1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13 Of 2021
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.8053 of 2019)
THE CHAIRPERSON GOVERNING BODY
DAULAT RAM COLLEGE ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
DR. ASHA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant
questioning the judgment dated 06.03.2019 of the
Division Bench of Delhi High Court issuing certain
directions in LPA No.316 of 2018 filed by respondent
No.1-Dr. Asha, although not interfering with the
judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 09.03.2018
disposing of the writ petition filed by Dr. Asharespondent No.1. The appellant aggrieved by the
2
directions issued by the Division Bench has filed this
appeal.
3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are:
Daulat Ram College is affiliated to the
University of Delhi since 1960. The Hostel of the
Daulat Ram College is an integral part of the College.
The Daulat Ram College Society is a registered Society
which was established on 03.03.1960 which in turn has
established Daulat Ram College (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘College’). The Daulat Ram College Society
has a Memorandum of Association as well Rules. The
College has a Governing Body which is approved by the
Executive Council of the University (Delhi
University). We in the present case are only concerned
with the Hostel of the Daulat Ram College and that too
appointment of Warden of the Hostel of the College.
The Governing Body of the College has been appointing
the Warden of the Hostel of the College.
4. On 10.09.2013, respondent No.4-Dr.Kavita Sharma
was unanimously appointed as Warden of the College by
3
the Governing Body with effect from 12.09.2013 for a
period of two years. The two years’ term of respondent
No.4 as Warden was going to end on 11.09.2015, the
Governing Body of the College vide its Resolution
dated 11.09.2015 re-appointed respondent No.4 as
Warden of the College for two years. The Governing
Body of the College directed the Principal to seek her
willingness/ unwillingness in writing and in case she
is willing, to issue her a letter of appointment with
effect from 12.09.2015. The Principal issued a letter
dated 15.09.2015 informing respondent No.4 that her
term of appointment as Warden of the Hostel of the
College has been extended upto 12.05.2016. The
Chairperson of the Governing Body wrote to respondent
No.3, Principal of the College questioning the letter
dated 15.09.2015 appointing respondent No.4 for a
period of eight months only. The Chairperson of
Governing Body informed that re-appointment was for a
period of two years and explanation was called from
respondent No.3 as to why she has not complied with
4
the order of the Governing Body. The Chairperson
issued a letter dated 02.05.2016 to respondent No.3
sending agenda for the meeting scheduled to be held on
07.05.2016.
5. The Principal on 02.05.2016 issued notice
inviting applications from permanent teachers who are
interested to work as Warden of College Hostel. Dr.
Asha submitted her application. The Principal,
respondent No.3 issued a letter dated 06.05.2016
appointing respondent No.1-Dr. Asha as Warden of the
College Hostel and she was directed to assume charge
on 21.05.2016. In the meeting of the Governing Body it
was noted that vide Resolution dated 11.09.2015
respondent No.4 was appointed for a period of two
years which term was to expire on 11.09.2017. It was
resolved that necessary letters containing the term of
appointment be sent accordingly. On 21.05.2016 a show
cause notice was issued to respondent No.1 asking her
to explain how she illegally and willfully attempted
to occupy the post of the Hostel Warden when she was
5
aware that respondent No.4 was the Hostel Warden
appointed by the Governing Body vide its Resolution
dated 11.09.2015 for a term of two years. Respondent
No.1 wrote a letter on 24.05.2016 to the Chairperson,
Governing Body asking that show cause notice issued to
her being unwarranted and not based on facts be
withdrawn. The Principal wrote on June 9/14, 2016 to
the Manager, Indian Overseas Bank informing that
respondent No.1 has been appointed as a Hostel Warden
with effect from 21.05.2016 for two years and she will
operate the College Hostel Accounts with effect from
21.05.2016. On 13.06.2016, the University of Delhi
wrote a letter to respondent No.3 that appointment of
Warden in a College Hostel is purely an administrative
affair of the College and the University has no role
to play in this behalf. The Principal was advised to
act as per clause 6-A(5)(b)(iii) of Ordinance XVIII of
the University.
