DR. ANURADHA GUPTA vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: May 07, 2021

+ W.P.(C) 10615/2020 & CM APPLs. 33446/2020, 34940/2020,
5096/2021

DR. ANURADHA GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pritish Sabharwal and
Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advs.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. A. Mariarputham, Sr. Adv. Mr.
Mohinder J.S. Rupal and Ms. V.
Bhawani, Advs. for R1.
Mr. R.K. Anand, Mr. Ankur Chibber
and Mr. Anshuman Mehrotra, Advs.
for R2.
Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, Mr. Parth
Goswami and Ms. Daisy Roy, Advs.
for R3.
Mr. Jamal Akhtar, Panel Counsel
GNCT for R4 with SI-Ravinder, PS-
Sarojini Nagar.

AND
+ W.P.(C) 3684/2021 & CM APPLs. 11168/2021, 12477/2021,
12478/2021

DR. ANURADHA GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.K Behra, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Kunal Mittal, Adv.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. A. Mariarputham, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal and Ms. V.
Bhawani, Advs. for R1.
Mr. Ankur Chibber and Mr. Anshuman
Mehrotra, Advs. for R2.

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 1 of 53

Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Anand Nandan, Adv. for R3.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
J U D G M E N T
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
CM No. 12478/2021 in W.P.(C) 3684/2021 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 10615/2020
W.P.(C) 3684/2021

1. As these two writ petitions have been filed by Dr.
Anuradha Gupta in respect of the post of Principal in respondent
No.2 College namely Delhi College of Arts and Commerce, they
are being decided by this common order. For convenience and to
appreciate the issues which arises in these petitions, I shall be
referring to the facts in each of the writ petitions separately.
W.P.(C) 10615/2020
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers:
“In view of the submissions made hereinabove and
the facts and circumstances of the case it is most
respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may
kindly be pleased to:
A. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any
other writ thereby directing the respondents to
quashing the arbitrary and illegal order dated
16.12.2020 of appointment of the Respondent
No. 3 as Acting Principal of the Respondent No.

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 2 of 53

2 / College and all other consequential letters;

B. Restrain the respondent no.2 from removing
the petitioner from the post of the Officiating
Principal in the Respondent no. 2/college and;

C. Any other order or orders in favour of the
Petitioner as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit &
proper in the facts & circumstances of the
present petition.”

3. Respondent No.1 in this writ petition is University of
Delhi (‘University’ for short), respondent No.2 is Delhi College
of Arts and Commerce (‘College’ for short), respondent No.3 is
Dr. Amrit Kaur Basra (‘Dr. Basra’ for short) and respondent No.4
is the Station House Officer, Sarojini Nagar (‘SHO’, for short).
4. As noted from the prayers, the challenge of the petitioner
in this writ petition is primarily to the appointment of Dr. Basra
as acting Principal of the College as being illegal with
consequential prayer that the College be restrained from
removing the petitioner as officiating Principal.
5. The petitioner joined the College as Assistant Professor
on August 29, 1999. She is M.Phil and Ph.d in Mathematics and
Dr. Basra is working as Associate Professor with the College.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that the post of Principal in
College fell vacant when Dr. Rajiv Chopra was repatriated to his
parent College (Sri Aurobindo College). As there was no Vice-
Principal, the senior-most Teacher, who fulfils the minimum
eligibility is to be appointed as Principal.

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 3 of 53

7. It is the case of the petitioner that Dr. Basra does not fulfil
the qualifications for the post of Principal. A reference is made
to Ordinance XVIII, Clause 7(3) of the University, which relates
to appointment of acting Principal. The clause reads as under:
“(3) In case of a casual vacancy in the office of the
Principal, the Vice-Principal, if any, shall until the
appointment of the Principal, act as the Principal. In case
there is no Vice-Principal, the senior most teacher shall act
as Principal. The teacher so to act as Principal shall fulfill
the minimum eligibility requirements for appointment as
Principal of the College. Such temporary arrangements
shall be made ordinarily for a period not exceeding six
months and shall require the prior approval of the
University”.

8. On May 24, 2020, the University’s representative of the
Governing Body of the College received a letter from University
stating that the charge of the acting Principal be handed over to
the senior-most teacher of the College. A reference is made to
the seniority list issued by the College and a letter issued by the
University representative of the Governing Body dated May 24,
2020 calling upon the petitioner to take charge as acting Principal
of the college.
9. It is the stand of the petitioner that Dr. Rajiv Chopra had
filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 3266/2020 wherein he had
challenged his repatriation to Sri Aurobindo College. The
petitioner was arrayed as respondent No.4 in the said writ
petition. The said writ petition was decided on July 6, 2020
whereby the Court had dismissed the writ petition.
10. It is stated that on November 26, 2020, the petitioner was

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 4 of 53

given an extension by the College till further orders. According
to the petitioner, in the evening of December 16, 2020 when the
petitioner left the College due to medical emergency, a telephonic
call came from a non-teaching staff of the College stating that Dr.
Basra entered the room of the Principal and sat on the chair. The
petitioner was also informed that the existing locks were broken,
her belongings removed from the room and new locks have been
placed. In other words, Dr. Basra has taken over as the acting
Principal of the College. The petitioner immediately rushed to the
College premises whereby she found new locks have been placed
after breaking over the locks. The petitioner made a call at 100
No. to call the police, who informed her that this is an internal
matter of the College and they refused to help the petitioner who
was stranded outside the College though a Principal.
11. It is her case that the Chairman of the Governing Body
Sh. Hemant Vats without due process of law or approval of the
University made Dr. Basra sit on the chair, which act is illegal
and arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice.
12. The petitioner made a representation to the Pro-Vice-
Chancellor, who is the acting Vice-Chancellor of the University
and the Registrar of the University with a copy to the Dean of
Colleges informing the grossly illegal take over as Principal in
the College. Despite the same, no action has been taken by the
University.
13. Suffice to state counter-affidavit has been filed by the
College, Dr. Basra and the University. The stand of the said

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 5 of 53

respondents shall be dealt with under the heading submissions.
W.P.(C) 3684/2021
14. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers:
“In view of the submissions made hereinabove and the facts
and circumstances of the case it is most respectfully prayed
that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:
A. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
writ thereby directing the respondents to quashing the
arbitrary and illegal orders dated 12.03.2021, 17.03.2021
& 18.03.2021 of appointment of the Respondent No. 3 as
Permanent Principal of the Respondent No.2 / College
and all other consequential letters;

B. Direct the respondent no.1 to re-advertise the post of
Principal in Respondent No.2 in compliance of the order
dated 22.11.2019 passed by this Hon’ble Court and;

C. Any other order or orders in favour of the Petitioner
as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit & proper in the facts
& circumstances of the present petition.”

