The amendment Act of 2015, while prospective in operation, did not have the requisite element for its action drawn from time antecedent to its passing, and therefore, could not be given retroactive effect.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner inter alia seeking a writ of prohibition, restraining the respondents to give effect to the order dated 8th of September, 2017 passed by the Chancellor and also prays for a writ of mandamus to the respondents to permit him to continue as Vice Chancellor for a period of five years from the date he took charge as such.

2. With a view to understand the background on which the present controversy has arisen, it is necessary to give a few material facts in brief:

3. The petitioner came to be appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of the Kashmir University by virtue of order dated 17th of October, 2014 passed by the Chancellor of the University of Kashmir in terms of the powers vested in him under Section 12 of the Kashmir and Jammu Universities Act, 1969 (for short, Act of 1969). The appointment was for a period of three years with effect from the date the petitioner would take over charge on such terms and conditions, which were to be notified separately. It appears that subsequently that the terms and conditions came to be notified by virtue of order dated 21.1.2015 issued under orders of the Chancellor.

4. Section 12(5) of the Act of 1969 envisages the tenure of the Vice Chancellor and prescribes as under:

“The Vice-Chancellor of a University shall hold office for three years:

Provided that on the expiry of the term of his office, the Vice-Chancellor shall be eligible for re-appointment for such term as the Chancellor may in consultation with the Pro- Chancellor, determine:……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...”

Amendment of Section 12(5) of the Act of 1969.

5. By virtue of the Jammu and Kashmir Universities (Amendment Act), 2015 (for short, Act of 2015), which came to be notified in the Govt. Gazette on 20.4.2015, Section 12(5) of the Act of 2015 was amended as under:

“In sub-section (5) of section 12 of the Kashmir and Jammu Universities Act, 1969, for the words “three years”, the words “five years” shall be substituted.”

Needless to say that the amendment was incorporated at a time when the petitioner was still serving as the Vice-Chancellor of the Kashmir University and his tenure had not yet expired, which was otherwise to expire on 17th of October, 2017.

6. The Chancellor of the University by virtue of order dated 8th of September, 2017 constituted a search committee for the post of Vice Chancellor for the university of Kashmir in anticipation of the expiry of the three years tenure of the petitioner on 17.10.2017.

The petitioner believing that he has a right to continue for a further period upto a maximum of five years in view of the amendment incorporated in Section 12(5) of the Act of 2015 has filed the present petition inter alia seeking a writ of prohibition, restraining the respondents to give effect to the order dated 8th of September, 2017 passed by the Chancellor and also prays for a writ of mandamus to the respondents to permit him to continue as Vice-Chancellor for a period of five years from the date he took charge as such.

7. In order to support and buttress the case of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shah, urged that the benefit of the amendment brought about in Section 12(5) of the Act of 2015 could not be denied to the petitioner inasmuch as the amending act had altered the tenure of the Vice-Chancellor from three years to five years by way of substitution.

8. It was further urged that when an amendment is incorporated by way of substitution, the substituted provision stands repealed and the amended provision is substituted in the place of the earlier provision as if the same was there since inception in the earlier Act. It was urged that the repealed provision and the substituted provision would not in law co-exist as that would lead to inconsistency and absurdity.

Referring to the statement of objects and reasons of the Amendment Act of 2015, learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted the r