6. In the Minutes of the meeting of the Governing
Body dated 24.06.2016 it was recorded that the
6
Principal has illegally appointed Dr. Asha as Warden
of the Hostel of the College. The Governing Body
resolved that earlier status quo be maintained and
respondent No.4, Dr. Kavita Sharma would continue as
the Warden till such time that proper guidelines for
appointment of Warden are made by the Governing Body
Hostel Committee. Respondent No.3 recorded her dissent
in the meeting dated 24.06.2016. The Principal issued
a notice dated 30.07.2016 inviting applications from
interested permanent teachers of the College for the
post of Warden in the College Hostel. Respondent No.1
filed a Writ Petition No.7289 of 2016 praying for
issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus and/or certiorari directing respondent Nos.2
and 3, i.e., the Principal and Chairperson of the
Governing Body to withdraw the notice dated
30.07.2016, declaration was sought that notice dated
30.07.2016 is illegal and unconstitutional. The
petitioner’s case in the writ petition was that she
was appointed as Warden of the Hostel of the College
7
by Principal vide letter dated 06.05.2016 for a period
of two years and took charge on 21.05.2016. The
allegations were made against the Chairperson,
Governing Body that she has created obstruction in the
functioning of the writ petitioner.
7. Learned single Judge vide order dated 19.08.2016
passed an order of the status quo regarding the
petitioner’s position as Warden of the Daulat Ram
College Hostel. Counter-affidavit was filed by the
Governing Body. Learned Single Judge after hearing the
parties passed a detailed order dated 25.11.2016
vacating the interim order dated 19.08.2016. Against
order dated 25.11.2016 Letters Patent Appeal was filed
by respondent No.3, Principal, Daulat Ram College
where order dated 22.12.2016 was passed by the
Division Bench directing the matter to be listed on
10.01.2017 till such time, status quo as of that day
be maintained. The Division Bench also passed several
orders subsequently and made it clear that pendency of
the appeal shall not come in the way of the learned
8
Single Judge in deciding the writ petition. Learned
Single Judge by judgment dated 09.03.2018 disposed of
writ petition.
8. Learned Single Judge found that the appointment
of the Warden in the College Hostel is the
administrative affair of the College. The learned
Single Judge held that appointment of the writ
petitioner as Warden in the College Hostel by the
Principal is irregular. In paragraph 14 following was
held:
“14. In the facts and circumstances of
this case, this petition and application
are disposed of with direction to the
Governing Body of respondent-College, for
the post of Warden in question and it be
placed before the Staff Council of
respondent-College, who shall make
recommendation for the post of Warden in
the College Hostel within a period of
four weeks and the said recommendation be
considered by the Governing Body of
respondent-College within two weeks
thereafter, so that the post in question
is expeditiously filled up.”
9. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single
9
Judge dated 09.03.2018, LPA No.316/2018 was filed by
Dr. Asha-respondent No.1. The Chairperson, Governing
Body wrote to the Principal and other members to
initiate process for the appointment of the Warden. On
Principal not initiating the process of the
appointment, the Governing Body convened a meeting on
07.04.2018. The applications were also invited for the
post of Hostel Warden. Respondent No.4 applied in
pursuance of the application. On 07.04.2018 Governing
Body in its meeting resolved to appoint respondent
No.4 as Warden of the College Hostel. Thereafter an
interim order dated 01.05.2018 was passed by the
Division Bench. On 22.05.2018 Letters Patent Appeal
was filed by respondent No.1 against the judgment
dated 09.03.2018 of the Learned Single Judge.
10. The Division Bench decided the LPA vide judgment
dated 06.03.2019. The Division Bench although did not
interfere with the direction of the learned Single
Judge but in addition issued various directions. The
Division Bench vide its direction in paragraph 41
10
directed for issue of notice by the Principal of the
College inviting applications for appointment of
Warden of the Hostel, which applications were required
to be placed before the Staff Council which was to
take a decision thereon and make its recommendations
not later than 01.04.2019 and recommendations were to
be placed before the Governing Body. Paragraph 41 of
the Division Bench judgment is to the following
effect:
“41. The Court, while not interfering with
the directions issued by the learned Single
Judge in the impugned order, issues the
following directions:
(i) Within a period ten days from today, and
in any event not later than 18th March 2019,
a notice will be issued by the Principal of
the College inviting applications for
appointment as Warden of the Hostel from
amongst the teaching Staff, not limited to
the Teachers living on campus, but subject to
the undertaking given by the applicant (if
living outside the campus) that if appointed
as Warden she will stay on campus in the tworoom set in the Hostel building.
(ii) The applications received will be placed
before the Staff Council which will take a
decision thereon and make its recommendations
not later than 1st April 2019.