15. Respondent No.1 in this petition is the University,
respondent No.2 is the College and respondent No.3 is Dr. Rajiv
Chopra (‘Dr. Chopra’, for short).
16. From the perusal of the prayer clause, it is seen that the
challenge in the writ petition is to the decision / communications
dated March 12, 2021, March 17, 2021 and March 18, 2021,
whereby Dr. Chopra has been appointed as a permanent Principal
of the College. The averments in this petition are, Dr. Chopra is
an Associate Professor in the College, who does not fulfil the
minimum qualification for appointment as Principal. The

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 6 of 53

College had issued an advertisement on April 27, 2017 for filling
up the post of Principal in the College. The petitioner applied for
the said post, on the basis of her fulfilling the academic
performance index and she meeting the eligibility requirements
under the Ordinance XVIII (7). A reference is made to a notice
issued on June 21, 2018 with regard to the eligible candidates for
the post of Principal, which reveals the name of the petitioner at
Sl. No.1.
17. A writ petition being W.P.(C) 11279/2018 titled as Dr.
Anju Gupta v. University of Delhi came to be filed by Dr. Anju
Gupta stating that she was the selected candidate by the Apex
Committee, through interview held on August 2, 2018 and she be
given the joining letter for the post of Principal in the College on
permanent basis. This court disposed of the said writ petition on
November 28, 2018, wherein this court has directed respondents
to fix a date of meeting of the Governing Body within three
weeks from that date and thereafter to take a decision on the
appointment within four weeks thereafter. It appears that an
application was filed seeking clarification of order dated
November 28, 2018. The said application came up for hearing on
December 7, 2018 when this Court had directed the College to
comply with the order dated November 28, 2018 strictly as per
the provisions of Ordinance XVIII Clause 7 amended as on July
1, 2014. A reference is also made to a Contempt Petition filed
before this Court for non-compliance of orders dated November
28, 2018 and December 7, 2018. It is stated by the petitioner
that during the hearing in the Contempt Petition on May 30,

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 7 of 53

2019, the Minutes of the Selection Committee (Apex Committee)
dated August 2, 2018 were opened whereby the name of Dr. Anju
Gupta was declared as the selected candidate for appointment as
the Principal of the College. This Apex Committee of the
University is the higher and final authority for selection of the
Principal. It transpires that the Governing Body of the College in
its meeting dated February 6, 2019 unanimously decided not to
accept the recommendations of the Apex Committee dated
August 2, 2018 and re-advertise the post.
18. Dr. Anju Gupta challenged the decision of the Governing
Body by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) 12287/2019 seeking
quashing of the letter dated February 8, 2019 and with a further
direction that she be appointed as the Principal of the College. In
the said writ petition Dr. Chopra was arrayed as respondent No.3.
The writ petition was dismissed by this court by holding that
there is no perversity seen in the impugned order. The Intra-
Court Appeal filed by Dr. Gupta being LPA 35/2020 was later
withdrawn by her.
19. It is the stand of the petitioner that the Judgment / Order
dated November 21, 2019 of this Court in W.P.(C) 12287/2019
has attained finality having not been challenged by Dr. Chopra
who was respondent No. 3 in the said writ petition. The selection
process has to be undertaken afresh.
20. It is also the case of the petitioner that she has accepted
the resolution of the Governing Body of the College dated
February 6, 2019, whereby it has been resolved that a fresh

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 8 of 53

selection process be undertaken. In fact, I note Dr. Chopra has
filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 4521/2019, wherein he has
sought appointment as a regular Principal in the College. The
said writ petition was withdrawn by Dr. Chopra on March 19,
2021 on being informed about his appointment as Principal. It
is the case of the petitioner that it is then she came to know that
the University and the College have illegally overturned the
decision of the Apex Committee of the University dated August
2, 2018 and the decision of the Governing Body dated February
6, 2019 and also in the teeth of the order passed by this Court on
November 21, 2019 appointed Dr. Chopra, which shows utter
disregard to the process of law as well as contempt of the
decision of the Court.
21. It is also stated that Dr. Chopra who was working on
deputation as OSD (Principal) in the College was repatriated to
his parent College by the University and the challenge to that
decision by Dr. Chopra was dismissed by this Court on July 6,
2020. The University has taken a stand that Dr. Chopra was not
the selected / appointed candidate for the post of Principal, thus
he was repatriated to his parent College on the ground that he was
never selected / appointed. Rather a stand has been taken by the
University that Dr. Chopra was not permanent and he has rightly
been repatriated to his parent College.
22. In this writ petition counter-affidavits have been filed by
the University, College and Dr. Chopra. The stand of the said
respondents shall be dealt with under the heading submissions.

