages more than one private college, and an educational agency which manages a private college, respectively. 21. The Act then makes it perspicuous, through subsection (3) of Sections 54 and 55, that it is the duty of the “Governing Body” and the “Managing Council”, as the case may be, to advise the Management relating to the administration of the private colleges. There can, therefore, be little doubt that there are two distinct entities with respect to every college, namely the “Educational Agency” - which might either be a Corporate Management or a Unitary Management; and a “Governing Body” - in the case of a Unitary Management, and a “Managing Council” - in the case of Corporate Management. 22. For some reason, the petitioners in these cases appear to be under the wrong impression that both the afore entities are one and the same and therefore, that when nominees of the University or that of the Government are allowed to be brought into the “Governing Body”, or the “Managing Council”, as the case may be, it would trench upon their constitutional right of autonomy in management, guaranteed under Article 30(1). I am afraid that this impression is wholly wrong and totally misplaced because, as is also admitted by the University, the functions of the “Governing Body” or the “Managing Council” is only to advise the Management, especially when such advice is not binding on them - it being not so provided in the Statute any way. 23. I am afraid that this impression is wholly wrong and totally misplaced because, as is also admitted by the University, the functions of the “Governing Body” or the “Managing Council” is only to advise the Management, especially when such advice is not binding on them - it being not so provided in the Statute any way. 23. In that view of the matter, this Court can safely go by the scholarly elucidation of the law by the learned Full Bench of this Court in Benedict Mar Gregorios (supra) and to hold that the nominations, as sanctioned under Sections 54 and 55 of the “M.G.University Act” into the “Governing Body” or the “Managing Council”, are not ultra vires the Constitution or encroaching into the rights of a Minority Educational Institution to manage its own affairs, under the umbra of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. 24. That being so declared, the only other question is whether the impugned Circular of the University is in error. 25. The University takes the stand that they have merely gone by the “UGC Regulations 2018” while issuing the said Circular and obviously therefore, this Court is now obliged to examine the relevant provisions of the said Regulations, before any decision can be arrived at. Clause V of the “UGC Regulations 2018” reads as under: “V. Assistant Professor in Colleges, including Private and Constituent Colleges: (a) The Selection Committee for the post of Assistant Professor in Colleges, including Private and constituent Colleges shall consist of the following persons: i) Chairperson of the Governing Body of the college or his/her nominee from amongst the members of the Governing body, who shall be the Chairperson of the Committee. ii) The Principal of the College. iii) Head of the Department/Teacher-incharge of the subject concerned in the College. (iv) Two nominees of the Vice-Chancellor of the affiliating university, of whom one should be a subject-expert. In case of colleges notified/declared as a minority educational institution, two nominees of the Chairperson of the college from out of a panel of five names, preferably from the minority community, recommended by the Vice-Chancellor of the affiliating university, from the list of experts suggested by the relevant statutory body of the college, of whom one should be a subject-expert. In case of colleges notified/declared as a minority educational institution, two nominees of the Chairperson of the college from out of a panel of five names, preferably from the minority community, recommended by the Vice-Chancellor of the affiliating university, from the list of experts suggested by the relevant statutory body of the college, of whom one should be a subject-expert. v) Two subject-experts not connected with the college who shall be nominated by the Chairperson of the College governing body out of a panel of five names recommended by the Vice-Chancellor from the list of subject experts approved by the relevant statutory body of the university concerned. In case of colleges notified/declared as minority educational Institutions, two subject experts not connected with the University nominated by the Chairperson of the Governing Body of the College out of the panel of five names, preferably from the minority communities, recommended by the Vice-Chancellor from the list of subject experts approved by the relevant statutory body of the College. vi) An academician representing SC/ST/OBC/Minority/ Women/Differently-abled categories, if any of candidates belonging to any of these categories is the applicant, to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor, if any of the above members of the selection committee does not belong to that category.” 26. Though not specifically impelled before this Court, a question arises as to which is the Governing Body, as is mentioned in the said Regulations. It is rather obvious that the Regulations uses the word “governing body” without specific reference to any particular Statute, including the “M.G.University Act”; and therefore, it can only be construed to be the Managing Body-by whatever name it may be called. It is only for the purposes of convenience and to avoid ambiguity that the words “governing body” has been used therein; but this has absolutely no connection to or with the “Governing Body” and “Managing Council” as provided under Sections 54 and 55 of the “M.G.University Act”. Therefore, the petitioners need not harbour any apprehension solely because of the phraseology used in the “UGC Regulations”. 