Dr. R. Sivaraman In ... v. Professor K. Chinnas...

COMMON JUDGEMENT

Writ Appeal Nos. 1074 and 1077 of 1998 filed by the Writ Petitioners challenging the common order dated 6-8-1998 passed by the learned single Judge in W.M.P Nos. 17226 and 17227 of 1998 were listed before us. The said Writ Appeals were directed against the interim order passed dismissing the W.M.Ps and vacating the interim injunction granted earlier.

2. Having regard to the subject matter of the Writ Petitions, the learned counsel for both the parties requested that the Writ Petitions themselves may be heard and disposed of. Accepting the request of the learned counsel for the parties, we took up the Writ Petitions themselves for final hearing. We heard the learned counsel for the parties accordingly, with their consent.

3. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petitions are the following:— The Petitioner in W.P No. 11287 of 1998 is a Professor and Head of the Department of Geriatric Surgery, Madras Medical College, Chennai and the petitioner in W.P No. 11288 of 1998 is a Professor and Head of the Department of Pharmacognosy, Madras Medical College, Chennai.

4. In bom these petitions, the respective petitioner has sought for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondent-University from preventing them to exercise their rights and duties as elected Members of Senate/Governing Council of the respondent-University, for the full tenure of their office ending on 16-7-1999 and 12-10-1998 respectively. The petitioners state that they were duly elected under Section 18(3) (a) of the Dr. M.G.R Medical University Act (for short “the University Act”), as the Members of the Senate of the respondent-University. The Madras Medical College is one of the primary and biggest constituent College of the respondent-University. As on date, it represents the interests of about 1000 Under-Graduates, 800 Post-Graduates and Super Speciality Students. The petitioners are the sole representatives of the Madras Medical College and all the Pharmacy Colleges respectively as Members of Senate/Governing Council of the University. For the next five years, the degree should be awarded only by the respondent-University to the students of the Madras Medical College and even to-day, the affiliation fee is collected from the Chennai Medical College by the respondent-University and all the examinations will be conducted by the University for five years. For the current academic year, the students are registered and affiliated under the respondent-University. In short, the representation of the petitioners with the respondent-University on behalf of the Madras Medical College and the Pharmacy Colleges cannot be dispensed with till they complete their term. The petitioners state that except the renaming of the Madras Medical College into Chennai Medical College by a declaration under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act (for short ‘U.G.C Act’), no other consequential requirements under the University Act had been carried out; it could not be done over-night without giving effect to the transitory provisions to permit the existing system to dissolve into a new constituent over a period of time. It is further stated that the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-University, who is contemplating extension for the second term, takes the opportunity to eliminate any contest from the eligible Members of the Madras Medical College, seeking to disaffiliate the College on one or the other ground. The petitioners allege malice in law on the part of the second respondent to shield the upgradation of the College into a Deemed University for his personal end. As per Section 18 of the University Act, the Senate of the respondent-University shall consist of ex-officio and other members, who are elected to the Senate of the Spg. & University; the petitioner in W.P No. 11287 of 1998 being one of the Professors of the affiliated College of the respondent-University, was elected by the teachers of the affiliated college as Senate Member for a period of three years with effect from 17-7-1996, which tenure ends on 16-7-1999; the petitioner in W.P No. 11288 of 1998 being one of the Professors of the affiliated Colleges of the respondent-University was elected by the Teachers of the affiliated Pharmacy Colleges as a Senate Member for a period of three years with effect from 13-10-1995, which tenure ends on 12-10-1998; the petitioners being Members of the Senate, were elected as Members of the Governing Council of the respondent-University under the provision of Section 21(4) (a) of the University Act; their election as members of the Governing Council was approved by a Meeting held on 29-8-1996; while so, all of a sudden, the petitioners were not issued with the notice for the Meeting of the Senate to be held on 28-8-1998 and that of the Governing Council on 30-7-1998, subsequently adjourned to 6-8-1998; the petitioners by their letter dated 29-8-1998, brought to the notice of the respondent-University about the failure on its part to issue notice of the Meetings of the Senate and Governing Council and thereby prevented them from participating in the proceedings when they continue to be members of the Senate and the Governing Council. It is also the case of the petitioners that although there is no valid order in writing for not permitting them to participate in the meetings of the Senate and the Governing Council without informing the reasons, the petitioners understand that the respondent-University did not permit them due to the reason of the affiliated College (Madras Medical College) being declared as Deemed University under the U.G.C Act. According to the petitioners, the said declaration of the status of Madras Medical College as the Deemed University has no impact on the petitioners continuing as members of the Senate or Governing Council under the provisions of the University Act; the Madras Medical College continues to remain in the Schedule of the Act dehors the declaration of the College as a Deemed University; the Madras Medical College cannot be disaffiliated until the existing students taking degree and Post-graduate Courses complete their tenure of course. Further, the Schedule under the University Act being an enactment of the Legislature of Tamil Nadu, having received the assent from the President, cannot be amended by an executive act; Section 45 of the University Act gives the term of three years for the elected Members of the Senate and the Governing Council; it cannot be taken away by any other method, including certain actions taken under the U.G.C Act, which has no bearing on the term of the petitioners as the Members of the Senate/Governing Council. According to the petitioners, they will be put to great hardship, it they are prevented from exercising their rights and duties as the Authorities of the University during their valid tenure still subsisting. Under the circumstances, the Writ Petitions are filed for the relief as stated above,

