THE CHAIRPERSON GOVERNING BODY DAULAT RAM COLLEGE versus DR. ASHA & ORS. on 5 January 2021

THE CHAIRPERSON GOVERNING BODYDAULAT RAM COLLEGE

v.

DR. ASHA & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2021)

JANUARY 05, 2021

[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]

Universities: University of Delhi – Power of Governing body/Principal to appoint Warden of a College Hostel – Held: It is theGoverning Body of the College which has the authority to appointWarden of the College Hostel – The Principal, however, who isentrusted with the overall internal administration of the College isa person who knows all the staff of the College and his/herrecommendation with regard to appointment of Warden of the CollegeHostel is to carry weight – Thus, the Governing Body while makingappointment of Warden of the College Hostel has to give due weightto the recommendation of Principal – The appointment of Wardenof the Hostel being in the domain of the Governing Body, in theinstant case, the High Court should have left it to the GoverningBody to take appropriate steps along with the Principal of theCollege for making appointment of the Warden of the College Hostel– Governing body should initiate process for fresh appointment ofWarden of the Hostel of the College by inviting applications throughPrincipal of the College before the Hostel is open for housing thestudents.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1. The Governing Body of the College is toadminister the affair of the College. The Governing Body, thus,has general supervision of the College. Even in the Collegesand Institutions which are maintained by the University, it isprovided in Ordinance XX that the Governing Body which isconstituted by the Executive Council is empowered to appointthe administrative staff of the College. Similarly, the GoverningBody of the affiliated Colleges is empowered to appoint

17

A

B

CDE

F

G

H

Aadministrative staff of the College. The Ordinance does notempower the Principal to make any appointment of the Wardenof the Hostel nor any other statutory provision has been referredwhich empowers the Principal to appoint Warden of the College.The Principal, however, who is entrusted the over all internaladministration of the College is a person who knows all the staffBof the College and his/her recommendation with regard toappointment of Warden of the College Hostel is to carry weight.The Governing Body while making appointment of Warden ofthe College Hostel has to give due weight to the recommendationof Principal. The appointment of Warden of the Hostel is madeCfrom amongst the permanent staff of the College, the practicewhich is followed in the College and with which there is no disputebetween the parties is that the applications are invited throughnotice by Principal for appointment of Warden and afterrecommendation is made by the Principal, a decision is taken bythe Governing Body is to appoint Warden. [Paras 33, 34, 35]D[32-F-G; 33-A-E]

2. The dispute which ensued regarding the appointment ofWarden of the College Hostel arose due to the fact that positionregarding procedure and right to make appointment on the postof Warden was not clear and the claim was raised by the PrincipalEon the strength of letter of the University Grants Commissiondated 19.02.1987. It is the Governing Body of the College whichhas the authority to appoint Warden of the College Hostel.However, the Principal being Executive head of the entire Collegeand being in position to know the members of the staff as per Fprevailing practice the applications are to be invited through thePrincipal of the College and after receipt of the applications theapplications along with recommendation of the Principal may beplaced before the Governing Body which is to take decisionregarding appointment of the Warden of the Hostel of the College.[Para 39][34-E-G]GCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 13 of2021.

From the Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2019 OF the HighCourt of Delhi at New Delhi in L.P.A. No. 316 of 2018.

H

Diya Kapur, Kshitij Dua, Satya Mitra, Rajesh Banati, ShailendraBhardwaj, Ms. Aroma S. Bhardwaj, Mohinder Jit Singh, Hardik Rupal,Ms. Pratima Nain Lakra, Mrs. Pragya Baghel for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant questioning thejudgment dated 06.03.2019 of the Division Bench of Delhi High Courtissuing certain directions in LPA No.316 of 2018 filed by respondentNo.1-Dr. Asha, although not interfering with the judgment of the learnedSingle Judge dated 09.03.2018 disposing of the writ petition filed by Dr.Asha-respondent No.1. The appellant aggrieved by the directions issuedby the Division Bench has filed this appeal.