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 9 of 53

Submissions in W.P.(C) 10615/2020
23. Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in this petition would submit that on May 24, 2020, the
post of Principal fell vacant, when Dr. Chopra who was serving
as OSD – Principal was repatriated to his parent College. There
being no Vice-Principal in the College and as per the Ordinance,
in case there is no Vice-Principal then the senior-most teacher
who fulfils the minimum eligibility requirement need to be
appointed as acting Principal, the petitioner was appointed as
acting Principal of the College after prior approval of the Vice-
Chancellor. After successful tenure of six months, the petitioner
was asked to take charge as the officiating Principal of the
College. It is primarily because if the arrangement exceeds six
months, then acting Principal shall be designated as officiating
Principal. He stated that the appointment of respondent No.3 is
contrary to the Ordinance XVIII Clause 7(3)(c) as she does not
fulfil the eligibility to be appointed as a Principal. She has never
applied for the post of Principal. No approval of the University
was taken by respondent No.2. The appointment is without any
pre-screening and also without the approval of the Governing
Body of the College. He stated that a teacher apart from being
the senior-most should also fulfil the minimum eligibility
qualification for the post of Principal. Reliance has been placed
on the Judgment of the University of Delhi v. Amarnath Jha,
LPA 694/2016 and Governing Body Swami Sraddhanand
College. v. Amarnath Jha and Ors. 2020 (2) SCC 761 .
Reference is also made to Dr. Usha Puri v. Governing Body of

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 10 of 53

Mahavidyalaya, University of Delhi 2000 (55) DRJ 99 , wherein
it is held for suspension also, appropriate approval of the Vice-
Chancellor need to be taken. It is stated by Mr. Sabhaarwal that
the appointment of the petitioner as officiating Principal w.e.f
November 25, 2020 was until regular vacancy is filled.
Admittedly no regular vacancy has been made and as such Dr.
Basra could not have been appointed as acting Principal before a
regular appointment can be made.
24. Mr. R.K. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.2 College would submit that the post of Principal
fell vacant on May 24, 2020 due to repatriation of Dr. Chopra to
his parent College and since there was no Vice-Principal in the
College, the Deputy Registrar, University of Delhi issued a letter
dated May 24, 2020 to Professor Naveen Kumar, University
representative in the College for temporarily handing over the
charge of the Principal to the senior-most teacher of the College
who fulfils the minimum eligibility criterion for appointment as
the Principal of the College. The said letter categorically
mentioned, the said temporary arrangement is till further orders,
regulated by the provisions of the Ordinance of the University.
According to Mr. Anand, Prof. Naveen Kumar issued a letter
dated May 24, 2020 to the petitioner to take over the charge of
acting Principal by treating her to be the senior-most teacher,
despite the fact that it was Dr. Basra who is admittedly senior to
the petitioner, as per the seniority list of College teachers.
25. According to Mr. Anand, since the petitioner was not the

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 11 of 53

senior-most teacher in the College, therefore, Dr. Basra wrote an
e-mail to the Director, South Campus, Delhi University
informing them that she is the senior-most eligible teacher in the
college and was willing to offer her services for the said
assignment. Accordingly, the College branch of the South
Campus on November 24, 2020 wrote an e-mail to the Chairman
of the Governing Body inter alia informing about the said e-mail.
Based on the said e-mail, the Chairman of the Governing Body of
the College re-examined the seniority of Dr. Basra vis-à-vis the
petitioner and examined the eligibility criterion of the Principal as
per the Ordinance and found that Dr. Basra was senior to the
petitioner and also fulfil the criterion for being appointed as
Principal and thus issued the impugned order dated December 16,
2020 whereby Dr. Basra was asked to join as Principal of the
College instead of the petitioner. According to Mr. Anand, Dr.
Basra took over the charge in place of the petitioner as the
petitioner, was in terms of the letter dated May 24, 2020,
appointed only on temporary basis after the authority found
Dr. Basra was not the senior most and was not fulfilling the
eligibility criterion for the post of Principal. Mr. Anand has also
stated that the petitioner was not working in the interest of the
College and had started new courses without taking approval of
the UGC. He also stated this writ petition has become
infructuous in view of the fact that the regular Principal has since
been appointed, though the petitioner has challenged the
appointment of the regular Principal in the connected writ
petition. He has relied upon the Judgments in the case of Mohd.

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 12 of 53

Khan Durrany v. The Principal, 1970 (2) ILR 414 & Praduman
Kumar Jain v. AIIMS 1972 (I) ILR 256.
26. In view of the above, Mr. Anand stated, the petition is
without any merit and seeks its dismissal.
27. Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, learned Counsel appearing for
Dr. Basra would also contest the petition filed by the petitioner
by stating that the petitioner is not eligible to be made as an
acting Principal of the College. He relied upon the Ordinance
XVIII Rule 7(3) to state that in case there is no Vice-Principal, it
is the senior-most teacher who shall act as the Principal. In the
absence of Vice-Principal, the senior-most teacher being Dr.
Basra, she has rightly been made as an acting Principal.
According to him, as per the seniority list produced by the
petitioner herself, it is clear that Dr. Basra is at serial no. 6 with
appointment date being September 26, 1988 and the petitioner
being at serial no. 11 with her appointment date being August 29,
1999. He lays stress on the fact that the petitioner being herself
not eligible for being appointed as acting Principal or for that
matter officiating Principal, her appointment is in violation of the
Ordinance and declared policy of the University. He also stated
that the petitioner has suppressed material facts when she has
asserted that she is a senior-most teacher of the College and
annexed Annexure P-4 in support of her contention. The said
Annexure shows that the petitioner is not the senior-most teacher.
He has relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Prestige Lights Limited v. State Bank of India 2007 (8)

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 13 of 53

SCC 449 and Amar Singh v. Union of India 2011 (1) SCC 694.
28. According to him, the College itself in its counter-
affidavit stated that Dr. Basra possesses the minimum eligibility
criterion for the post of Principal. That apart, he highlighted the
fact that as per the Ordinance, the minimum qualification for the
appointment of Principal and Professor being (1) Ph.d Decree; (2)
Professor / Associate Professor with total service / experience of
at least 15 years of experience / research in Universities, Colleges
and other institutions in higher education; (3) a minimum of 10
research publication in peer review or UGC listed journals; (4) a
minimum of 110 research score as per Appendix-II Table-II. He
stated that if the aforesaid eligibility is examined with regard to
Dr. Basra, she is a Ph.d Degree Holder since the year 2000. She
is having teaching experience since 1985 and is a permanent
lecturer since September 26, 1988, i.e., more than 32 years of
experience. She has published 6 books, 26 articles, 14 papers in
various national and international journals. Her research score is
62 for books, score of 71 for articles, score of 280 for papers in
general, score of 10 for projects completed and score of 142 for
conferences / workshops and seminars.
29. He also stated that the petitioner has no right to continue
as acting Principal and later as officiating Principal. He relied on
the Judgment in the case of Purushottam Lal Dhingra v. Union
of India 1958 SCR 828 . He also refers to Dr. Ashok Mittal. v.
University of Delhi 1995 SCC Online 722 to contend that a
person holding a temporary arrangement has no substantive right.

