1. The three petitioners, amongst others, were elected under the provisions of Group C of section 20(1) of the M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on 14.4.88 which is borne out by Annexure P.4 to the petition. Some more persons were declared duly elected under the provisions of clause (xix) of section 20(1) of the Act read with statute No. 23 framed thereunder for Dr. Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar. Some other members were declared elected under Group B of section 20(1) of the Act read with statute No. 25. This is borne out by Annexure P.5.

2. It is better to state at the outset that the facts in this case are not in controversy. It is only the question of interpretation of certain statutory provisions which is involved in this petition.

3. Section 20(1) begins to read as follows:

"The Court shall consist of the following persons, namely...."

It is not necessary to reproduce all the remaining provisions of sub-section (1), but it is sufficient to take note of the fact that there are 5 groups of members under Groups A to E for constituting the Court.

4. As has already been mentioned above, the petitioners were elected from amongst the persons mentioned in Group C, whereas some others were elected under the members mentioned in Group B. It is worthwhile to quote the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 20 of the Act which read as under:

"(2) The term of office of members elected under Group D of section (1) shall be one year.

(3) The term of office of members nominated or elected, as the case may be, under Group B and Group C or included in Group E of sub-section (1) shall be co-terminous with the term of the Court which shall be three years."

As has already been stated earlier, the Court is said to consist of the persons mentioned in 5 groups and it would bear repetition to say that the groups are A to E.

5. It will be seen from the provisions or section 20(2) that the term of office of the members elected under Group D of sub-section (1) has been fixed to be one year which means one year from the date on which they are declared elected. In contradistinction, the language of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) clearly lays down that the term of the members nominated or elected under Groups Band C, or included in Group E of sub-section (1) shall be co-terminous with the term of the 'Court' which shall be three years. It is not in dispute that the clause 'which shall be three years' relates to and is with reference to the term of the Court and not the term of nomination or election of the members. Therefore, the members either nominated or elected, as the case maybe under Groups Band C and included in Group E of sub-section (1) shall so remain during the period that the Court is in existence, the period of which has been fixed to be three years from the date that it is constituted.

6. Learned Advocate General strenuously argued that the term 'coterminous' means only the finishing or the ending time and has no reference to the date on which the Court came into existence. According to him, irrespective of the fact that the Court did not come into existence, the members nominated or elected under any of the Groups mentioned in sub-section (1) shall be for a period of three years as members of the Court even though the Court was not constituted. In our view, this argument is fallacious. The statute itself makes a distinction between the term 'prescribed' in sub-section (2) for the members elected under Group D on one hand and under Groups B, C and E on the other. Where sub-section (2) speaks of one year from the date when the members are elected from out of Group D, the tenure of members nominated or elected or included, as the case may be, under Groups B, C and E has been made co-terminous with the term of the Court and the term of the Court has been fixed to be three years.

7. The Oxford English Dictionary lays down the meaning of the term 'coterminous' as being synony