3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are:

Daulat Ram College is affiliated to the University of Delhi since1960. The Hostel of the Daulat Ram College is an integral part of theCollege. The Daulat Ram College Society is a registered Society whichwas established on 03.03.1960 which in turn has established Daulat RamCollege (hereinafter referred to as the ‘College’). The Daulat RamCollege Society has a Memorandum of Association as well Rules. TheCollege has a Governing Body which is approved by the Executive Councilof the University (Delhi University). We in the present case are onlyconcerned with the Hostel of the Daulat Ram College and that tooappointment of Warden of the Hostel of the College. The GoverningBody of the College has been appointing the Warden of the Hostel of theCollege.

4. On 10.09.2013, respondent No.4-Dr.Kavita Sharma wasunanimously appointed as Warden of the College by the Governing Bodywith effect from 12.09.2013 for a period of two years. The two years’term of respondent No.4 as Warden was going to end on 11.09.2015, theGoverning Body of the College vide its Resolution dated 11.09.2015 re-appointed respondent No.4 as Warden of the College for two years. TheGoverning Body of the College directed the Principal to seek herwillingness/ unwillingness in writing and in case she is willing, to issueher a letter of appointment with effect from 12.09.2015. The Principalissued a letter dated 15.09.2015 informing respondent No.4 that her termof appointment as Warden of the Hostel of the College has been extended A

BC

DE

F

G

H

Aupto 12.05.2016. The Chairperson of the Governing Body wrote torespondent No.3, Principal of the College questioning the letter dated15.09.2015 appointing respondent No.4 for a period of eight months only.The Chairperson of Governing Body informed that re-appointment wasfor a period of two years and explanation was called from respondentNo.3 as to why she has not complied with the order of the GoverningBBody. The Chairperson issued a letter dated 02.05.2016 to respondentNo.3 sending agenda for the meeting scheduled to be held on 07.05.2016.

5. The Principal on 02.05.2016 issued notice inviting applicationsfrom permanent teachers who are interested to work as Warden of CollegeHostel. Dr. Asha submitted her application. The Principal, respondentCNo.3 issued a letter dated 06.05.2016 appointing respondent No.1-Dr.Asha as Warden of the College Hostel and she was directed to assumecharge on 21.05.2016. In the meeting of the Governing Body it wasnoted that vide Resolution dated 11.09.2015 respondent No.4 wasappointed for a period of two years which term was to expire onD11.09.2017. It was resolved that necessary letters containing the term ofappointment be sent accordingly. On 21.05.2016 a show cause noticewas issued to respondent No.1 asking her to explain how she illegallyand willfully attempted to occupy the post of the Hostel Warden whenshe was aware that respondent No.4 was the Hostel Warden appointedby the Governing Body vide its Resolution dated 11.09.2015 for a term of Etwo years. Respondent No.1 wrote a letter on 24.05.2016 to theChairperson, Governing Body asking that show cause notice issued toher being unwarranted and not based on facts be withdrawn. The Principalwrote on June 9/14, 2016 to the Manager, Indian Overseas Bank informingthat respondent No.1 has been appointed as a Hostel Warden with effect Ffrom 21.05.2016 for two years and she will operate the College HostelAccounts with effect from 21.05.2016. On 13.06.2016, the University ofDelhi wrote a letter to respondent No.3 that appointment of Warden in aCollege Hostel is purely an administrative affair of the College and theUniversity has no role to play in this behalf. The Principal was advised toact as per clause 6-A(5)(b)(iii) of Ordinance XVIII of the University.G

6. In the Minutes of the meeting of the Governing Body dated24.06.2016 it was recorded that the Principal has illegally appointed Dr.Asha as Warden of the Hostel of the College. The Governing Bodyresolved that earlier status quo be maintained and respondent No.4, Dr.Kavita Sharma would continue as the Warden till such time that properH

guidelines for appointment of Warden are made by the Governing BodyHostel Committee. Respondent No.3 recorded her dissent in the meetingdated 24.06.2016. The Principal issued a notice dated 30.07.2016 invitingapplications from interested permanent teachers of the College for thepost of Warden in the College Hostel. Respondent No.1 filed a WritPetition No.7289 of 2016 praying for issuing a writ, order or direction inthe nature of mandamus and/or certiorari directing respondent Nos.2and 3, i.e., the Principal and Chairperson of the Governing Body towithdraw the notice dated 30.07.2016, declaration was sought that noticedated 30.07.2016 is illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioner’s case inthe writ petition was that she was appointed as Warden of the Hostel ofthe College by Principal vide letter dated 06.05.2016 for a period of twoyears and took charge on 21.05.2016. The allegations were made againstthe Chairperson, Governing Body that she has created obstruction in thefunctioning of the writ petitioner.