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 14 of 53

He also referred to the Judgment in the case of Dr. Rajiv Chopra
v. University of Delhi and Ors. dated July 6, 2020. In the last, he
stated that this petition has become infructuous inasmuch as Dr.
Chopra has now been appointed as permanent Principal vide
letter dated March 18, 2021, which has been challenged by the
petitioner herself in different writ petition. He seeks the
dismissal of the writ petition.
30. Mr. A. Mariarputham, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for
the respondent University of Delhi in this petition would submit
that Dr. Basra is senior to the petitioner and she also fulfils the
eligibility requirement and the College is within its right to
correct the mistake occurred earlier in appointing the petitioner as
acting Principal. In any case, according to him, the interim
arrangement is subject to and till a regular Principal is appointed
and Dr. Chopra having been appointed, this petition needs to be
dismissed.
Submissions in W.P.(C) 3684/2021
31. It was the submission of Mr. A.K. Behra, learned Sr.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner in this petition, that the
petitioner is a highly qualified Professor in the College. While
the petitioner was serving as Associate professor in the College,
she was made acting Principal and thereafter officiating Principal
w.e.f May 24, 2020 and November 25, 2020 respectively.
According to him, her appointment as acting Principal is pursuant
to the approval granted by the Vice-Chancellor of the University.
As the petitioner was sought to be dislodged as the officiating

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 15 of 53

Principal, she had filed the writ petition being W.P.(C)
10615/2020 and this Court had passed an order of status quo ante
to continue the petitioner as officiating Principal and since then
she has been discharging her duties as officiating Principal.
According to him, the respondent No.3, Dr. Chopra had worked
as OSD-Principal in the College, though such appointment is
only for a period of six months, but he had continued for almost
short of 7 years. He stated that even after the appointment of Dr.
Anju Gupta, the respondent No.3 continued as OSD in the
College. That apart, he stated that in terms of Ordinance XVIII
Clause 7(2), it is clear that the appointment of Principal shall be
made by the Governing Body of the College on the
recommendation of 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 the Principal of a College, a Professor
and an accomplished educationist, not below the rank of a
Professor, 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 the
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.
According to Mr. Behra, there are no words ‘in the order of
merit ’; (b) the list as submitted by the Governing Body shall be

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 16 of 53

considered by a selection committee constituted for the purpose
and consisting of the following:
1. Vice-Chancellor
2. Pro Vice-Chancellor
3. A nominee of the Visitor
4. Chairman of the Governing Body of the College
concerned, and

5. Two members of the Executive Council nominated
by it.

(c) on the recommendation of the Selection Committee (Apex
Committee), the University shall transmit to Governing Body a
list of persons, mentioned in the order of preference, whom the
University would be prepared to recognize 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.
According to Mr. Behra the University has adopted the
Regulations of the UGC. The astrix in Ordinance XVIII Clause
7(2) states, University has adopted the UGC regulations in
terms of the letter addressed by the Ministry of Human
Resource Development, Govt. of India vide communication in
the year 2002. The mandate of the UGC is to suggest the
minimum qualifications, which are required by Professor /
Associate Professor / Assistant Professor in Universities in
India. He stated, the title itself suggest the object of the UGC
Regulations. According to him, the UGC had formulated
regulations and had written to the University to form a selection

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 17 of 53

panel and implement the minimum qualifications for
appointment as per UGC Guidelines in case of appointment of
Principal. The exact selection panel was incorporated in the
Ordinance XVIII Clause 7(2)(c) by the University. The
Regulations of the UGC were notified in 2010. It is stated that
the selection panel as suggested by the UGC in 1998 remain
same and there was no amendment in the provisions for
selection panel which has been duly incorporated in Ordinance
XVIII Rule 7(3)(c).
32. In substance, it was the submission of Mr. Behra that on a
perusal of Ordinance XVIII of the University, it is clear that the
appointment of the Principal shall be made by the Governing
Body on the recommendation of a Selection Committee. The
Selection Committee is a separate committee from the
Governing Body, whose head is the Chairman of the Governing
Body, three experts including a College Principal, a Professor
and the Rule prescribes that the Vice-Chancellor of respondent
No.1 has to approve the experts in the said Committee at the
first selection level. Therefore, there is a substantial role of the
Vice-Chancellor of the University of Delhi in nominating
members in the First Selection Committee at the College level.
He stated, a proper interview is conducted by the First Selection
Committee and then the panel of names are sent to the
University for the final selection by Apex Committee.
According to him, except the Chairman of the Governing Body,
there is no other member of the Governing Body that has any
role to play in the First Selection Committee. On further