27. What remains is the modus of the nomination of two members of the Vice Chancellor – one of whom will be a subject expert; and the other two subject experts not connected with the college, into the Selection Committee. Therefore, the petitioners need not harbour any apprehension solely because of the phraseology used in the “UGC Regulations”. 27. What remains is the modus of the nomination of two members of the Vice Chancellor – one of whom will be a subject expert; and the other two subject experts not connected with the college, into the Selection Committee. Sub clauses (iv) and (v) of the afore extracted provision of the UGC Regulations, 2018 mandates that, in the case of a Minority Educational Institution, both the afore said sets of nominations shall be made by the Chairperson from a panel of five names recommended by the Vice Chancellor of the University, who in turn, makes it from the list of names suggested (in the case of the former set of nominations), or approved (in the case of the latter set), by the “relevant statutory body” of the college. 28. The axiomatic question arises, therefore, as to which is the “relevant statutory body” referred to by the UGC in the afore Regulations. 29. The learned senior counsel -Sri.Babu Varghese, argued that, going by the afore exposition by this Court, “relevant statutory body” in the “UGC Regulations 2018” can only be the Management – be that Corporate or Unitary – and not its “Governing Body” or “Managing Council”. 30. However, the learned standing counsel for the University -Sri.Surin George Ipe, argued that when the UGC uses the word “relevant statutory body”, it construes that body which is statutorily recognized, being either the “Governing Body” or “Managing Council”, under the provision of Sections 54 and 55 of the “M.G.University Act”. 31. Normally, in the case of interpretation of a Statute or Regulation, it would be most profitable to ask the author of the provision what they mean by its contents. However, in both these cases, the University Grants Commission has not been made a party and therefore, this Court does not have the advantage of hearing their version. 32. That said, there can be no doubt that the “UGC Regulations”, while alluding to the “relevant statutory body”, does not specifically refer to individual Statutes governing the various Universities in India. It is a general provision, intended to promote transparency and fairness in procedure; and to that extent, this Court can safely enter the opinion that what is referred to therein is an entity which is not the Management perse. 33. It is a general provision, intended to promote transparency and fairness in procedure; and to that extent, this Court can safely enter the opinion that what is referred to therein is an entity which is not the Management perse. 33. As I have already said above, under the “M.G.University Act”, the “Management” is different from the “Governing Body” or the “Managing Council”, with the latter being vested with the duty of only advising the former. Hence, when the “Governing Body” or the “Managing Council” furnishes the list of names to the Educational Agency/Management, which it finds to be suitable to be placed before the Vice Chancellor for his approval, I am guided to the certain opinion that it requires to be given sufficient amount of importance. This is more so because, as already seen above, both the “Governing Body” and the “Managing Council” operate with simple majority and the Management, statutorily, will obtain it in their favour since members from their side outnumber the nominated members. Indubitably, hence, in normal circumstances, the Management certainly would have its way, in spite of the presence of the nominated members of the Government or the University, since this would rarely have any impact, except if the other members were also to rally behind the nominated members in an isolated situation. 34. The “UGC Regulations 2018”, therefore, certainly cannot be construed to intrude into the functional autonomy of the Minority Educational Institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, especially when the final nomination is made by the Head of the Corporate/Unitary Educational Agency/Management, who is also the Chairperson of the Committee constituted for the purpose of selection of Assistant professors and such other teaching staff. 35. It is thus apodictic that the apprehensions impelled by the petitioners in these cases are edificed on a wrong understanding and consequential misinterpretation of the statutory provisions because, neither Sections 54 and 55 of the “M.G.University Act” or the impugned Circular of the University would, in any manner, trammel or restrict their rights to manage the affairs of their Institution/s in every manner they desire under the constitutional umbra. 36. 36. After I dictated this part of the judgment, Sri.Babu Varghese, learned senior counsel, intervened to say that even though the “M.G.University Act” was brought into effect in the year 1985, until today, no nomination has been made by either the University or the Government to the “Governing Body” or the “Managing Council”, which would clearly indicate that their present attempt is to usurp the management of the Institution/s. 37. I do not require to answer the afore apprehension again because my observations above, and in particular the declaration that the “Governing Body” or the “Managing Council” - which are mentioned in Sections 54 and 55 of the “M.G.University Act” - are only advisory in nature and distinct from the Management or Educational Agency, would fully allay it. For the afore reasons, I close these writ petitions without any further orders.