7. Learned single Judge vide order dated 19.08.2016 passed anorder of the status quo regarding the petitioner’s position as Warden ofthe Daulat Ram College Hostel. Counter-affidavit was filed by theGoverning Body. Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties passeda detailed order dated 25.11.2016 vacating the interim order dated19.08.2016. Against order dated 25.11.2016 Letters Patent Appeal wasfiled by respondent No.3, Principal, Daulat Ram College where orderdated 22.12.2016 was passed by the Division Bench directing the matterto be listed on 10.01.2017 till such time, status quo as of that day bemaintained. The Division Bench also passed several orders subsequentlyand made it clear that pendency of the appeal shall not come in the wayof the learned Single Judge in deciding the writ petition. Learned SingleJudge by judgment dated 09.03.2018 disposed of writ petition.

8. Learned Single Judge found that the appointment of the Wardenin the College Hostel is the administrative affair of the College. Thelearned Single Judge held that appointment of the writ petitioner as Wardenin the College Hostel by the Principal is irregular. In paragraph 14 followingwas held:

“14. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this petition andapplication are disposed of with direction to the Governing Bodyof respondent-College, for the post of Warden in question and itbe placed before the Staff Council of respondent-College, whoshall make recommendation for the post of Warden in the College AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

22SUPREME COURT REPORTS

AHostel within a period of four weeks and the said recommendationbe considered by the Governing Body of respondent-College withintwo weeks thereafter, so that the post in question is expeditiouslyfilled up.”

9. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge datedB09.03.2018, LPA No.316/2018 was filed by Dr. Asha-respondent No.1.The Chairperson, Governing Body wrote to the Principal and othermembers to initiate process for the appointment of the Warden. OnPrincipal not initiating the process of the appointment, the GoverningBody convened a meeting on 07.04.2018. The applications were alsoinvited for the post of Hostel Warden. Respondent No.4 applied inCpursuance of the application. On 07.04.2018 Governing Body in its meetingresolved to appoint respondent No.4 as Warden of the College Hostel.Thereafter an interim order dated 01.05.2018 was passed by the DivisionBench. On 22.05.2018 Letters Patent Appeal was filed by respondentNo.1 against the judgment dated 09.03.2018 of the Learned Single Judge.D10. The Division Bench decided the LPA vide judgment dated06.03.2019. The Division Bench although did not interfere with thedirection of the learned Single Judge but in addition issued variousdirections. The Division Bench vide its direction in paragraph 41 directedfor issue of notice by the Principal of the College inviting applications forEappointment of Warden of the Hostel, which applications were requiredto be placed before the Staff Council which was to take a decisionthereon and make its recommendations not later than 01.04.2019 andrecommendations were to be placed before the Governing Body.Paragraph 41 of the Division Bench judgment is to the following effect:

F“41. The Court, while not interfering with the directions issued bythe learned Single Judge in the impugned order, issues the followingdirections:

(i) Within a period ten days from today, and in any event not laterthan 18th March 2019, a notice will be issued by the Principal ofGthe College inviting applications for appointment as Warden ofthe Hostel from amongst the teaching Staff, not limited to theTeachers living on campus, but subject to the undertaking givenby the applicant (if living outside the campus) that if appointed asWarden she will stay on campus in the two-room set in the Hostelbuilding.

H

(ii) The applications received will be placed before the Staff Councilwhich will take a decision thereon and make its recommendationsnot later than 1st April 2019.

(iii) The recommendations of the Staff Council shall then be placedbefore the GB by the Principal forthwith, and in any event notlater than 3rd April 2019.

(iv) The GB will meet and take a decision on such recommendationof the Staff Council not later than 10th April 2019.