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 18 of 53

scrutiny, the Ordinance uses the word 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. Therefore, it was his
submission, the final selection has to be made by the University.
The final selection has to be by the Apex Committee.
Thereafter, the University of Delhi sends the name to the
Governing Body for declaration of the result. He placed
reliance on Annexure P-1/A filed along with the rejoinder which
is a reply to the RTI application. In support of his submission,
he has relied upon the Judgment in the case of Shyamlal
College v. Vice-Chancellor, Delhi University, 2006 (89) DRJ
667 ; Dr. Manaswini M. Yogi v. Chairman, Governing Body,
I.P. College, 2009 (2) SLR 328 and Governing Body of Hindu
College v. Ratan Lal LPA No. 727/2018 .
33. It was also his submission that the writ petition filed by
Dr. Anju Gupta against the decision to scrap the process of
appointment and re-advertise the post of Principal in its meeting
dated February 6, 2019 having been dismissed, the decision has
attained finality. That apart, he stated that respondent No.3 had
also applied and participated in the interview process. Pursuant
thereto three names, not in order of merit, which included the
name of Dr. Chopra was sent to the University. The Apex
Committee headed by the Vice-Chancellor deliberated on the
names and had also called the candidates for the interview.
Respondent No.3 Dr. Chopra participated in the interview
process. The Apex Committee has recommended the name of

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 19 of 53

Dr. Anju Gupta. In other words, Dr. Chopra was not selected.
There is no practice where a decision of the Apex Committee
can be reviewed. He also stated that office record from the
University be called to see that last 15 appointments of
Principals of various Colleges of the University whereby only
one name is decided by the University and the said person is
appointed as a Principal. Respondent No.3 being unsuccessful
in the interview held by the Apex Committee and the fact that
name of Dr. Anju Gupta was recommended, she has not been
appointed and rightly so as now a decision has been taken on
February 6, 2019 to scrap the selection and to issue a fresh
advertisement. Even Dr. Anju Gupta cannot make a claim for
the post of Principal on regular basis as she has been
unsuccessful in her litigation. Appropriate is to give effect to
the resolution of the Governing Body for issuing fresh
advertisement for filling up the post of Principal. According to
him, impugned orders are illegal and liable to be set aside and
the process of appointment of Principal in terms of decision
dated February 6, 2019 needs to be taken forward. He seeks the
prayers as made in the writ petition.
34. Mr. Ankur Chibber, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent College would apart from highlighting certain facts,
which have already been noted above, submit that the
appointment of Principal in various Colleges of University of
Delhi is governed and guided by the provisions of Ordinance
XVIII Clause 7 of the University. Based on which duly
constituted Selection Committee as per UGC regulations and

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 20 of 53

approved by the University was held on July 13, 2018. The said
Committee had approved the following three candidates in the
order of merit excluding the name of the petitioner, who though
was one of the candidates, but was not recommended:
1. Dr. Rajiv Chopra
2. Dr. Basukinath Chowdhury
3. Dr. Anju Gupta.
35. The selection of the aforesaid candidates was done by the
Selection Committee, which was duly signed by all the
Members and sent to the University for its necessary approval,
who held a meeting on August 2, 2018 ignoring the order of
merit, recommended by the Selection Committee without
assigning any reason and recommended the appointment of Dr.
Anju Gupta.
36. The Governing Body in disagreement with the
recommendations dated August 2, 2018 passed a resolution
dated February 6, 2019 whereby it was decided to advertise the
post of the Principal afresh as per UGC Regulations.
37. Aggrieved by the decision, not only Dr. Chopra filed a
writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 4521/2019 challenging the order
dated August 2, 2018 passed by the University, but even Dr.
Anju Gupta had filed a writ petition bearing No. 12287/2019 for
quashing of the order dated February 8, 2019, whereby, she was
informed that entire selection process to the post of Principal in
the College was sought to be re-advertised. According to Mr.

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 21 of 53

Chibber, the latter writ petition was dismissed by this Court
vided order dated November 21, 2019. Dr. Anju Gupta had
filed an LPA before the Division Bench of this Court, which
was subsequently withdrawn.
38. He stated that in so far as the writ petition filed by Dr.
Chopra is concerned, the UGC had filed an affidavit in the same
based on which the University vide its Office Note dated
December 2, 2020 had submitted that it shall abide by the UGC
Regulations with respect to appointment of Dr. Chopra.
Moreover, even Dr. Anju Gupta filed an affidavit to the effect
that she has no interest in contesting the said writ petition.
According to Mr. Chibber, there is no challenge in the original
or amended writ petition to the recommendations dated July 13,
2018 made by the Selection Committee, wherein Dr. Chopra
was placed at serial No.1, which eventually was approved by the
University. He lays stress on the fact that in view of the stand
of the UGC as well as the University, the Governing Body of
the College reconsidered its earlier decision dated February 6,
2019 and passed a new resolution on March 12, 2021 whereby it
was decided to appoint Dr. Chopra as Principal of the College
with immediate effect. He stated that based on the above
resolution dated March 12, 2021, the Apex Committee also
reviewed its recommendations dated August 2, 2018 and March
17, 2021 recommended (1) Dr. Rajiv Chopra; (2) Dr.
Basukinath Chowdhury; and (3) Dr. Anju Gupta as Principal of
the College in order of preference and thus on March 18, 2021
an order for appointment was issued.

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 22 of 53

39. According to Mr. Chibber, though the Governing Body of
the College had taken a decision to re-advertise the post of
Principal, however, this court did not give any direction to the
College to that effect, but instead dismissed the writ petition
filed by Dr. Anju Gupta on the ground that no vested right of
the petitioner has been taken away. In other words, it is his
submission that there is no embargo on the Governing Body of
the College to re-consider its earlier decision. The new
resolution dated March 12, 2021 has been duly approved by
University on March 17, 2021. Moreover, the decision to re-
advertise the post is purely administrative in nature and
therefore can be reviewed at any time. He seeks the dismissal
of the writ petition.
40. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, learned Sr. Counsel as briefed by
Mr. Anand Nandan, Adv. appearing for respondent No.3
Dr. Rajiv Chopra would submit that the petitioner is admittedly
an acting / officiating Principal of the College, whose period of
appointment has been over long back. Under the guise of the
present petition, the petitioner is seeking continuation in the
office of Principal as acting / officiating Principal of the
College. According to Mr. Nandrajog, Dr. Chopra had also
applied for appointment to the post of Principal on regular basis.
Vide letter dated July 6, 2018, the College had called Dr.
Chopra, for an interview by the duly constituted Selection
Committee. The UGC Regulation provides for only one
Selection Committee for making appointment to the post of
Principal. He stated that the University of Delhi vide its

