S BALA BAWA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the action of the University of Delhi in not appointing her as Principal of the Bharti Mahila College. In response to an advertisement for appointment to the said post the petitioner had applied on 29th October 1992. She had been selected for the said post by the Governing Body of the College. However, her name was not approved by the University and, therefore, she was not appointed. According to the stand of the University the petitioner is not eligible for the said appointment as she does not possess Masters' Degree in a relevant subject.

(2.) I have had the benefit of perusing the judgments given by two of my learned colleagues. In view of the difference in the opinion expressed by the two learned Judges the matter has been referred to me. The relevant Ordinances of the University are quoted hereinafter:- ORDINANCE XVI. Qualification of University Teachers:- PRINCIPAL

(3.) It will be noticed from the above that the only material amendment is the introduction of the words `in a relevant subject'. According to the University the object of this amendment was to bring the qualification of the Principals at par with the amended qualifications of the post of Lecturers. It is further the stand of the University that the words `in a relevant subject' mean a subject which is taught in the concerned college. The petitioner admittedly does not have Masters' Degree in any of the subjects taught in the concerned college and, therefore, she is not eligible for appointment as a Principal in the college. On the other hand the stand of the petitioner is that as per Clause 7 of Ordinance XVIII, a Principal of a College is required to undertake teaching work in the College or in the University, the petitioner thus satisfies the said eligibility condition because her subject is taught in the University if not in the College.