(v) If for some reason the GB does not accept therecommendations of the Staff Council, it will give its reasons,which will form part of the minutes of its meeting and send theminutes to the Staff Council not later than 15th April 2019. Insuch event, the Staff Council will again convene and make a freshrecommendation from among the remaining applicants and thiswill be placed before the GB not later than 17th April 2019. TheGB will be bound such recommendation and will take a decisionon the appointment of the Warden not later than 20th April 2019.Dr. Kavita Sharma, if not appointed as Warden in the above process,shall immediately hand over charge to the newly appointedWarden. Likewise, the Matron would abide by the directions issuedin para 39 above.

(vi) The minutes of the meetings of the Staff Council and the GBin compliance with the above directions will be placed before theCourt on the next date.”

11. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench dated06.03.2019, the Chairperson, Governing Body, Daulat Ram College hasfiled this appeal. While issuing notice in this appeal on 05.04.2019following order was passed by this Court:

“Issue notice.

Till the next date the warden, who is as on date looking to theaffairs of the hostel, shall continue.”

12. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learnedcounsel appearing for the respondents.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appointingauthority of Warden of the College Hostel is the Governing Body of theCollege. The appointment of respondent No.1 was directly made by the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

APrincipal-respondent No.3 on 06.05.2016 without approval of theGoverning Body which was an illegal appointment. Learned counselsubmits that both learned Single Judge and Division Bench having foundthe appointment of respondent No.1 illegal, the appointment made bythe Governing Body in pursuance of judgment of the learned Single Judgeought to have been maintained. There was no occasion for directingBfresh appointment as has been directed by the learned Division Benchof the High Court. It is submitted that Delhi University vide its letterdated 23.10.2013 and letter dated 02.08.2016 had clarified that theappointment of Warden and Matron in College Hostel is purely anadministrative affair of the College and the University of Delhi has noCrole to play in this regard. It is submitted that Ordinance XVIII,6A(5)(b)(iii) does not confer any authority to Staff Council to appoint aWarden of the Hostel of the College. It is further submitted that theletter of the University Grants Commission dated 19.02.1987 does notconfer any authority on the Principal to make appointment of Warden ofthe Hostel of the College. It is submitted that the learned Division BenchDhas issued various directions which encroach on the right of the GoverningBody to exercise its jurisdiction of the appointing authority of the Wardenof the Hostel of the College.

14. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits thatDaulat Ram College is affiliated to the University of Delhi and 95%Egrants is funded from University Grants Commission and only 5% of thefunds is to be paid by the Society-Trust. The letter dated 19.02.1987was written by the University Grants Commission in response to theletter of the Vice-Chancellor, University of Delhi and said letter wasratified by the Executive Council of the University in its meeting dated

F25.04.1987 that it is the Principal, who is the appointing authority of theWarden of the Hostel of the College. The Principal, being theadministrative head of the College, is entitled to make appointment. It isalso submitted that Staff Council also has no role in the appointment ofWarden which is in the domain of the Principal of the College.

G15. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has adoptedthe submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.3. It issubmitted that after judgment of the Division Bench, Staff Council in itsmeeting dated 01.04.2019 has recommended respondent No.1 forappointment as the Warden of the Hostel of the College, there is nopower in the Chairperson of the Governing Body to appoint any one ofHher choice as Warden of the Hostel of the College.

16. On behalf of respondent No.2, it has been submitted that theappointment of an existing teaching staff in an honorary capacity asWarden of a College Hostel is not specifically provided for under any ofthe provisions of University of Delhi Act, 1922, Statutes, and Ordinance.It is submitted that all Colleges which are affiliated to or constituent ofUniversity of Delhi follow the practice of inviting applications frominterested teachers of their respective Colleges by putting up a notice bythe Principal of the College and thereafter Principal recommends/shortlistthe name for appointment whereafter the Governing Body grants approvaland the procedure for appointment takes thereafter.

AB

17. We have considered the submissions of the learned counselfor the parties and have perused the records.

C

18. Only two questions arise for consideration in this appeal:

(1) Whether it is the Principal of the College who isempowered to appoint Warden of the Hostel of theCollege or it is the Governing Body in whom the powerDto appoint Warden is vested ?, and

(2) what is the procedure to be adopted before makingappointment of Warden of the College Hostel ?