5. When the Writ Petitions came up for admission on 4-8-1998 before the learned single Judge, Notice of Motion returnable by 21-8-1998 was ordered and the learned single Judge granted interim injunction as prayed for till 31-8-1998 in the W.M.Ps filed along with the Writ Petitions. On 5-8-1998, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-University submitted that a Meeting had to be held on 6-8-1998 at 3-30 P.M and, therefore, orders may be passed on W.M.Ps So, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, W.M.Ps, were heard on merits and they were disposed of by the order dated 6-8-1998 made by the learned single Judge vacating the interim injunction granted on 4-8-1998. As already stated above, against the said order, the two Writ Appeals WA. Nos. 1074 and 1077 of 1998 are filed.

6. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a common counter affidavit, so also the respondent No. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 state that the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development (Department of Education), in its Notification No. F-9-3/97-U.3, dated 7-7-1998 declared the Chennai Medical College as “Deemed-to-be-University” with immediate effect and the same was republished by the Government of Tamil Nadu in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 21-7-1998, hence, the Chennai Medical College, Chennai, has ceased to be an affiliated college of the respondent-University from 7-7-1998. It is further stated that the petitioners are only apprehending that the Vice-Chancellor is contemplating for the second term and takes this opportunity to eliminate any contest from the eligible members of the Madras Medical College; even assuming that without admitting the same is true, there is no bar for any person including the petitioners to be considered/appointed to the post of Vice-Chancellor, which is clear from Section 10 of the University Act.

It is submitted that the declaration of the Chennai Medical College as “Deemed-to-be-University” has impact, as it takes away the status of affiliated institution and confers the status of an independent University; Section 3 of the U.G.C Act provides that on such declaration being made, all the provisions of the U.G.C Act shall apply to such a Deemed University; as per Section 22 of the U.G.C Act, the right of conferring or granting degrees shall be exercised only by University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or an institution deemed to be University under Section 3 or an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant legrees. The State Government is vested with the power of amending the Schedule under Section 66 of the University Act. The Government of Tamil Nadu itself have agreed in principle to make the Chennai Medical College as Deemed University.

Once the Notification of the Central Government is issued under the U.G.C Act, it impliedly repeals the name of the Chennai Medical College in the Schedule and the further amendment of the Schedule under Section 66 of the University Act is only a matter of course. Even though the students who have joined before the date of Notification by the Central Government, will continue their studies in the University, it cannot be said that Chennai Medical College is affiliated to the University. It is further pointed out that at the time of establishment of the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R Medical University, under the provisions of Section 67 (4) of the University Act, the students who were registered in the University of Madras and other Universities in Tamil Nadu were allowed to pursue their studies as before till they complete their studies, for which reason the then affiliated institutions (which were brought under the academic control of the respondent-University) never allowed to have the elected memberships in the authorities of the University of Madras and other Universities in Tamil Nadu and such memberships also ceased from the date of establishment of Dr. M.G.R Medical University. According to the respondents, there was no excessive delegation as alleged by the petitioners. Since the petitioners ceased to be the Members of the Senate after the Chennai Medical College ceased to be an affiliated institution, they ceased to be members of the Governing Council also. Thus, the respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petitions.

