N S KAPUR Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are respectively a Reader and Lecturer in the S.G.T.B. Khalsa College (for short 'college') affiliated to the University of Delhi, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to have the re-employment of the fifth respondent as Principal of the college quashed. The four other respondents are respectively University of Delhi ('the University' for short);Vice-Chancellor of University of Delhi Governing Body of SGTB Khalsa College;and SGTB Khalsa College itself. It is stated that the re-employment of the fifth respondent as a Principal is in contravention of clause 3-A of the Ordinance XII of the University. The University has been established under the Delhi University Act, 1922, and under section 30 is empowered to issue ordinances for various matters prescribed therein. Under these powers Ordinance XII was issued which relates to college appointee teachers. Under clause I, unless the context otherwise requires, a teacher includes a Principal of a College, under Ordinance XII. Under clause 3-A, the retirement age of a Principal or a teacher is 60 years. Under subclause (2), however, the Governing Body of a College may, with the approval of ViceChancellor, re-employ any distinguished teacher after he has attained the age of 60 years for a period not exceeding 5 years on the whole but not beyond his completing the age of 65 years, if the Governing Body is satisfied that such re-employment is in the interest of the College. There is an explanation to clause 3-A which says that a Principal who has been a distinguished teacher may also be re-employed under the provisions of this clause. It would be appropriate to.set out clause 3-A in extenso :-

(2.) Contention raised is that a Principal though he can be re-employed under the explanation but only as a teacher and not as a Principal. On this account the appointment of fifth respondent is under challenge.

(3.) Let us have a few facts. Fifth respondent who was working as a Principal of the College reached the age of superannuation on 8 October 1990. His employment was extended under clause 3-A aforesaid for a period of three years. Earlier there was no challenge to his re-employment as a Principal. Now when the Governing Body of the College again met on 24 July 1993 and passed a resolution for re-employment of the fifth respondent for two more years, and which resolution has since been approved by the Vice-Chancellor, there is this challenge. Perhaps this chellenge has been made on account of a letter dated 5 July 1993 of the Director in the Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Government of India, addressed to the Registrar of the University. Again we reproduce this letter in extenso :-