19. Both the questions being inter-related are being taken together.

E

20. The claim of the Principal as well as respondent No.1 that it isthe Principal who is the appointing authority of Warden of the CollegeHostel is based on letter of the University Grants Commission dated19.02.1987. The letter dated 19.02.1987 was written by the Secretaryof University Grants Commission to the Vice-Chancellor of the DelhiUniversity regarding revising the existing staffing pattern in the Hostelsof the Colleges affiliated to Delhi University. The above letter has beenbrought on record as Annexure-P2. It is useful to extract the entireletter which is to the following effect:

“UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSIONBAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI

G

D.O.NO.F.1-4/B84/884(NP-II) Vol.II

February 19, 1987

Dear Professor Moonis Raza

Kindly refer to your office DO letter No. DC/632/87 dated3[rd] February, 1987 regarding revising the existing staffing patternH

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

in the hostels of colleges affiliated to Delhi University inaccordance with the recommendation of the Committee appointedby the University.

The proposal has been considered in the light of theinformation earlier furnished by the University vide letterNo.DSW/85/9391 dated 17[th] October, 1985 which was requiredto streamline the rules about fees charged and facilities providedin the hostels of the central universities. We find that there is aneed to revise the staffing pattern in the hostel mess staff whichwas fixed as far back as in 1971.

Though the Warden has been desired to be provided forthe women’s hostels, it is felt that each hostel should have a wardenwho should be responsible for all hostel administration in the collegeand he/she should be appointed by the Principal from amongstsenior teachers in the college. As an incentive for this extra workan allowance of Rs.300/- pm be paid. In order to have the accountsof the hostel up to date and in perfect order a need for providinga clerk is also felt as a necessity. Since some of the hostels arealso having the services of Chowkidar/Mali Safai Karamchari tobe left categories provided the total staff in Group D for hostelmess staff does not exceed the prescribed limit of additional four.

In view of the above the commission agrees to provide thefollowing additional staff for the smooth functioning of the hostelactivities:

1. Warden (One) To be paid Rs.30/- per month2.

3. Clerk (One)In the scale of pay of Rs.950-1500.3.Ground DIn the scale of pay of employees Rs.(four) inthe category 750-940. of Chowkidar/Mali/Safai Karamchari The provision of the above staff will be effective from 1[st] January,1987 and the pattern of funding will be the same as for the paymentof maintenance grant to Delhi Colleges i.e. 100% 95% as thecase may be. You are requested to bring this decision to the noticeof the concerned colleges having hostel facilities with a requestthat they should send 2 separate statements of accounts in respectof staff working in the hostels on the existing pattern and on the basis of the revised pattern with the accounts of the college forthe year 1986-87.

With regards,

Yours sincerely,

(S.P. Gupta)

Prof. Moonis Raza,Vice-Chancellor,University of Delhi.”

21. The emphasis has been laid by the counsel for respondentNo.2-University of Delhi on the following sentence occurring in the letter:

“…it is felt that each hostel should have a warden who should beresponsible for all hostel administration in the college and he/sheshould be appointed by the Principal from amongst senior teachersin the college.”

22. The letter of the Secretary dated 19.02.1987 communicatesthe decision of the Commission. The last portion of the letter incorporatesdecision of the Commission beginning with the word:

“In view of the above the commission agrees to provide thefollowing additional staff for the smooth functioning of the hostelactivities:

1. Warden (One) To be paid Rs.30/- per month…”

23. A careful reading of the aforesaid letter indicates that thedecision of the Commission which was communicated by the Secretarywas the decision of the University Grants Commission to provide additionalstaff for smooth functioning of the Hostel of the College. The Commissionneither took decision regarding appointment of the Warden nor suchdecision was communicated by the said letter.

24. It is further submitted that the above decision of the UniversityGrants Commission dated 19.02.1987 has been ratified by the ExecutiveCouncil of the Delhi University vide its minutes dated 25.04.1987. In thecounter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3 the minutes of the ExecutiveCouncil dated 25.04.1987 are filed in which proceeding, Item No.15, theletter of the University Grants Commission dated 19.02.1987 has beenreferred to and the decision taken by the Executive Commission was A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Arecorded. The relevant minutes of the proceeding of Item No.15 is asfollows:

“15. Resolved that receipt of the following letters from theUniversity Grants Commission and the Government of India andthe action taken thereon wherever necessary be recorded:- B

Letters from the U.G.C.