11
(iii) The recommendations of the Staff
Council shall then be placed before the GB by
the Principal forthwith, and in any event not
later than 3rd April 2019.
(iv) The GB will meet and take a decision on
such recommendation of the Staff Council not
later than 10th April 2019.
(v) If for some reason the GB does not accept
the recommendations of the Staff Council, it
will give its reasons, which will form part
of the minutes of its meeting and send the
minutes to the Staff Council not later than
15th April 2019. In such event, the Staff
Council will again convene and make a fresh
recommendation from among the remaining
applicants and this will be placed before the
GB not later than 17th April 2019. The GB
will be bound such recommendation and will
take a decision on the appointment of the
Warden not later than 20th April 2019. Dr.
Kavita Sharma, if not appointed as Warden in
the above process, shall immediately hand
over charge to the newly appointed Warden.
Likewise, the Matron would abide by the
directions issued in para 39 above.
(vi) The minutes of the meetings of the Staff
Council and the GB in compliance with the
above directions will be placed before the
Court on the next date.”
11. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench
dated 06.03.2019, the Chairperson, Governing Body,
Daulat Ram College has filed this appeal. While
12
issuing notice in this appeal on 05.04.2019 following
order was passed by this Court:
“Issue notice.
Till the next date the warden, who is
as on date looking to the affairs of the
hostel, shall continue."
12. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant
and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appointing authority of Warden of the College Hostel
is the Governing Body of the College. The appointment
of respondent No.1 was directly made by the Principalrespondent No.3 on 06.05.2016 without approval of the
Governing Body which was an illegal appointment.
Learned counsel submits that both learned Single Judge
and Division Bench having found the appointment of
respondent No.1 illegal, the appointment made by the
Governing Body in pursuance of judgment of the learned
Single Judge ought to have been maintained. There was
no occasion for directing fresh appointment as has
13
been directed by the learned Division Bench of the
High Court. It is submitted that Delhi University vide
its letter dated 23.10.2013 and letter dated
02.08.2016 had clarified that the appointment of
Warden and Matron in College Hostel is purely an
administrative affair of the College and the
University of Delhi has no role to play in this
regard. It is submitted that Ordinance XVIII, 6A(5)
(b)(iii) does not confer any authority to Staff
Council to appoint a Warden of the Hostel of the
College. It is further submitted that the letter of
the University Grants Commission dated 19.02.1987 does
not confer any authority on the Principal to make
appointment of Warden of the Hostel of the College. It
is submitted that the learned Division Bench has
issued various directions which encroach on the right
of the Governing Body to exercise its jurisdiction of
the appointing authority of the Warden of the Hostel
of the College.
14. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3
14
submits that Daulat Ram College is affiliated to the
University of Delhi and 95% grants is funded from
University Grants Commission and only 5% of the funds
is to be paid by the Society-Trust. The letter dated
19.02.1987 was written by the University Grants
Commission in response to the letter of the ViceChancellor, University of Delhi and said letter was
ratified by the Executive Council of the University in
its meeting dated 25.04.1987 that it is the Principal,
who is the appointing authority of the Warden of the
Hostel of the College. The Principal, being the
administrative head of the College, is entitled to
make appointment. It is also submitted that Staff
Council also has no role in the appointment of Warden
which is in the domain of the Principal of the
College.
15. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has
adopted the submissions made by the learned counsel
for respondent No.3. It is submitted that after
judgment of the Division Bench, Staff Council in its
15
meeting dated 01.04.2019 has recommended respondent
No.1 for appointment as the Warden of the Hostel of
the College, there is no power in the Chairperson of
the Governing Body to appoint any one of her choice as
Warden of the Hostel of the College.
16. On behalf of respondent No.2, it has been
submitted that the appointment of an existing teaching
staff in an honorary capacity as Warden of a College
Hostel is not specifically provided for under any of
the provisions of University of Delhi Act, 1922,
Statutes, and Ordinance. It is submitted that all
Colleges which are affiliated to or constituent of
University of Delhi follow the practice of inviting
applications from interested teachers of their
respective Colleges by putting up a notice by the
Principal of the College and thereafter Principal
recommends/shortlist the name for appointment
whereafter the Governing Body grants approval and the
procedure for appointment takes thereafter.
16
17. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and have perused the records.