7. The stand of Respondent No. 3, to the extent it is relevant for the purpose of deciding these Writ Petitions, is to be seen from paragraphs 9, 12 and 13 of the counter affidavit, which read:

“9. I submit that by virtue of the powers conferred on the University Grants Commission under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 revised guidelines have been framed by the Commission for considering proposals for declaring an Institution as Deemed to be University. As per the revised guidelines, every institution proposed to be declared as an Institution deemed to be a University has to frame the Memorandum of Association, Rules and By-laws.

12. It is submitted that from the facts narrated above, it would be clear that even after the notification of the Government of India dated 7.7.1998, the Deemed University has not been established in the manner known to law. Further, except the post of Director in the rank of Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar, no other posts have been filled up and both the teaching and non-teaching staff already working in the Chennai Medical College are continuing as such and their service conditions are still governed by the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Medical Services.

13. It is submitted that as per Rule 23 of the Rules for Institutes of the University Grants Commission, by-laws relating to the service conditions shall be framed by the Board of Management with reference to the service conditions of the employees of the Deemed University. Till such time such by-laws are framed and the staffs are appointed in the manner known to such by-laws, the existing staffs shall be governed by the provisions of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Medical Services only. It is further relevant to point out that there are about 10 Government Medical Colleges under the control of this respondent within the State of Tamil Nadu. The teaching staffs employed in all the Government Colleges are governed by the Special rules for Tamil Nadu Medical Services and such teaching staffs are transferable from one Medical College to another. The Government of Tamil Nadu has not issued any order transferring the services of such of those teaching and non-teaching staff presently employed in Chennai Medical College and Research Institute at the disposal of the Deemed University for being appointed as its own staff.”

8. In their reply affidavits, the parties have reiterated their stand, giving some more details.

9. Shri V.T Gopalan and Shri K. Vijayan, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners urged that the appellants having been elected under Section 18(3) (a) of the University Act as Members of the Senate and thereafter as the Members of the Governing Council, are entitled to continue for a full tenure in the office, ending on 16-7-1999 and 12-10-1998 respectively; merely because Madras Medical College, Chennai, is declared as Deemed University under Section 3 of the U.G.C Act, the petitioners do not cease to be Members of the Senate/Governing Council and the University Authorities were wrong in not inviting them for the meeting of the Senate or the Governing Council, as the case may be; although Madras Medical College is declared as Deemed University by an executive order, nothing more has been done pursuant to such declaration; in other words, no further steps were taken to make the Deemed University effective and working as such; the students of the said College were registered in the University and if they complete their courses, their interests should be safeguarded by the appellants; the respondent No. 3, the State Government in the counter affidavit itself, has stated that many things are yet to be done pursuant to the declaration of ‘Deemed” status of Madras Medical College; the rights of the petitioners cannot be taken away by issuing a notification under Section 3 of the U.G.C Act declaring Madras Medical College as a Deemed University; at any rate, it shall not affect the rights of the petitioners to complete their term in office as Members of the Senate/Governing Council; the declaration of status of Madras Medical College as Deemed University is only for me purpose of the U.G.C Act and it cannot abridge the provisions of the University Act; so long the Madras Medical College remains in the Schedule of the Colleges annexed to the University Act and steps are not taken to disaffiliate the Madras Medical College, the petitioners are entitled to continue to represent the said College. The learned senior counsel drew our attention to Sections 2(f), 3, 12(cc) and 22 of the U.G.C Act and Section 2(a) and (d), Section 45(4), Section 66, Section 67(1) and (4) of the University Act. They also pointed out Sections 6 and 24 of the General Clauses Act and Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu General Clauses Act. They also added that the very Notification declaring Madras Medical College as Deemed University itself shows that the status could be reviewed. They cited some decisions in support of their submissions.

