Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

1. This writ petition is filed by two petitioners. Petitioner No.1 is Hamdard University Teacher’s Association (HUTA). Petitioner No.2 is Dr. Mahmooduzzafar. By the writ petition, a challenge is laid to the continuation of the respondent No.5 as the Vice Chancellor of the respondent No.6-University till the age of 70 years. I am not reproducing all the prayer clauses inasmuch as the basic contention is that the respondent No.5 should not be allowed to continue till the age of 70 years or contractual period ending in October, 2013 since his tenure completes at the age of 65 years (having crossed the same) and the amendment which has been carried out in the rules and regulations of the respondent No.3-University to increase the retirement age of a Vice Chancellor to 70 years is illegal for the reasons which I will set out subsequently. In order to clarify the factual aspects, further so far as the contention of illegal continuation of the respondent No.5 is concerned, I may state that the appointment letter dated 22.9.2008 appointed respondent No.5 for five years or till the age of 65 years whichever is earlier and in the present case the respondent No.5 has already attained the age of 65 years but is sought to be continued for a period of five years on the ground that rules and regulations of the respondent No.6 have been amended to increase the age of retirement of the Vice Chancellor to 70 years.

2. Before commencing arguments by the counsel for the parties, I heard the counsel for crystallizing the issues which will be called for decision by this Court. As per the submissions of the counsel for the parties, the following issues would arise for consideration:-

(i) Whether the respondent No.6-University has complied with Rule 40 of the Rules and Regulations of the respondent No.6 for bringing about the amendment for increasing the age of the Vice Chancellor to 70 years. The relevant rule prescribing the age is Rule 16 and the unamended language of which prescribed the age of retirement of the Vice Chancellor as 65 years. Related with this main issue, a sub issue will be as to whether the two requirements stated in Rule 40 have been followed viz firstly of the executive council complying with the provision of Section 12 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, (which requires two meetings of the society with 3/5th majority to bring about the amendment in the rules and regulations) and secondly, whether the amendment to increase the age has not become effective because there is lack of requisite concurrence from the Government of India to the amendment brought about.

(ii) Whether there is required prior approval of the University Grants Commission (UGC) for implementing the resolution of the Executive Council of the respondent No.6 to increase the age of Vice Chancellor from 65 years to 70 years, (and if so which is that regulation or direction of the UGC which has been violated) or putting it differently, if approval of UGC is required whether such approval has or has not been obtained.

3. In order to have a proper appreciation of the issues at hand, at the outset I would seek to reproduce the relevant provisions of the rules and regulations of the respondent No.6, the relevant provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860, relevant guidelines and regulations issued by the UGC from time to time and Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. These relevant provisions/rules/guidelines are as under:-Rules of respondent No. 6/University “Rulle 40. ALTERATION, AMENDMENT AND ADDITIONS IN THE MEMORANDUM/RULES The Memorandum or Rules of the Jamia shall be altered amended and added to by the Executive Council in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 12 and 12A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as in force from time to time provided that any such alteration, amendment and addition in the Memorandum or Rules of the Jamia shall become effective only after receipt of the co