AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Muralidhar, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20th May 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Appellant�s Writ Petition (C) No. 3886 of 2008.
The Appellant who is a Reader in the Department of Philosophy, Indraprastha College (�College�) and holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy applied for the post of Principal of the College pursuant to an advertisement dated 18th December 2007.The Appellant was called for an interview on 17th March 2008 and appeared before a Selection Committee (hereinafter the �First Selection Committee�) comprising the Chairman of the Governing Body of the College and other Members in terms of Clause 7 of the University Ordinance Act, XVIII of the Delhi University to which the college is affiliated.20 candidates appeared for the interview. The First Selection Committee recommended the names of three candidates namely Dr. Vinita Sinha, Dr. K.P. Sundari and Dr. Usha Krishna. The Appellant was disappointed at not finding her name in the aforementioned list and caused a legal notice be sent to the Respondents on 14th May 2008.Thereafter she filed the aforementioned writ petition in this Court on 19th May 2008.
The learned Single Judge negatived the contention of the Appellant that in terms of Clause 7 of Ordinance XVIII, the Second Selection Committee to whom the names recommended by the First Selection Committee were sent by the Governing Body (along with the names of others who had applied and any others added by the Governing Body) was bound to consider the suitability of each such name, not limited to those recommended by the First Selection Committee. At the stage when the learned Single Judge was considering the matter the Second Selection Committee had not yet met to deliberate upon the list sent to it by the Governing Body. The learned Single Judge accordingly held that the Appellant could not claim any vested right to be called for interview by the Second Selection Committee and that it was open to the Second Selection Committee �whether or not to call the Petitioner or any other person mentioned in the list for interview.�
The Second Selection Committee met on 22nd May 2008 and recommended that Dr. K.P. Sundari be appointed Principal of the College.
Mr. P.P. Khurana, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that Clause 7 of Ordinance XVIII made it incumbent on the Second Selection Committee to apply a uniform procedure for considering the candidature of each of the person whose name was found in the list forwarded to it by the Governing Body and this was not limited to considering the names of only those recommended by the First Selection Committee. According to him the Second Selection Committee called only the three candidates recommended by the First Selection Committee for interview and therefore acted contrary to the procedure envisaged by Clause 7 of Ordinance XVIII. Mr. Khurana also raised an issue that the names of all candidates called for interview by the First Selection Committee were not forwarded to the Second Selection Committee.
We have considered the submissions made by learned Senior counsel for the Appellant and also perused the records produced before us by the Delhi University.
We are unable to agree with the interpretation sought to be advanced by learned Senior counsel for the Appellant are regarding the procedure to be followed in terms of Clause 7 of Ordinance XVIII, the relevant portion of which reads as under:
Clause XVIII (7) (ii) The appointment of the Principal shall be made by the Governing Body of the College on the recommendation of a Selection Committee consisting of the Chairman of the Governing Body (Chairman), one member of the Governing Body to be nominated by the Chairman, two nominees of the Vice Chancellor, out of whom one should be an expert, three experts consisting of a Principal of a college, a Professor and an accomplished Educationist not below the rant of a Professor (to be nominated by the Governing Body) out of a panel of expert approved by Vice Chancellor (At least four members, including two experts, should constitute the quorum), provided that prior to final selection and appointment (a) the Governing Body shall submit to the University a list of persons, who have applied for the post of Principal, as also names of persons, who may not have applied but whose names the Governing Body may desire to consider for the post, in a form as prescribed by the University and shall indicate the persons from whom in their opinion, the final selection may be made; (b) the list thus submitted by the Governing Body shall be considered by a Selection Committee constituted for the purpose and consisting of the following:
(i) Vice-Chancellor,
(ii) Pro-Vice-Chancellor,
(iii) A nominee of the Visitor,
(iv) Chairman of the Governing Body of the College concerned; and
(v) Two members of the Executive Council, nominated by it;
And (c) on the recommendation of the Selection Committee the University shall transmit to the Governing Body a list of persons mentioned in the order of preference whom the University would be prepared to recognise as Principal or, if none of the applicants are considered suitable, shall refrain from sending a list, in which case the post shall be re-advertised.