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 23 of 53

Ordinance XVIII follows the same composition for the
Selection Committee of Principal in its colleges. However,
another clause in this Ordinance also provides for University
level committee which would give recognition to the name (s)
recommended by the Selection Committee. According to Mr.
Nandrajog, Clause 7 of Ordinance XVIII of the University
relates to Colleges other than those maintained by Govt. of
India. This Ordinance vide Clause 7(2)(a) provides that the
appointment of the Principal shall be made by the Governing
Body of the College on the recommendation of Selection
Committee consisting of persons mentioned therein.
41. That in terms of the advertisement, API point summary is
to be prepared for the post of a Principal in University. The API
point summary is to be screened / verified by the University. As
per the summary provided by the University, Dr. Chopra
secured highest API scores, i.e., 594 points amongst the
candidates who appeared before the Selection Committee. The
petitioner had secured 434 API points nullifying her statement
that she possessed the highest API score since her name
appeared on the top of the list. The names of the candidates in
the API list provided by the University were arranged in an
ascending order as per the application form numbers. He stated
that Dr. Chopra was placed at serial No.1 of the merit and the
names of the other candidates, i.e., Dr. Chowdhury and Dr.
Anju Gupta were placed at serial Nos. 2 and 3 in the order of
merit as waitlisted candidates. According to him, Dr. Anuradha
Gupta, the petitioner was not found suitable. The Governing

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 24 of 53

Body of the College in its meeting held on July 13, 2018
approved the recommendation of the Selection Committee, i.e.,
appointing Dr. Chopra to the post of Principal and forwarded
the names in order of merit to the University for favour of
recognition. Dr. Chopra was informed to appear before the
University level Selection Committee on August 2, 2018. Dr.
Anju Gupta, who was at serial No. 3 in the order of merit in the
selection list, was recognized as Principal and the only name
was forwarded to College. According to Mr. Nandrajog, this
was not only against the provisions of the UGC Regulations but
also against the provisions of the University Ordinance since no
reason was assigned for not recognizing the selected candidate,
i.e., Dr. Chopra and without giving any preference to the
candidates as required under the Ordinance of the University.
Mr. Nandrajog had referred to the writ petition filed by Dr. Anju
Gupta being W.P.(C) 12287/2019 without involving the UGC.
She had prayed for her appointment as Principal on the
recommendation of the Apex Committee held on August 2,
2018. He also referred to the meeting of the Governing Body
held on February 6, 2019 wherein it was decided to advertise the
said post, which was contrary to the provisions of the Ordinance
as it is only the University that can seek re-advertisement of the
post after scrapping of list of selected and waitlisted candidates.
He stated that the decision of the University dated August 2,
2018 was totally arbitrary and contrary to Clause 7 (2)(b) of
Ordinance XVIII. According to him, the decision of the
University is also contrary to the UGC Regulations of 2010 as

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 25 of 53

well as of 2018. In fact, he lays stress on the fact that Dr.
Chopra has filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 4521/2019 before
this Court in which he sought main relief to implement the UGC
Regulations in totality in his appointment as he was selected
candidate in the Selection Committee held on July 13, 2018. He
also lays stress on the counter-affidavit filed by the UGC, more
specifically Para 12, 14 and 15, wherein it is stated that the
interviews held by the Apex Committee on August 2, 2018 are
not in terms of the Regulations issued by the UGC. Mr.
Nandrajog has also stated that on December 2, 2020, the
University took a decision which super-imposed all the earlier
decisions inter alia concluding that UGC Regulations shall be
followed in the case of appointment of Principal in the College
and based on the decision, the University gave an undertaking
before this Court on December 24, 2020. Therefore, the
decision of the Governing Body to re-advertise the post was
superseded by the subsequent decision of the University in the
case of appointment of Dr. Chopra on the post of the Principal.
42. He stated that the reliance placed by Mr. Behra on the
order dated November 21, 2019 passed by this Court, in which,
the order of the Governing Body for re-advertisement has been
upheld, as misconceived. According to him, the Governing
Body of the College functions under the Ordinances of the
University. As per Clause 7(2) of the Ordinance XVIII of the
University, the Vice-Chancellor may in his opinion take a
decision not to go with the view of the Governing Body but in
that case, the Governing Body will be at liberty to chose the

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 26 of 53

candidates from the list of the candidates already before it. In
any case, according to Mr. Nandrajog, the decision of the
Governing Body to re-advertise has not been accepted by the
University and in view of affidavit filed by UGC dated July 26,
2019, the Governing Body reviewed its decision and decided to
recognize Dr. Chopra as the permanent Principal. He stated that
there is no illegality in the appointment of Dr. Chopra as the
Principal of the College. He seeks the dismissal of the writ
petition.
43. Mr. A. Mariarputham, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for
the respondent University of Delhi makes similar submissions
as made by Mr. Nandrajog. He stated that the appointment of
Dr. Chopra as the Principal of the College does not call for any
interference. In fact, he has challenged the locus of the
petitioner to challenge the selection and appointment. Merely,
the petitioner was acting / officiating Principal does not give her
locus to challenge the appointment. He stated that the petitioner
was one of the candidates for the post, but was not
recommended for appointment. As such she has no locus.
44. It is also stated by Mr. Mariarputham that it is not the
case of the petitioner that the respondent No.3 does not possess
required qualifications or he is ineligible or not suitable for any
reason. That apart, he stated that there is no challenge in the
original or the amended petition to the recommendation of the
Selection Committee dated July 13, 2018, wherein Dr. Chopra
was placed at merit position No.1, which was eventually

