(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Principal of the Science, Arts and Commerce College, Dhamtari, run by the Municipal Council, Dhamtari, by the Administrator of the Council (respondent No. 1) by his order dated 1st September 1966. THE appointment of the petitioner, to start with, was until the close of the College Session, that is, 30-4-1967, and was temporary. THE other terms and conditions of the appointment were:
(2.) THE petitioner holds a Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Hindi. It, however, appears that he had passed his B. A. and M. A. Examinations in Third Division. THE Dhamtari College is affiliated to the Ravishankar University, Raipur. THE Administrator informed the University Authorities about the selection and appointment of the petitioner as a Principal and sought approval of the University. THE Executive Council of the University, however, did not approve the appointment of the petitioner on the grounds that the petitioner had not the requisite experience of 7 years' teaching of Degree Classes and that he did not possess the Master's Degree in Second Division. It appears that the Administrator sought recognition of the appointment at least for a temporary period, that is, up to the end of the session THE Executive Council of the University did not accede to this request as well [See Annexures B and C]. In these circumstances, the notice dated 5th December 1966 was issued by the first respondent. It further appears that the petitioner took initiative in the matter and filed representations against the decision of the Executive Council before the Vice-Chancellor and the Chancellor of the University, and that appears to be the reason why the notice dated 5th December 1966 was not enforced by the first respondent. It appears that the representations sent by the petitioner were not forwarded to the Vice-Chancellor and the Chancellor for their consideration but they were put up before the Executive Council on 3rd January 1967 and the Executive Council expressed its inability to sanction approval to the appointment of the petitioner and the petitioner was accordingly informed by Memo dated 16th January 1967. After this it appears that the College Authorities took steps to invite fresh applications and after making a selection of another Principal served the notice dated 7 th March 1967 on the petitioner which is under challenge before us.
(3.) UNDER section 4 (7) of the Ravishankar University Act, 1963, the University has power to admit to its privileges colleges not maintained by the University and to withdraw all or any of those privileges in the manner prescribed in the Statutes or Ordinances. UNDER clause (10) of that section the University has power to recognise teachers as qualified to give instructions in colleges. UNDER section 2 (the definition clause), a "Principal" is defined to mean "the head of a college" while "Professors, Readers and Assistant Professors" are defined to mean "teachers of the University who have been appointed or recognised by the Executive Council as Professors, Readers and Assistant Professors respectively". "Teachers of the University" include all persons who, with the approval of the Academic Council, impart instructions or guide research in the University or in any college. Shri Adhikari, therefore, urged that there is a clear distinction between a 'Principal' on the one hand and 'Professors, Readers and Assistant Professors' and 'Teachers' on the other. The 'Principal' is merely the head of the college and he need not be a teacher. He, therefore, urged that no power has been conferred on the University to recognise a Principal or give approval to his appointment and that the power under clause (10) of section 4 is only confined to giving recognition to teachers as qualified to give instructions in colleges. Shri Adhikari, therefore, urged that the Administrator was in error in asking for approval of the appointment of the Principal from the University Authorities and that the University Authorities were equally in error in usurping that jurisdiction. It is no doubt true that theoretically a Principal may be only an administrative head of the college and may have nothing to do with imparting instructions. It does not, however, appear that the petitioner was appointed as an administrative head only. This is clear from his application in which he has clearly stated that he has not only obtained his Ph. D. in Hindi but that he is also doing his D. Litt. in that subject. He has also stated that he has 18 years' teaching experience and has administrative experience of Degree Colleges for six years. The advertisement inviting applications in response to which the petitioner submitted his application (Annexure R-1) is not on record. But it is difficult to assume that the petitioner was appointed merely as an administrative head and was not to impart any instructions Apart from this, we are of the view that though a 'Principal' has been defined separately as 'the head of a college', it does not follow from the provision that the Principal is also not a teacher imparting instructions. We are, therefore, not inclined to agree with Shri Adhikari that the University Authorities had no power to grant or withhold recognition to the appointment of a Principal on the ground that he did not satisfy the requisite standards.