Letter No.& DateSubject1.……2.……C3.……4.F.I-4/84(NP-II)Conveying the CommissionsVol.II, datedapproval to(i) raising the19.2.1987funding pattern of Salariesof Hostel, employees fromD75% to 95% (100% in case ofUniversity maintained institu-tions) subject to the conditionthat the remaining 5% of theexpenditure may be made byEthe Management as in the caseof College administration withno financial burden,whatsoever, on the studentsresiding in the Hostels. (ii)Sanction for a few additionalFposts for smooth functioningof Hostel activities.”

25. A perusal of the above minutes of the Executive Council ofthe Delhi University indicates that what Executive Council noticed inthe minutes is that the Commission has approved the raising of the fundingGpattern of salaries of the employees of the Hostel from 75% to 95% andthe remaining 5% of the expenditure was to be made by the Managementas in the case of College administration with no financial burden on thestudents residing in the Hostels. Only to the extent of the above part ofthe decision of the Commission the Executive Council reiterated andthere was no decision by the University that appointment of Warden ofHthe Hostel is to be made by the Principal of the College.

26. The University has filed counter-affidavit in the writ petitionbefore the High Court where it has categorically taken the stand that theUniversity Act, Statutes and Ordinance do not provide for appointmentof the Warden of the Hostel College and it is a private matter concerningthe respective college. In the LPA affidavit was called for and the affidavitdated 11.01.2019 by Prof. T.K. Das, Registrar, University of Delhi wasfiled. In paragraph 5 of the said affidavit following has been stated:

“5. The appointment of an existing teaching staff in an honorarycapacity as Warden of a college is not specifically provided forunder any of the provisions of University of Delhi Act, 1922statutes, and Ordinance; being a private matter concerning therespective college and University of Delhi has no role to play.However, all the collages, which have their own hostel and, areaffiliated or constituted of University of Delhi follow the practiceof inviting applications from interested teachers of their respectivecollege by putting up notice by the Principal of said College, willingto take on this honorary charge. Then the Principal of therespective college considers such application received andrecommends/shortlist the name for such appointment. Thereafter,the name of shortlisted teacher and appointed to the honorarypost of warden is placed before the Governing Body for approval.”

27. Two earlier letters dated 21.10.2013 and 13.06.2016 whichhave been brought on record as Annexure-P7 and Annexure-P23 havealso communicated that appointment of Warden in the College Hostel ispurely an administrative affair of the College and the University has norole to play in this behalf.

28. In view of the aforesaid, letter dated 19.02.1987 issued by theUniversity Grants Commission cannot be read to mean that it is Principalwho is the appointing authority of the Warden of the Hostel of the College.

29. Learned single Judge in its judgment dated 19.08.2016 hasrightly held that University Grants Commission’s letter dated 19.02.1987is of no avail.

26. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for therespondent on Ordinance XVIII which deals with “Of Colleges and Halls”.Ordinance XVIII, 6-A deals with Staff Council. 6-A relevant for thepresent case is quoted hereunder:

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A“6-A. (1) There shall be a Staff Council in every College.

(2) All the members of the teaching staff, the Librarian and theDirector of Physical Education shall constitute the Staff Council.(3) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Statutes and theOrdinances of the University, the Principal shall act as Principal-Bin-Council in respect of matters on which Staff Council is requiredto take decisions.

ORDINANCE XVIII

(4) (a) The Principal shall be ex-officio Chairman of the StaffCouncil.C

(b) The Council shall elect its Secretary, who shall hold office fora term of one year. The Secretary may be re-elected for a secondterm but no person shall hold office of Secretary for more thantwo consecutive terms.

D(5) (a) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Statutes and theOrdinances of the University, the Staff Council shall take decisionsin respect of the following matters:

(i) Preparation of College time-table.

(ii) Allocation of extra-curricular work of teachers not involving,Epayment of remuneration.

(iii) Organising extra-curricular activities, including cultural activitiesof students, sports, games, National Service Scheme and othersocial services schemes and academic societies.

F(iv) Laying down guide-lines for purchase of library books andlaboratory equipment in consultation with the appropriatedepartments.

(v) Organising admission of students.