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 27 of 53

approved by the University. He lays stress on the fact that the
Governing Body, no doubt, had taken a decision to re-advertise
the post on February 6, 2019, but according to hm it is
permissible for the Governing Body to review its decision to
ensure that the action for making appointment to the post of
Principal is in accordance with the Ordinance of the University.
In this regard, he has relied upon the Judgment in the case of
R.R. Verma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 1980 (3) SCC
402 . The plea that the College having taken a decision to re-
advertise the post cannot be seen in isolation but by considering
all the facts and the position under the regulations as stated by
the UGC, which regulates the same. Concedingly, Dr. Chopra
was at serial No. 1 in the merit recommended by the Governing
Body and the University having reviewed its earlier decision
dated August 2, 2018 and accepting the recommendations of the
Selection Committee dated July 13, 2018 bringing the action of
the University in conformity with the Ordinances, the
appointment of Dr. Chopra is justified. He seeks the dismissal
of the writ petition.
CONCLUSION
45. Having heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and perused
the record, these two writ petitions, filed by the same petitioner,
involves challenge to the appointment of Dr. Basra and Dr.
Chopra as acting Principal and Principal on permanent basis
respectively. As the outcome of W.P.(C) 3684/2021 which
relates to the appointment of Dr. Chopra as permanent Principal
shall have a bearing on the outcome of the W.P.(C) 10615/2020

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 28 of 53

and it is also the plea of some of the counsels that in view of the
impugned decision / communications dated March 12, 2021,
March 17, 2021 and March 18, 2021 in W.P.(C) 3684/2021, the
W.P.(C) 10615/2020 has become infructuous, I deem it
appropriate to decide W.P.(C) 3684/2021 first.
46. The facts as noted from the writ petitions are that in the
year 2013, Dr. Chopra was appointed as OSD-Principal. On
April 27,2017, with a view to fill the post of Principal in the
College on permanent basis, an advertisement was issued. The
petitioner and Dr. Chopra had applied for the same. The
Selection Committee headed by the Chairman of the Governing
Body of the College, recommended a panel of three names as
noted in Para 34 above.
47. It is the case of the college that the names recommended
are in the order of merit. Pursuant thereto, the names were sent
to the University for approval. The University through Apex
Committee held a meeting on August 2, 2018 wherein the
recommended candidates appeared for interaction. The Apex
Committee recommended the name of Dr. Anju Gupta to be
appointed as Principal of the College. It appears that the
Governing Body of the College did not accept the
recommendation of the Apex Committee on the ground that the
said Committee has neither communicated its decision in the
order of preference nor it gave its detailed reasoning about the
change in the order of merit. The Governing Body also decided
to re-advertise the post of Principal as per UGC (Minimum

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 29 of 53

Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic
Staffs in Universities and Colleges and Other Measures for
Maintenance of Standards Higher Education) Regulations,
2018. Suffice to state that Dr. Chopra and Dr. Anju Gupta had
filed petitions being W.P.(C) Nos. 4521/2019 and 12287/2019
respectively in this Court, wherein Dr. Chopra had challenged
the decision dated August 2, 2018 of the Apex Committee
appointing Dr. Anju Gupta as Principal of the College, whereas
Dr. Anju Gupta had challenged the decision of the Governing
Body of the College dated February 6, 2019 not to accept the
recommendation of the Apex Committee and to re-advertise the
post of Principal. The W.P.(C) 12287/2019 filed by Dr. Anju
Gupta was dismissed by this Court on November 21, 2019 as
unmerited and upheld the decision of the Governing Body of the
college dated February 6, 2019. Dr. Anju Gupta had filed an
intra-court appeal against the order dated November 21, 2019,
but later withdrew the same. Even Dr. Chopra on being
informed about the issuance of order dated March 18, 2021
appointing him as the Principal has withdrawn W.P.(C)
4521/2019 on March 19, 2021.
48. Having noted the relevant facts, the submissions of Mr.
Behra for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 3684/2021 can be summed
up as under:
1. Dr. Chopra had also applied for the post of Principal of
the College.

2. Dr. Chopra had also participated in the final selection
process before the Apex Committee headed by the Vice-

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 30 of 53

Chancellor of the University.

3. The Apex Committee has given its assent for appointment
of Dr. Anju Gupta and not Dr. Chopra.

4. The Governing Body of the College held a meeting on
February 6, 2019 wherein it was decided not to accept the
decision of the Apex Committee and to re-advertise the
post of Principal.

5. The College is required to advertise the post as per its
decision dated February 6, 2019.

6. The challenge of Dr. Anju Gupta to the decision of the
Governing Body dated February 6, 2019 was rejected by
this Court. Even the withdrawal of LPA reveals that the
decision of the Governing Body has been upheld.

7. Even in the writ petition filed by Dr. Chopra, he has
sought implementation of resolution dated February 6,
2019 for re-advertisement.

8. That on May 24, 2020, Dr. Chopra who was working on
deputation as OSD-Principal was repatriated to his parent
college and even the challenge of Dr. Chopra in W.P.(C)
3266/2020 wherein a stand was taken by the College that
Dr. Chopra is not appointed as permanent Principal of the
College.

9. The decision / communications dated March 12, 2021,
March 17, 2021 and March 18, 2021 to appoint Dr.
Chopra as regular Principal is illegal and could not have
been done after the decision dated February 6, 2019 has
been upheld.

49. He also stated, never in the past, ever any review of the
decision of the Apex Committee has taken place and that the
Ordinance does not provide any power to review.