18. Only two questions arise for consideration in
this appeal:
(1) Whether it is the Principal of the College
who is empowered to appoint Warden of the
Hostel of the College or it is the Governing
Body in whom the power to appoint Warden is
vested ?, and
(2) what is the procedure to be adopted before
making appointment of Warden of the College
Hostel ?
19. Both the questions being inter-related are being
taken together.
20. The claim of the Principal as well as respondent
No.1 that it is the Principal who is the appointing
authority of Warden of the College Hostel is based on
letter of the University Grants Commission dated
19.02.1987. The letter dated 19.02.1987 was written by
17
the Secretary of University Grants Commission to the
Vice-Chancellor of the Delhi University regarding
revising the existing staffing pattern in the Hostels
of the Colleges affiliated to Delhi University. The
above letter has been brought on record as AnnexureP2. It is useful to extract the entire letter which is
to the following effect:
“UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI
D.O.NO.F.1-4/B84/884(NP-II) Vol.II
February 19, 1987
Dear Professor Moonis Raza
Kindly refer to your office DO letter No.
DC/632/87 dated 3rd February, 1987 regarding
revising the existing staffing pattern in the
hostels of colleges affiliated to Delhi
University in accordance with the
recommendation of the Committee appointed by
the University.
The proposal has been considered in the
light of the information earlier furnished by
the University vide letter No.DSW/85/9391 dated
17th October, 1985 which was required to
streamline the rules about fees charged and
facilities provided in the hostels of the
central universities. We find that there is a
need to revise the staffing pattern in the
hostel mess staff which was fixed as far back
as in 1971.
18
Though the Warden has been desired to be
provided for the women’s hostels, it is felt
that each hostel should have a warden who
should be responsible for all hostel
administration in the college and he/she should
be appointed by the Principal from amongst
senior teachers in the college. As an incentive
for this extra work an allowance of Rs.300/- pm
be paid. In order to have the accounts of the
hostel up to date and in perfect order a need
for providing a clerk is also felt as a
necessity. Since some of the hostels are also
having the services of Chowkidar/Mali Safai
Karamchari to be left categories provided the
total staff in Group D for hostel mess staff
does not exceed the prescribed limit of
additional four.
In view of the above the commission agrees
to provide the following additional staff for
the smooth functioning of the hostel
activities:
1.Warden (One) To be paid Rs.30/- per month
2.
3.Clerk (One) In the scale of pay of Rs.950-
1500.
3.Ground D In the scale of pay of
employees Rs.(four)in the category 750-
940. of Chowkidar/Mali/Safai
Karamchari
The provision of the above staff will be
effective from 1st January, 1987 and the
pattern of funding will be the same as for the
payment of maintenance grant to Delhi Colleges
i.e. 100% 95% as the case may be. You are
requested to bring this decision to the notice
of the concerned colleges having hostel
facilities with a request that they should send
19
2 separate statements of accounts in respect of
staff working in the hostels on the existing
pattern and on the basis of the revised pattern
with the accounts of the college for the year
1986-87.
With regards,
Yours sincerely,
(S.P. Gupta)
Prof. Moonis Raza,
Vice-Chancellor,
University of Delhi.”
21. The emphasis has been laid by the counsel for
respondent No.2-University of Delhi on the following
sentence occurring in the letter:
“…it is felt that each hostel should have
a warden who should be responsible for all
hostel administration in the college and
he/she should be appointed by the
Principal from amongst senior teachers in
the college.”
22. The letter of the Secretary dated 19.02.1987
communicates the decision of the Commission. The last
portion of the letter incorporates decision of the
Commission beginning with the word:
“In view of the above the commission agrees
20
to provide the following additional staff for
the smooth functioning of the hostel
activities:
1.Warden (One) To be paid Rs.30/- per month…”
23. A careful reading of the aforesaid letter
indicates that the decision of the Commission which
was communicated by the Secretary was the decision of
the University Grants Commission to provide additional
staff for smooth functioning of the Hostel of the
College. The Commission neither took decision
regarding appointment of the Warden nor such decision
was communicated by the said letter.
24. It is further submitted that the above decision
of the University Grants Commission dated 19.02.1987
has been ratified by the Executive Council of the
Delhi University vide its minutes dated 25.04.1987. In
the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3 the
minutes of the Executive Council dated 25.04.1987 are
filed in which proceeding, Item No.15, the letter of
the University Grants Commission dated 19.02.1987 has
21
been referred to and the decision taken by the
Executive Commission was recorded. The relevant
minutes of the proceeding of Item No.15 is as follows:
“15. Resolved that receipt of the following
letters from the University Grants Commission and
the Government of India and the action taken
thereon wherever necessary be recorded:-
Letters from the U.G.C.