It is plain from a reading of the aforementioned Clause (7) that the First Selection Committee which is presided over by the Chairman of the Governing Body of the College prepares a panel of persons from whom in their opinion, �the final selection will be made. �At the next stage the list prepared by the First Selection Committee along with the names of� those who have applied for the post of Principal and also names of persons who may not have applied but whose names the Governing Body may desire to consider for the purpose, �is forwarded by the Governing Body to a Second Selection Committee� which consists of the Vice-Chancellor, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor, a nominee of the visitor, Chairman of the Governing Body of the College and two members of the Executive Council of the University nominated by the University. Thus, in the Second Selection Committee out of six members, only one person is from within the college i.e. the Chairman of the Governing Body. The Second Selection Committee, after considering the names, would make a recommendation which will then by transmitted by the University to the Governing Body. This recommendation would be of persons �mentioned in the order of preference whom the University would be prepared to recognise as Principal� .If the Second Selection Committee finds that �none of the applicants are considered suitable� then it will not send any name and �the post will be re-advertised.�
It is not possible to accept the contention of the Appellant that the Second Selection Committee can, if it finds none of the candidates recommended by the First Selection Committee to be suitable for recommendation for appointment, choose some other persons from the list forwarded to it by the Governing Body. That would enable the Second Selection Committee to substitute the recommendations of the First Selection Committee. Given the fact that the First Selection Committee has some degree of participation of the Members of the Governing Body of the College or their nominees, and that the Second Selection Committee is completely dominated by the officials of the Delhi University and its nominees, to accept the interpretation suggested by the Appellant would deprive the college of any say in the appointment of its Principal. This clearly is contrary to the line of decisions of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, Brahmo Samaj Education Society and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Others, and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Shyam Lal College Vs. Vice Chancellor, Delhi University, .
In our view the scope of the functions of the Second Selection Committee are not as wide as suggested by learned Senior counsel for the Appellant. If the Second Selection Committee finds that none of the candidates recommended by the First Selection Committee are suitable, and that any of the other names in the list forwarded to it by the Governing Body ought to have been considered or were wrongly ignored, then in such an event it cannot make any recommendation and the post will have to be re-advertised. On the other hand, if it finds any of the candidates nominated by the first Selection Committee to be suitable then it can indicate the order of preference and make its recommendation for appointment on that basis.
There is no doubt that as far as the present case is concerned, the procedure envisaged by Clause 7 of Ordinance XVIII as explained by us hereinabove has been followed. This is evident from paras 2, 3 and 4 of the Minutes of the meeting of the second Selection Committee held on 22nd May 2008 which read as under:
The University has received the recommendations of the Selection Committee held on 9.4.2008 chaired by the Chairman, Governing Body of the College through a communication dated 15.4.2008 along with the list of 20 candidates called for interview. The college had earlier submitted a list of 27 candidates who applied for the post of Principal in I.P. College against the open advertisement appeared in different dailies dated 18 & 19th December, 2007.The Chairman, Governing Body also sent the recommendation of the selection committee held on 9.4.2008 wherein the committee has recommended the following three names (not in order of merit):
(1) Dr. Vinita Sinha (Application No. 19)
(2) Dr. K.P. Sundari (Application No. 05)
(3) Dr. Usha Krishna (Application No. 17)
The Committee considered the candidature of 20 candidates including the above three candidates recommended by the Selection Committee held on 9.4.2008 at College level as per the list supplied by the Chairman, Governing Body vide his letter dated 15.4.2008.The Committee after deliberation, decided not to call the candidates other than three candidates recommended by the college level selection committee.
The Committee, after interviewing the above three candidates recommended that:
Dr. K.P. Sundari be appointed Principal of I.P. College.
It is plain that the Second Selection Committee followed the correct procedure. It was not incumbent on it to call each of the persons whose names were found in the list forwarded to it by the Governing Body for a separate interview. Since it concurred with the recommendation made by the First Selection Committee, although not in the same order of merit, it rightly decided not to call the others in the list for interview. In that view of the matter, we find no reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that there was no infraction by the Second Selection Committee of the procedure envisaged by Clause 7 of Ordinance XVIII.
There is no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. The interim order stands vacated.