(b) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Statutes and theGOrdinances of the University, the Staff Council shall makerecommendations in respect of the following matters :

(i) Formulation of recommendations on introduction of newteaching posts in the departments and expansion of the existingdepartments; H

(ii) Formulation of admission policy within the framework of thepolicy laid down by the University;

(iii) Formulation of guidelines regarding arrangements for theresidence and welfare of students in consultation withappropriate students organisations;

(iv) Formulation of guide-lines regarding discipline of the students;

(v) Formulation of policies for recommending names of teachersfor participation in seminars and conferences and financialassistance to teachers.

Note : The administrative staff of the College will not be withinthe purview of the Staff Council.”

30. The reliance has been placed on 6-A(5)(b)(iii), formulation ofguidelines regarding arrangements for the residence and welfare ofstudents in consultation with appropriate students organisations. Whenwe read the Ordinance 6-A which deals with the Staff Council of everyCollege, clause (5)(a) provides that subject to the provisions of the Act,the Statutes and the Ordinances of the University, the Staff Council hasto take decisions in respect of the matters enumerated therein. There isreliance only on clause (5)(b)(iii) which is extracted above. Clause (5)(b)provides that subject to the provisions of the Act, the Statutes and theOrdinances of the University, the Staff Council shall makerecommendations in respect of the matters mentioned therein. Formulationof guidelines regarding arrangements for the residence and welfare ofstudents in consultation with appropriate students organisations, in nomanner can embrace in it the power to make appointment of Warden. Ithas been clearly stated by the University in its letters and affidavit that itis a matter of administration of the College and is not dealt in the Act,Statutes and Ordinances. Had the Ordinance 6-A(5)(b)(iii) contemplatedrecommendation of Staff Council for appointment of Warden, theUniversity could have very well taken that stand which stand has notbeen taken in the present proceedings.

31. The Delhi University has also filed a counter-affidavit in theproceedings before this Court. In the counter-affidavit filed by theUniversity of Delhi in these proceedings, the stand of University of Delhihas again been taken in paragraph 4 which is to the following effect:

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A“4. The appointment of Warden of the hostel maintained by theCollege constituent/affiliated to the University of Delhi is purelyan administrative affair of the College and the University has norole to play in this behalf. It is respectfully submitted that theappointment of an existing teaching staff in an honorary capacityas Warden of a college is not specifically provided for under anyBof the provisions of the University of Delhi Act, 1922 Statutes,and Ordinances. However all the Colleges, which have their ownHostel and, are affiliated or constituent of University of Delhi,follow the practice of inviting application from interested teachersof their respective College by putting up notice by the Principal ofCsaid College, willing to take up the honorary charge. Then thePrincipal of the respective College considers such applicationreceived and recommends/shortlist the name for such appointment.Thereafter, the name of the shortlisted teacher to be appointed tothe honorary post of Warden is placed before the Governing Bodyof the said college for approval. This practice has been in vogue,Dmore or the less in the light of the letter of UGC dated 19.02.1987(Annexure P-2 herein). The Hindu college for instance also followsthe same practice.”

32. In the counter-affidavit of the University referring to practice,the University clearly states that appointment of Warden is purely anEadministrative affair of the College and the University has no role toplay and further the same is not provided for under any of the provisionsof the University of Delhi Act, Statutes and Ordinances. We, thus, cometo the conclusion that Ordinance XVIII 6-A(5)(b)(iii) does not empowerthe Staff Council to make any recommendation with regard to theFappointment of Warden of the College Hostel.

33. The Governing Body of the College is to administer the affairof the College. Ordinance XVIII Chapter VII-2 at page 47 of the paperbook is to the following effect:

“2. The Governing Body will meet at least once in a term, and,Gsubject as hereinafter provided, shall have general supervisionand control of the affairs of the College and maintain its ownrecords of its proceedings which shall be open to inspection bythe inspection authority.”

H

34. The Governing Body, thus, has general supervision of theCollege. Even in the Colleges and Institutions which are maintained bythe University, it is provided in Ordinance XX that the Governing Bodywhich is constituted by the Executive Council is empowered to appointthe administrative staff of the College. Similarly, the Governing Body ofthe affiliated Colleges is empowered to appoint administrative staff ofthe College. The Ordinance does not empower the Principal to makeany appointment of the Warden of the Hostel nor any other statutoryprovision has been referred which empowers the Principal to appointWarden of the College.

