A decision of a university authority under a particular Act may be excluded from the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, but this does not mean that a decision that violates the principles of natural justice is also beyond the purview of the Civil Court.

K.P. Singh, J.

1. Plaintiff appellant was a student of B. A. in the year 1983-84 in Nanak Chand Anglo Sanskrit Degree College, Meerut which was affiliated to Meerut University. His Roll Number was 560248. He had appeared at the B. A. Final examination and his result was cancelled on the ground that he was found guilty of using unfair means. The plaintiff had challenged the decision on the ground that he was not afforded any reasonable opportunity to explain his stand, therefore, the suit for declaration that the decision of the sub-Committee regarding cancellation of the plaintiff's examination of May, 1984 is void.

2. The claim of the plaintiff was contested by the University on various grounds as is evident from the issues framed in the trial court's judgment. The trial court through its judgment dated 31-8-1985 accepted the claim of the plaintiff and granted the declaration sought for. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, Meerut University preferred an appeal which has been allowed by the first appellate court through its judgment dated 28-1-1986. Against tbe judgment of the appellate court the plaintiff has preferred the above noted second appeal.

The appellate court has allowed the appeal on the ground that section 69 of the U. P State Universities Act, 1973 (U. P. Act No. 10 of 1973) bars the plaintiff's suit, therefore, the trial court was wrong in giving decree to the plaintiff.

3. Before me the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has contended that the lower appellate court has misconstrued and misunderstood the provisions of section 69 of U. P. Act No. 10 of 1973. According to him the aforesaid Section only saves the officers from being prosecuted for any action done under the Act. In short, it has been emphasized before me that the decision of the Sub-Committee of the University regarding cancellation of the plaintiff's examination would not be covered by the provisions of section 69 of the aforesaid Act. He has referred to the provisions of. section 38-B and 39 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, sections 49 and 49-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and section 42 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and he has vehemently argued that the decision of the sub-committee of Meerut University cannot be held as barred by the provisions of section 69 of U. P. Act No. 10 of 1973 because the aforesaid provision saves only officers from being prosecuted for the action done under the Act. If sections 68 and 69 of U. P. Act No. 10 of 1973 are read together it is evident that the decision of any authority of the University could be examined by the Chancellor and the decision of the University or any of its authorities would be covered by the provisions of section 69 of the State Universities Act mentioned above. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant that the decision of the University would not be covered by the provision of section 69. Moreover, the comparison of section 69 with other sections of different Acts relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant also leads me to the conclusion that the contention raised on behalf of the appellant is not sound. The wordings of section 69 of the U. P. State Universities Act are wider than the provisions of section 39 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and section 49-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Assuming the contention raised on behalf of the appellant as correct, I think that the decision of the sub-committee would not ordinarily be examined by the Civil Court in view of the provisions of sections 68 and 69 of the State Universities Act. The learned counsel during the course of argument has admitted that the Chancellor could vary the decision of the Sub- Committee under section 68 of the Universities Act. In this view of the matter I think that the learned counsel raised the contention before me only for the sake o