Letter No.& Date Subject
1. … …
2. … …
3. … …
4. F.I-4/84(NP-II) Conveying the Commissions
Vol.II, dated approval to(i) raising the
19.2.1987 funding pattern of Salaries
of Hostel, employees from
75% to 95% (100% in case of
University maintained institutions) subject to the
condition
that the remaining 5% of the
expenditure may be made by the
Management as in the case of
College administration with no
financial burden, whatsoever,
on the students residing in
the
Hostels. (ii) Sanction for a
few additional posts for
smooth
functioning of Hostel
activities.”
25. A perusal of the above minutes of the Executive
22
Council of the Delhi University indicates that what
Executive Council noticed in the minutes is that the
Commission has approved the raising of the funding
pattern of salaries of the employees of the Hostel
from 75% to 95% and the remaining 5% of the
expenditure was to be made by the Management as in the
case of College administration with no financial
burden on the students residing in the Hostels. Only
to the extent of the above part of the decision of the
Commission the Executive Council reiterated and there
was no decision by the University that appointment of
Warden of the Hostel is to be made by the Principal of
the College.
26. The University has filed counter-affidavit in the
writ petition before the High Court where it has
categorically taken the stand that the University Act,
Statutes and Ordinance do not provide for appointment
of the Warden of the Hostel College and it is a
private matter concerning the respective college. In
the LPA affidavit was called for and the affidavit
23
dated 11.01.2019 by Prof. T.K. Das, Registrar,
University of Delhi was filed. In paragraph 5 of the
said affidavit following has been stated:
“5. The appointment of an existing teaching staff
in an honorary capacity as Warden of a college is
not specifically provided for under any of the
provisions of University of Delhi Act, 1922
statutes, and Ordinance; being a private matter
concerning the respective college and University of
Delhi has no role to play. However, all the
collages, which have their own hostel and, are
affiliated or constituted of University of Delhi
follow the practice of inviting applications from
interested teachers of their respective college by
putting up notice by the Principal of said College,
willing to take on this honorary charge. Then the
Principal of the respective college considers such
application received and recommends/shortlist the
name for such appointment. Thereafter, the name of
shortlisted teacher and appointed to the honorary
post of warden is placed before the Governing Body
for approval.”
27. Two earlier letters dated 21.10.2013 and
13.06.2016 which have been brought on record as
Annexure-P7 and Annexure-P23 have also communicated
that appointment of Warden in the College Hostel is
purely an administrative affair of the College and the
University has no role to play in this behalf.
28. In view of the aforesaid, letter dated 19.02.1987
24
issued by the University Grants Commission cannot be
read to mean that it is Principal who is the
appointing authority of the Warden of the Hostel of
the College.
29. Learned single Judge in its judgment dated
19.08.2016 has rightly held that University Grants
Commission’s letter dated 19.02.1987 is of no avail.
26. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned
counsel for the respondent on Ordinance XVIII which
deals with “Of Colleges and Halls”. Ordinance XVIII,
6-A deals with Staff Council. 6-A relevant for the
present case is quoted hereunder:
“6-A. (1) There shall be a Staff Council in every
College.
(2) All the members of the teaching staff, the
Librarian and the Director of Physical Education
shall constitute the Staff Council.
(3) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the
Statutes and the Ordinances of the University, the
Principal shall act as Principal-in-Council in
respect of matters on which Staff Council is
required to take decisions.
ORDINANCE XVIII
(4) (a) The Principal shall be ex-officio Chairman
of the Staff Council.
25
(b) The Council shall elect its Secretary, who
shall hold office for a term of one year. The
Secretary may be re-elected for a second term but
no person shall hold office of Secretary for more
than two consecutive terms.
(5) (a) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the
Statutes and the Ordinances of the University, the
Staff Council shall take decisions in respect of
the following matters:
(i) Preparation of College time-table.
(ii) Allocation of extra-curricular work of
teachers not involving, payment of remuneration.
(iii) Organising extra-curricular activities,
including cultural activities of students, sports,
games, National Service Scheme and other social
services schemes and academic societies.
(iv) Laying down guide-lines for purchase of
library books and laboratory equipment in
consultation with the appropriate departments.
(v) Organising admission of students.
