M N GUPTA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is to the communication dated 13th August 1991 whereby petitioner No.2, who is a member of the Governing Body of the Daulat Ram College (hereinafter referred to as the college) has been removed from membership and the communication dated 14th August 1991 whereby the Vice Chancellor has nominated seven additional members to the Governing Body of the college for one year. Petitioner No. I has filed the present petition as Chairman and Member of the Governing Body of the college while petitioner No.2 has filed the petition on his own behalf. The petitioners have raised various grounds in the writ petition in support of their case. However, we have confined our decision to the challenge on the ground of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. We feel that the impugned actions of respondents 1 to 3 are liable to be struck down on this ground alone.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the petition are that the college was started in the year 1960 as one of the constituent colleges of the University of Delhi. It has a Governing Body of fifteen members out of whom ten have been appointed by the Trust, two members are the nominees of the University, while two members are the teachers' representative. The fifteenth member is the Principal of the college who is ex officio member secretary of the Governing Body. The Trust which established the college has always maintained a majority in the Governing Body. The term of the Governing Body is for one year. The members of the Governing Body are approved by the University every year.

(3.) The trouble started since early 1991. On 21st February 1991 a memorandum was sent to the Vice Chancellor by the Daulat Ram College Teachers Association (DRCTA) under the signatures of its Secretary wherein various allegations were made against the Governing Body of the college. When its members came to know about the said memorandum, a request was made to the University for a copy thereof vide letter dated 20th April 1991. A reply was sent to the University to the various allegations made against the Governing Body by the DRCTA. While this matter was pending consideration of the University on 30th May 1991 the names of the members of the new Governing Body of the college were sent to the Vice Chancellor for approval. In the meanwhile the episode relating to Ms. Vijayan, a teacher of the college came up. Ms.Vijayan had been granted two years extension of service and the extended period was to expire on 30th September 1991. However, vide a communication dated 30th April 1991, she resigned from the college with effect from 31st July 1991. Her resignation was accepted by the Governing Body on 6th May 1991 and the Vice Chancellor was informed of this on the same date. The Vice Chancellor was not happy about the acceptance of resignation of Ms. Vijayan by the Governing Body and he expressed his disapproval of this action of the Governing Body through his letter dated 9th May 1991 and called upon the Governing Body of the college to reconsider her re-employment in the college. In spite of the said opinion expressed by the Vice Chancellor Ms.Vijayan was relieved on 31st July 1991 and all her dues were settled. When informed about this the Vice Chancellor again expressed his displeasure in his letter dated 12th July 1991 to the Governing Body of the college and still reiterated his letter dated 9th May 1991, which had required the General Body to recon sider the matter. The views of the Vice Chancellor regarding re employment of Ms.Vijayan were expressed inspite of the fact that there was no request from Ms.Vijayan herself in this connection nor she expressed any desire to withdraw her resignation. While this was pending, the approval of the Vice Chancellor regarding the names of the Governing Body which were sent to him on 30th May 1991 was received on 3rd July 1991.