35. The Principal, however, who is entrusted the over all internaladministration of the College is a person who knows all the staff of theCollege and his/her recommendation with regard to appointment ofWarden of the College Hostel is to carry weight. The Governing Bodywhile making appointment of Warden of the College Hostel has to givedue weight to the recommendation of Principal. The appointment ofWarden of the Hostel is made from amongst the permanent staff of theCollege, the practice which is followed in the College and with whichthere is no dispute between the parties is that the applications are invitedthrough notice by Principal for appointment of Warden and afterrecommendation is made by the Principal, a decision is taken by theGoverning Body is to appoint Warden.

36. With regard to the role of Staff Council in the appointment ofWarden of the Hostel, we have already observed that Ordinances donot empower the Staff Council to make any recommendation with regardto the appointment of Warden. We have found that the Principal has noauthority to appoint Dr. Asha-respondent No.1 as Warden in the Hostelof the College and appointment made by the Principal was irregular.The Division Bench also did not interfere with the judgment of the learnedSingle Judge. The Division Bench in the directions in paragraph 41 hasdirected that the applications received in response to notice forappointment of Warden to be placed before the Staff Council whichwas to take a decision and make recommendations on the saidapplications. We having found that Staff Council is not statutorilyempowered to make any recommendation regarding appointment ofWarden of the College Hostel, the direction of the Division Bench requiringplacement of all applications before the Staff Council was uncalled for.The appointment of Warden of the Hostel being in the domain of the AB

CD

E

F

G

H

AGoverning Body, the High Court should have left it to the GoverningBody to take appropriate steps along with the Principal of the Collegefor making appointment of the Warden of the Hostel of the College. We,thus, are of the view that directions in paragraph 41 of the DivisionBench judgment cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside.

B37. The High Court has also appointed two Advocates asCommissioners to visit the Hostel premises. The Commissioners visitedthe Hostel and submitted report to the High Court. No further directionsare needed in the above reference.

38. Respondent No.4 in its counter-affidavit has stated that inCpursuance of direction of the learned Single Judge, respondent No.4was appointed by the Governing Body as Warden of the Hostel of theCollege whereas respondent No.1 claims that respondent No.1 has beenappointed as Warden in pursuance of notice issued by the Principal on08.03.2019. The appointment of respondent No.4 as Warden which wasmade subsequent to the judgment of the learned Single Judge by theDGoverning Body on 07.04.2018, the tenure of which has come to end.The initial appointment of respondent No.1 on 06.05.2016 as well assubsequent appointment as claimed by respondent No.1 cannot be heldto be valid.

39. The dispute which ensued regarding the appointment of WardenEof the College Hostel arose due to the fact that position regardingprocedure and right to make appointment on the post of Warden was notclear and the claim was raised by the Principal on the strength of letterof the University Grants Commission dated 19.02.1987 which we havedealt as above. From the discussion as above, it is clear that it is theFGoverning Body of the College which has the authority to appoint Wardenof the College Hostel. However, the Principal being Executive head ofthe entire College and being in position to know the members of the staffas per prevailing practice the applications are to be invited through thePrincipal of the College and after receipt of the applications theapplications along with recommendation of the Principal may be placedGbefore the Governing Body which is to take decision regardingappointment of the Warden of the Hostel of the College.

40. The affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondentNo.3 that Hostel of the College is closed since June 2019 which has notyet been opened. An affidavit has also been filed by the appellant statingH

THE CHAIRPERSON GOVERNING BODY DAULAT RAMCOLLEGE v. DR. ASHA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

that Schools and Colleges were closed under the orders issued by theGovernment of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and it has to be openedin the fair manner. The appellant submits that Schools, Colleges andHostels cannot be opened as of now. The issue regarding opening of theHostels is not being subject matter of this appeal, we need not considerthe said issue in this appeal. It is for the University and Collegeadministration to take a call regarding opening of the Hostels. We,however, observe that the Governing Body should initiate process forfresh appointment of Warden of the Hostel of the College by invitingapplications through Principal of the College before the Hostel is openfor housing the students.

41. In the result, the directions contained in paragraph 41 of theDivision Bench judgment are set aside. The appeal is allowed subject toobservations as above.

Devika Gujral

Appeal allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H