(b) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the
Statutes and the Ordinances of the University, the
Staff Council shall make recommendations in
respect of the following matters :
(i) Formulation of recommendations on
introduction of new teaching posts in the
departments and expansion of the existing
departments;
(ii) Formulation of admission policy within the
framework of the policy laid down by the
University;
(iii) Formulation of guidelines regarding
arrangements for the residence and welfare
26
of students in consultation with
appropriate students organisations;
(iv) Formulation of guide-lines regarding
discipline of the students;
(v) Formulation of policies for recommending
names of teachers for participation in
seminars and conferences and financial
assistance to teachers.
Note : The administrative staff of the College
will not be within the purview of the Staff
Council.”
30. The reliance has been placed on 6-A(5)(b)(iii),
formulation of guidelines regarding arrangements for
the residence and welfare of students in consultation
with appropriate students organisations. When we read
the Ordinance 6-A which deals with the Staff Council
of every College, clause (5)(a) provides that subject
to the provisions of the Act, the Statutes and the
Ordinances of the University, the Staff Council has to
take decisions in respect of the matters enumerated
therein. There is reliance only on clause (5)(b)(iii)
which is extracted above. Clause (5)(b) provides that
subject to the provisions of the Act, the Statutes and
27
the Ordinances of the University, the Staff Council
shall make recommendations in respect of the matters
mentioned therein. Formulation of guidelines regarding
arrangements for the residence and welfare of students
in consultation with appropriate students
organisations, in no manner can embrace in it the
power to make appointment of Warden. It has been
clearly stated by the University in its letters and
affidavit that it is a matter of administration of the
College and is not dealt in the Act, Statutes and
Ordinances. Had the Ordinance 6-A(5)(b)(iii)
contemplated recommendation of Staff Council for
appointment of Warden, the University could have very
well taken that stand which stand has not been taken
in the present proceedings.
31. The Delhi University has also filed a counteraffidavit in the proceedings before this Court. In the
counter-affidavit filed by the University of Delhi in
these proceedings, the stand of University of Delhi
has again been taken in paragraph 4 which is to the
28
following effect:
“4. The appointment of Warden of the hostel
maintained by the College
constituent/affiliated to the University of
Delhi is purely an administrative affair of the
College and the University has no role to play
in this behalf. It is respectfully submitted
that the appointment of an existing teaching
staff in an honorary capacity as Warden of a
college is not specifically provided for under
any of the provisions of the University of
Delhi Act, 1922 Statutes, and Ordinances.
However all the Colleges, which have their own
Hostel and, are affiliated or constituent of
University of Delhi, follow the practice of
inviting application from interested teachers
of their respective College by putting up
notice by the Principal of said College,
willing to take up the honorary charge. Then
the Principal of the respective College
considers such application received and
recommends/shortlist the name for such
appointment. Thereafter, the name of the
shortlisted teacher to be appointed to the
honorary post of Warden is placed before the
Governing Body of the said college for
approval. This practice has been in vogue, more
or the less in the light of the letter of UGC
dated 19.02.1987 (Annexure P-2 herein). The
Hindu college for instance also follows the
same practice.”
32. In the counter-affidavit of the University
referring to practice, the University clearly states
that appointment of Warden is purely an administrative
29
affair of the College and the University has no role
to play and further the same is not provided for under
any of the provisions of the University of Delhi Act,
Statutes and Ordinances. We, thus, come to the
conclusion that Ordinance XVIII 6-A(5)(b)(iii) does
not empower the Staff Council to make any
recommendation with regard to the appointment of
Warden of the College Hostel.
33. The Governing Body of the College is to
administer the affair of the College. Ordinance XVIII
Chapter VII-2 at page 47 of the paper book is to the
following effect:
“2. The Governing Body will meet at least once
in a term, and, subject as hereinafter
provided, shall have general supervision and
control of the affairs of the College and
maintain its own records of its proceedings
which shall be open to inspection by the
inspection authority.”
34. The Governing Body, thus, has general supervision
of the College. Even in the Colleges and Institutions
which are maintained by the University, it is provided
in Ordinance XX that the Governing Body which is
30
constituted by the Executive Council is empowered to
appoint the administrative staff of the College.
Similarly, the Governing Body of the affiliated
Colleges is empowered to appoint administrative staff
of the College. The Ordinance does not empower the
Principal to make any appointment of the Warden of the
Hostel nor any other statutory provision has been
referred which empowers the Principal to appoint
Warden of the College.
