PROF M R GUPTA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this public interest litigation the petitioner, a retired professor, as pro bono publico, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) When this matter was listed on 29th October, 2010 after noting certain aspects the following order came to be passed:

(3.) Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 6, namely, the Secretary, the Joint Secretary and Treasurer of Delhi University Teachers Association (for short ,,DUTA), submitted that the University has imposed the semester system on the teachers in flagrant violation of Sections 23, 30 and 31 of Delhi University Act, 1922 (for short ,,the 1922 Act). It is urged by him that the Vice-Chancellor, in the facts and circumstances of the case, could not have exercised the emergency powers bestowed on him under Statute 11G(4) read with the provisions of the 1922 Act as such exercise of power is impermissible. The learned senior counsel submitted that if there is a change in the mode of teaching and introduction of a different system, there has to be deliberation, debate and discussion in the academic council and the executive council and the same could not have been ostracized at the whim and fancy of the Vice-Chancellor by usurpation of emergency power. It is also contended by him that the power exercised by the Vice-Chancellor tantamounts to colourable exercise of power which the law does not countenance. Quite apart from the above, a submission has been proponed by him that the High Court, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not issue a writ of mandamus unless it is found that there is violation of any statutory provision. To put it differently, Mr. Gupta would submit that issue of a command does not arise when there is no violation of any kind of law.