RAM KRISHAN GUPTA Vs. MAHARISHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY ROHTAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the president of a Society which is running several educational institutions in and around Charkhi Dadri in the State of Haryana including the Janta Vidya Mandir Ganpat Rai Rasiwasia College, Charkhi Dadri (for short the College) which is affiliated to the Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak (hereunafter referred to as the University). The College has a Managing Committee known as the Governing Body consisting of 21 members. The President, Vice President, General Secretary, Treasurer and the Secretary are the office bearers of the Governing Body. The first four are elected by the Governing Body of the Society and the Principal of the College is the ex-office Secretary. Out of the remaining 16 members, 11 are nominated by the President, one by the University, one by the State Government and three are representatives of the Faculty (staff members). Clause 25(1) of Statute 38 of the University deals with the constitution of the Managing Committees of non-government colleges affiliated to it. According to this provision, Governing Body of a private college must hold at least three meetings in a year. The relevant part of this Statute which has a bearing on this case, reads as under :-

(2.) A meeting of the Governing Body of the College was to be held sometime in July, 1998. Principal of the College who is the ex officio Secretary convenes the meeting. He addressed a letter dated 2-7-1998 to Dr. R.D.Dixit, Professor of Geography who was the Vice Chancellor's nominee to propose a date for convening the meeting. In reply to this letter, professor Dixit wrote back stating "I propose that the meeting be held on Wednesday the 29th July at 11.00 A.M." Accordingly, a meeting of the Managing Committee of the College was fixed for 29-7-1998 at 11.00 A.M.in the Principal's office and the agenda was circulated to all the members on 18-7-1998.Two days before the meeting, Professor Dixit wrote a letter to the Principal of the College that in view of some urgent work of the University where his presence was necessary, the Vice Chancellor had ordered as under :-

(3.) In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents have filed their written statement controverting the allegation made in the writ petition.