35. The Principal, however, who is entrusted the over
all internal administration of the College is a person
who knows all the staff of the College and his/her
recommendation with regard to appointment of Warden of
the College Hostel is to carry weight. The Governing
Body while making appointment of Warden of the College
Hostel has to give due weight to the recommendation of
Principal. The appointment of Warden of the Hostel is
made from amongst the permanent staff of the College,
the practice which is followed in the College and with
which there is no dispute between the parties is that
31
the applications are invited through notice by
Principal for appointment of Warden and after
recommendation is made by the Principal, a decision is
taken by the Governing Body is to appoint Warden.
36. With regard to the role of Staff Council in the
appointment of Warden of the Hostel, we have already
observed that Ordinances do not empower the Staff
Council to make any recommendation with regard to the
appointment of Warden. We have found that the
Principal has no authority to appoint Dr. Asharespondent No.1 as Warden in the Hostel of the College
and appointment made by the Principal was irregular.
The Division Bench also did not interfere with the
judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Division
Bench in the directions in paragraph 41 has directed
that the applications received in response to notice
for appointment of Warden to be placed before the
Staff Council which was to take a decision and make
recommendations on the said applications. We having
found that Staff Council is not statutorily empowered
32
to make any recommendation regarding appointment of
Warden of the College Hostel, the direction of the
Division Bench requiring placement of all applications
before the Staff Council was uncalled for. The
appointment of Warden of the Hostel being in the
domain of the Governing Body, the High Court should
have left it to the Governing Body to take appropriate
steps along with the Principal of the College for
making appointment of the Warden of the Hostel of the
College. We, thus, are of the view that directions in
paragraph 41 of the Division Bench judgment cannot be
sustained and are hereby set aside.
37. The High Court has also appointed two Advocates
as Commissioners to visit the Hostel premises. The
Commissioners visited the Hostel and submitted report
to the High Court. No further directions are needed in
the above reference.
38. Respondent No.4 in its counter-affidavit has
stated that in pursuance of direction of the learned
Single Judge, respondent No.4 was appointed by the
33
Governing Body as Warden of the Hostel of the College
whereas respondent No.1 claims that respondent No.1
has been appointed as Warden in pursuance of notice
issued by the Principal on 08.03.2019. The appointment
of respondent No.4 as Warden which was made subsequent
to the judgment of the learned Single Judge by the
Governing Body on 07.04.2018, the tenure of which has
come to end. The initial appointment of respondent
No.1 on 06.05.2016 as well as subsequent appointment
as claimed by respondent No.1 cannot be held to be
valid.
39. The dispute which ensued regarding the
appointment of Warden of the College Hostel arose due
to the fact that position regarding procedure and
right to make appointment on the post of Warden was
not clear and the claim was raised by the Principal on
the strength of letter of the University Grants
Commission dated 19.02.1987 which we have dealt as
above. From the discussion as above, it is clear that
it is the Governing Body of the College which has the
34
authority to appoint Warden of the College Hostel.
However, the Principal being Executive head of the
entire College and being in position to know the
members of the staff as per prevailing practice the
applications are to be invited through the Principal
of the College and after receipt of the applications
the applications along with recommendation of the
Principal may be placed before the Governing Body
which is to take decision regarding appointment of the
Warden of the Hostel of the College.
40. The affidavit has also been filed on behalf of
the respondent No.3 that Hostel of the College is
closed since June 2019 which has not yet been opened.
An affidavit has also been filed by the appellant
stating that Schools and Colleges were closed under
the orders issued by the Government of India, Ministry
of Home Affairs and it has to be opened in the fair
manner. The appellant submits that Schools, Colleges
and Hostels cannot be opened as of now. The issue
regarding opening of the Hostels is not being subject
35
matter of this appeal, we need not consider the said
issue in this appeal. It is for the University and
College administration to take a call regarding
opening of the Hostels. We, however, observe that the
Governing Body should initiate process for fresh
appointment of Warden of the Hostel of the College by
inviting applications through Principal of the College
before the Hostel is open for housing the students.
41. In the result, the directions contained in
paragraph 41 of the Division Bench judgment are set
aside. The appeal is allowed subject to observations
as above.
........................J.
( ASHOK BHUSHAN )
........................J.
( M.R. SHAH )
NEW DELHI,
JANUARY 05, 2020.