10. Shri R. Gandhi, the learned senior Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Shri Mohan Parasaran, learned counsel for the second respondent, at the outset submitted that the Writ Petitions themselves are not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties, that is, the Madras Medical College, (now Deemed University), University Grants Commission and the Union of India; the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the Deemed University have assumed charge; no student is registered with the respondent-University after Deemed University status is conferred on Madras Medical College; once the Madras Medical College is declared as Deemed University, it does not continue to be an affiliated college of the University; admittedly, the petitioners by virtue of being Professors of Madras Medical College as an affiliated college of the University, were elected to the Senate/Governing Council; the said College is no more remaining an affiliated college after its status was changed to Deemed University and consequently, the petitoners ceased to be Members of Senate/Governing Council; the respondents 1 and 2 were right in not inviting them to the meetings of either Senate or the Governing Council, as the case may be, from the date, Madras Medical College was declared as a Deemed University. Shri D. Murugesan, the learned Special Government Pleader, based on the counter affidavit filed by the Government, submitted that merely because Madras Medical College is declared as Deemed University, the Professors and all other staff members working in the Madras Medical College have not automatically become the Professors, teachers and other members of the staff as that of the Deemed University; in other words, merely because the Madras Medical College was declared as Deemed University, the Professors, teacher and other staff members cannot claim that they are to be treated as Professors, teachers and staff members of the University for the purpose of service conditions. He also submitted further steps have to be taken to make Madras Medical College as Deemed University, having regard to the Regulations. The learned counsel for the respondents also have placed reliance on some decisions in support of their contentions.

11. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In order to appreciate the rival contentions advanced by the contesting parties and their relative merits, we think it appropriate to extract the provisions of the U.G.C Act and the University Act. “University” is defined under Section 2(f) of the U.G.C Act as under:

“2(f) “University” means a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any such institution as may in consultation with the University concerned, be recognised by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made in this behalf under this Act.”

Section 3 of the same Act, to the extent it is relevant, reads:—

“3. Application of Act to institutions for higher studies other than Universities:— The Central Government may, on the advice of the Commission, declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that any institution for higher education, other than a University, shall be deemed to be a University for the purposes of this Act, and on such a declaration being made, all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such institution as if it were a University within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2.”

12. Section 2(a) of the University Act reads:—

“2(a) “affiliated college” means any college or institution, situate within the University area and affiliated to the University and providing courses of study in medical science for admission to the examinations for degree, diplomas and other academic distinction of the University and includes a college deemed to be affiliated to the University under this Act and includes an autonomous college;”

Section 2(d) of the same Act defines,

“College” means any college or any institution maintained by or affiliated to the University and providing courses of study or training in medical science for admission to the examinations for degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions of the University.”

Section 18(3) of the University Act reads:—

“18(3) The other members of the Senate shall be,-

(a) one Professor elected by the teachers of each affiliated medical college from among themselves;

(b) one Professor elected by teachers of all affiliated Dental Colleges from among themselves;

(c) one Professor elected by teachers of all affiliated colleges of Nursing from among themselves;

(d) one Professor elected by teachers of all affiliated colleges of Pharmacy from among themselves;

(e) two members elected by the members of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from among themselves;

(f) one member nominated by the President of the Indian Medical Council;

(g) one member nominated by the Director-General of Indian Council of Medical Research;

(h) one member each nominated by the Chancellor representing,-

(i) Chambers of Commerce;

(ii) Industries including engineering and technology;

(iii) Social Sciences;

(iv) Other Sciences; and

(v) Law, and

(i) one member each to be nominated by the Pro-Chancellor to secure the representation of,-

(A) the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes; and

(B) Sports.”

Section 45 of the University Act to the extent it is relevant for the present purpose reads:

“45. (1) Every elected and nominated member of the Senate and Governing Council, shall hold office for a period of three years and such member shall be eligible for election or nomination for another period of three years;

Provided that a member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elected to the Senate shall cease to be a member of the Senate from the date on which he ceases to be a Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.

(2) … … …

(3) … … …

(4) Where a person is a member of any other authority and by virtue of such membership, he is a member of any other authority or authorities and if for any reason, he ceases to be a member of the first mentioned authority, he shall also cease to be a member of other authority or authorities.

(5) … … …”

Section 66 of the same Act is to the effect:

“66. The Government, may, by notification, amend the Schedule to include in it any college, institution or centre to, or to exclude therefrom any college, institution or centre from and on the publication of such notification, such college, institution or centre shall be deemed to be included in or as the case may be, omitted from the Schedule.” •

