Plain meaning of the words in the statute has to be considered.

Chief Justice

This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 10.05.2005 by which the learned single Judge quashed the appointment of the appellant as Chairman of the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “UGC”) by notification dated 16.07.2002.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record as well as the impugned judgment.

3. The ground for quashing the appointment of the appellant as Chairman of the UGC was that according to the learned single Judge the said appointment was in violation of the second proviso to Section 6(1)(c) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) Section 6(1) of the Act states:-

“6. Terms and Conditions of Service of members, --

(1)A person appointed as Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other member after commencement of the University Grants Commission (Amendment) Act, 1985 shall, unless he sooner becomes disqualified for continuing as such under the rules that may be made under this Act, --

(a) in the case of Chairman, hold office for a term of five years or until he attains the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier.

(b) in the case of Vice-Chairman, hold office for a term of three years or until he attains the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier;

(c) in the case of any other member, hold office for a term of three years;

(i) a person who has held office as Chairman or Vice-Chairman shall be eligible for further appointment as Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other member; and

(ii) a person who has held office as any other member shall be eligible for further appointment as Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other member;

Provided further that a person who has held office for two terms, in any capacity, whether as Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other member excluding a member referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 5, shall not be eligible for any further appointment as Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other member.”

4. According to the learned single Judge the appellant was disqualified from being appointed as Chairman of the UGC because he had held office for two terms, one as member of the UGC and the other as Vice-Chairman of the UGC, and hence, he was disqualified in view of the 2nd proviso to Section 6(1)(c) of the Act. We do not agree.

5. Admittedly, the appellant held office as member of the UGC from 31.05.1992 to 30.05.1995, i.e., for one full term as a member. He was then appointed as Vice-Chairman for a term of 3 years from 28.09.2000. However, he did not continue as Vice-Chairman for a full term of 3 years because by order dated 16.07.2002 (the impugned order) he was appointed as Chairman of the UGC and admittedly, he has been functioning as Chairman from 16.07.2002. Hence, factually he did not complete the 3 years full term as Vice-Chairman of the UGC.

6. It was contended by the appellant before the learned single Judge that since the appellant (respondent-1 in the writ petition) had not completed a full term of 3 years as Vice-Chairman, it could not be said that he was disqualified under the 2nd proviso to Section 6(1)(c) of the Act as he had not held office for two terms. It was also contended by him that the writ petition should have been dismissed as belated as it was filed only on 18.10.2004 i.e., after a lapse of more than two years and three months from the date of his appointment as Chairman.

7. Mr.Gopal Subramaniam learned Senior Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the word “term” would include a part of a term also. He submitted that if this contention is not accepted then if a Vice-Chairman functions for 2 years and 364 days as Vice-Chairman, it cannot be held that he had put in a full term as Vice-Chairman, simply because he relinquishes his post at the fag end of the full term of 3 years. He submitted that this will go against the very intention of the 2nd proviso to Section 6(1)(c). Hence, he submitted that a term wou