NISHA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 14833 of 2006 and 15848 of 2006, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions.

(2.) In CWP No. 14833 of 2006, the petitioner has invoked the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of a writ of Quo-Warranto for the quashing and setting aside the appointment of respondent No. 4-M.R. Gupta, as Principal of DAV College, Pehowa, whereas in CWP No. 15848 of 2006, the challenge is to the appointment of respondent No. 4-J.S. Nain, as Principal of DAV College, Ambala City. Since the argument and the pleadings are identical in both the cases, therefore, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by the common order. However, for the facility of reference, the facts are taken from CWP No. 14833 of 2006.

(3.) The petitioner is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Home Science of FC College of Women, Hisar. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court when the petitioner learnt that the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Principal of DAV College, Pehowa, has not been made in accordance with law. It is pointed out that DAV College, Pehowa is affiliated to Kurukshetra University and is in receipt of 95% of grants-in-aid. All appointments in an affiliated college receiving 95% grants-in-aid, have to be made in accordance with the Haryana Affiliated College (Security of Service) Act, 1979 (for short 'the Act') and the Rules framed thereunder. It is contended that in terms of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, it is the Managing Committee of a College, which is to appoint a Principal of the College. It is contended that respondent No. 4 has not been appointed by the Managing Committee of the College in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed there under, but by DAV College Managing Committee, New Delhi, which is the Apex Body to manage the affairs of all the DAV Institutions. Therefore, the posting of respondent No. 4 as Principal of the College is illegal, against the statutory provisions and thus, cannot be sustained. The petitioner also relies upon Clause 6 of the Kurukshetra University Calendar, contemplating the constitution of the Governing Body for the management of a privately aided college. It is the case of the petitioner that the decision to post respondent No. 4 as Principal of the College has not been taken by the Governing Body as provided in the Kurukshetra University Calendar or by the Managing Committee, which is the appointing Authority, in terms of the Rule 5 of the Rules. Therefore, respondent No. 4 is usurper of a public post.