13. It is not disputed that the Central Government has issued Notification No. F-9-3/97-U.3, dated 7th July, 1998, which was published in the Gazette of India, under Section 3 of me U.G.C Act, on the advice of the University Grants Commission, exercising the powers conferred by Section 3 of the U.G.C Act, declaring the Chennai Medical College and Research Institute, Chennai, as ‘Deemed-to-be University’ for the purpose of the aforesaid Act with immediate effect subject to a review after three years. The said notification was also republicized in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated July 21, 1998. As is evident from Section 3 of the U.G.C Act, the Central Government, on the advice of the University Grants Commission, has declared by Notification, the Chennai Medical College, Chennai, to be a ‘Deemed-to-be University’ under Section 3 of the U.G.C Act. A plain reading of Section 3 of the U.G.C Act does not show that anything more is required to be done further in order to deem any institution for higher education as Deemed University. In the said Section, it is also stated that all the provisions of the U.G.C Act shall apply to such institution, as if it were University within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the U.G.C Act. Hence, it is very clear that on such declaration being made in regard to an institution for higher education as Deemed University, all the provisions of the U.G.C Act shall apply and it becomes a University for the purposes of the U.G.C Act, as per Section 2(f) of the said Act. It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Special Government Pleader that something more is required to be done, even after the declaration that the Chennai Medical College, Chennai is a Deemed University under the U.G.C Act. Section 3 of the U.G.C Act is self-contained as regards the declaration of the status of an institution as a Deemed University. It is also not possible to say that the Notification issued under the said Section is merely an executive order. The Notification is issued by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the U.G.C Act itself on the Central Government. From the date Chennai Medical College, Chennai, was declared to be a Deemed University as per Section 3 of the U.G.C Act, by issuing a Notification by the Central Government, it ceases to be a ‘College’ or ‘affiliated college’ within the meaning of Section 2(a) and (d) of the University Act. The definitions of the ‘affiliated college’ and ‘college’ given in the University Act do not take within them ‘Deemed-to-be University’ and a University covered by Section 2(f) of the U.G.C Act.

14. It is not disputed that both the petitioners were elected as Members of the Senate under Section 18(3) (a) and (d) of the University Act, by virtue of they being professors of an affiliated college, viz., the Chennai Medical College, Chennai. Once the Chennai Medical College, Chennai was declared to be a Deemed-to-be University by the Notification aforementioned, under Section 3 of the U.G.C Act, it no more remained affiliated college of the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R Medical University. They were further elected to the Governing Council of the said University, under Section 21 of the University Act, on the basis that they were the Members of the Senate. Section 45(4) of the University Act clearly states that where a person ceases to be a Member of the first authority, he shall also cease to be a member of the other authority. When the Chennai Medical College, Chennai ceased to be an affiliated college after becoming a Deemed-to-be University, the Petitioners obviously ceased to be members of the Senate and consequently they ceased to be members of the Governing Council.

15. The learned counsel for the appellants, pointing out to Section 45(1) of the University Act, and submitted that as in the case of a Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, who shall cease to be a Member of the Senate from the date on which he ceases to be a Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, it is not so specifically provided in relation to the persons elected from the affiliated colleges to the Senate. The position of the petitioners is entirely different. It is not the question of they ceasing to be Professors of an affiliated College, but the affiliated college in which they are Professors has become a Deemed-to-be University. It is in the very nature of things and having regard to the provisions of both the Acts, it is not possible to hold that the Chennai Medical College, Chennai can continue to be an affiliated College and it can also be a Deemed-to-be University.

16. The argument that the Madras Medical College, Chennai is one of the institutions included in the List of the Institutions in the Schedule of the University Act under Section 1 (3) (a) and Section 66 of the University Act, continues to be an affiliated college, unless it is excluded or omitted from the Schedule as per Section 66 of the University Act, cannot be accepted. The declaration made under Section 3 of the U.G.C Act, declaring the Chennai Medical College, Chennai as a Deemed-to-be University, is not subject to Section 66 of the University Act. It was pointed out to us that there are more medical institutions which are affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R University as on today, but they do not find place in the Schedule. Merely because the Chennai Medical College, Chennai continues to be in the Schedule, it does not take away its status of Deemed-to-be University. By necessary and inevitable implication, the Chennai Medical College, Chennai is deemed to be excluded from the Schedule, the moment a declaration was made under Section 3 of the U.G.C Act, conferring the status of Deemed-to-be University on it. Even assuming that there is some conflict between the U.G.C Act and the University Act, to this limited extent, the declaration made under Section 3 of the U.G.C Act prevails.

17. The other argument that even though the Chennai Medical College, Chennai is declared to be a Deemed-to-be University, further steps are not taken in regard to the service conditions of the teachers and other staff working in the Deemed-to-be University, cannot also be accepted. It must be made clear that we are neither concerned, nor dealing with the service conditions or the status of the teachers and staff of the said Deemed University. We do not wish to say as to the status of the teachers and the staff working in the Chennai Medical College, Chennai and who are continuing even after it had become a Deemed-to-be University. It is a separate issue that has to be decided by the competent authority or in the appropriate proceedings.

18. As regards the argument of the learned Special Government Pleader that it is not enough to declare that an institution for higher education is a Deemed University, but further steps must be taken in terms of the Regulations to get the status of a Deemed-to-be University, we are unable to agree with this submission when Section 3 of the U.G.C Act does not require any further steps to be taken to give any institution for higher education the status of a Deemed University. If law states that a particular thing must be deemed to be from a particular date or on the happening of an event, to say it should not be so deemed amounts to saying something contrary to law and nullifying the very effect of deeming provision.

19. The Apex Court in Parayankandiyal Eravathy Kanapravan Kalliani Amma and others v. Devi and others ((1996) 4 S.C.C 76), in paragraphs 80 and 81 has stated thus:—

“80. When an Act of Parliament or a State legislature provides that something shall be deemed to exist or some status shall be deemed to have been acquired, which would not have been so acquired or in existence but for the enactment, the court is bound to ascertain the purpose for which the fiction was created and the parties between whom the fiction was to operate, so that full effect may be given to the intention of the legislature and the purpose may be carried to its logical conclusion. (See: J.K Cotton Wvg. Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1987 Supp SCC 350); American Home Products Corpn. v. Mac Laboratories (P) Ltd. ((1986) 1 SCC 465).

81. Lord Asquith in East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Finsburv Borough Council. ((1951) 2 ALL ER 587) observed that when one is bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, he must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequences and incidents which inevitably have flowed from it - one must not permit his ‘imagination to boggle’ when itcomes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs. (See also: M. Venugopal v. Divisional Manager LIC((1994) 2 SCC 323).”

The aforementioned decision of the Apex Court supports the above view we have taken. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants drew our attention to paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government to contend that the State Government has decided in principle to make Chennai Medical College, Chennai as a Deemed University; no Vice-Chancellor is appointed to the Deemed University; and the Chennai Medical College, Chennai has not yet become a Deemed University. The contents of the counter affidavit on the understanding of the particular party, does not come in our way of interpreting a provision of a statute. In the view we have taken, dealing with the status of a Deemed University under Section 3 of the U.G.C Act, the statement made in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government does not help the petitioners.

20. It is specifically stated by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 that no student is registered with the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R Medical University after the notification was issued under Section 3 of the U.G.C Act conferring the status of Deemed-to-be University on the Chennai Medical College, Chennai.

21. The term of the petitioner in W.P No. 11288 of 1998 as a Member of the Senate came to an end on 12-10-1998 itself after completion of three years from the date of election. Inthis view, the said Writ Petition itself has become infructuous. Sri K. Vijayan, the learned Senior Counsel for the peititoner in W.P No. 11288 of 1998 urged that after filing the Writ Petition, interim order was passed on 4-8-1998 in favour of the petitioner, but the same was vacated on 6-8-1998; after filing the appeal against the vacating of interim order, no interim order was granted in the appeal; for no fault of the petitioner, he should not suffer apd the relief can be moulded. According to the learned Senior Counsel, in case the contention of the Writ petition is accepted, he should be allowed to continue for a further period, so as to compensate him, to see that he holds office for a full term of three years. We are unable to accept this argument for two reasons: In view of what is stated above and in the view we have taken, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. This apart, the petitioner in W.P No. 11288 of 1998 cannot claim any vested right in the matter of representing an affiliated college in the Senate or the Governing Council, as the case may be.

22. The term of the office of the Writ petitioner in W.P No. 11287 of 1998 comes to an end on 16-7-1999, according to him. But, in the view we have taken that the Chennai Medical College, Chennai ceased to be an affiliated College of the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R Medical University and he has ceased to be a member of the Senate and consequently as a member of the Governing Council, no relief can be granted to him also.

23. In view of the facts stated and discussions made above, in our view, the Wirt petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, they are dismissed. Consequently, Writ Appeal Nos. 1074 of 1998 and 1077 of 1998 and C.M.P Nos. 11831 and 11904 of 1998 also stand dismissed. No cost

RR/VCS