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 31 of 53

50. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the
decision of the Governing Body dated March 12, 2021
appointing Dr. Chopra as the Principal of the college;
communication of the University dated March 17, 2021 whereby
it has reviewed its recommendation dated August 2, 2018 and
order dated March 18, 2021 appointing Dr. Chopra as the
Principal of the College, are justified.
51. The plea of Mr. Behra was that the Governing Body of the
College having taken a decision on February 6, 2019 not to
accept the recommendation of the University dated August 2,
2018 and to re-advertise the post of Principal and challenge
thereof by Dr. Anju Gupta having been rejected by this Court and
LPA withdrawn by her, the College under the guise of review
cannot appoint Dr. Chopra as Principal is appealing on a first
blush but on a deeper consideration, the fact that Dr. Chopra had
also challenged the decision of the Apex Committee dated
August 2, 2018 in W.P.(C) 4521/2019 seeking his appointment,
wherein the UGC in its affidavit has stated that the process of
selection evolved by the Apex Committee is not in consonance
with the Regulations of 2010, cannot be overlooked. The
affidavit reads as under:
“12. That it is further respectfully submitted that the
UGC Regulations, though a sub-ordinate legislation,
once notified becomes part of an Act and the same has
the force of law and are not dependent upon any
adoption or no adoption by any State Government.
They are statutorily and mandatorily to be followed by
all the Universities as stipulated under the regulations
itself.

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 32 of 53

13. That it is further most humbly stated that the UGC
again came up with the University Grants Commission
(Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers
and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges
and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards
in Higher Education) (4th Amendment Regulations),
Regulation, 2016 whereby the apart from other
clauses, Clause 5.1.6(d) was amended and it now read
as:-
5.1.6(d) : The term of appointment of the College
Principal shall be five years with eligibility for
reappointment for one more term only after a
similar Selection Committee process which shall
take into account an external peer review, its
recommendations and its outcomes. The
framework of the external peer review shall be
specified by the UGC.
A copy of the relevant extract of the 2016
Regulations is annexed and marked as Annexure
R-2 .
14. That, it is further most respectfully stated and
submitted that it has been held by a number of
judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the UGC
Regulations being passed by both the Houses of
Parliament, though a subordinate legislation has a
binding effect on the Universities to which it applies.
Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in one of its
judgments have also held that UGC Regulations, 2010
are mandatory to teachers and other academic staff in
all the Central Universities and Colleges thereunder
and the Institutions deemed to be Universities whose
maintenance expenditure is met by the UGC.
15. That, as far the instant writ petition is concerned, it
is humbly submitted that the petitioner had applied to
the said post and was directed to appear before the
Selection Committee by letter dated 06.07.2018 and
thereafter was again interviewed by another Selection

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 33 of 53

Committee on 02.08.2018 which is not in consonance
with the Regulations as has been stated hereinbefore.”
52. It is true that the decision dated February 6, 2019 as
communicated to Dr. Anju Gupta on February 8, 2019 was
challenged by her and the petition was dismissed on November
21, 2019 and LPA withdrawn but the challenge of Dr. Chopra
being pending in W.P.(C) 4521/2019, it cannot be said that the
decision dated February 6, 2019, for re-advertisement has
attained finality.
53. In any case decision taken by the Governing Body on
February 6, 2019 was only to accept the recommendation of the
Apex Committee and further to re-advertise the post is an
administrative decision. An administrative decision unlike a
quasi-judicial decision can be revisited / reviewed by the same
authority, more so, if the earlier decision is based on an incorrect
understanding of law / rule / statutory regulation. In R.R. Verma
(supra) it is thus held:
“5. The last point raised by Shri Garg was that the
Central Government had no power to review its
earlier orders as the rules do not vest the government
with any such power. Shri Garg relied on certain
decisions of this Court in support of his
submission: Patel Narshi
Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji [(1971)
3 SCC 844 : AIR 1970 SC 1273] ; D.N. Roy v. State
of Bihar [(1971) 3 SCC 844 : (1971) 3 SCC 844 :
(1971) 2 SCR 522] and State of Assam v. J.N. Roy
Biswas [(1976) 1 SCC 234 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 10 :
AIR 1975 SC 2277 : (1976) 2 SCR 128] . All the cases
cited by Shri Garg are cases where the government
was exercising quasi-judicial power vested in them by

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 34 of 53

statute. We do not think that the principle that the
power to review must be conferred by statute either
specifically or by necessary implication is applicable
to decisions purely of an administrative nature. To
extend the principle to pure administrative decisions
would indeed lead to untoward and startling results.
Surely, any government must be free to alter its policy
or its decision in administrative matters. If they are to
carry on their daily administration they cannot be
hidebound by the rules and restrictions of judicial
procedure though of course they are bound to obey
all statutory requirements and also observe the
principles of natural justice where rights of parties
may be affected. Here again, we emphasise that if
administrative decisions are reviewed, the decisions
taken after review are subject to judicial review on all
grounds on which an administrative decision may be
questioned in a court. We see no force in this
submission of the learned Counsel. The appeal is,
therefore, dismissed
(emphasis supplied)
54. Having said that, as noted from the affidavit of UGC,
which I have reproduced above, the UGC has made a reference
to the Regulations of 2010 relating to appointment of Teachers
and other Academic Staff. In so far as regulations relating to
appointment of Principal is concerned, the same read as under:
UGC REGULATIONS OF 2010
4.2.0. PRINCIPAL
i. A Master’s Decree with at least 55% marks (or an
equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system
is followed) by a recognized University.

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 35 of 53

ii. A. Ph.D. Decree in concerned / allied / relevant
discipline (s) in the institution concerned with evidence of
published work and research guidance.
iii. Associate Professor / Professor with a total
experience of fifteen years of teaching / research /
administration in Universities, Colleges and other
institutions of higher education.
iv. A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic
Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based
Appraisal System (PBAS), as set out in this Regulation in
Appendix III for direct recruitment of Professor in
Colleges.
(SELECTON COMMITTEE)
5.1.6 College Principal
(a) The Selection Committee for the post of College
Principal shall have the following composition:
1. Chairperson of the Governing Body as
Chairperson.
2. Two members of the Governing Body of the
College to be nominated by the Chairperson
of whom one shall be an expert in academic
administration.
3. One nominee of the Vice-Chancellor who
shall be a Higher Education expert. In case
of Colleges notified / declared as minority

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 36 of 53

educational institutions, one nominee of the
Chairperson of the College from out of a
panel of five names, preferably from minority
communities, recommended by the Vice-
Chancellor of the affiliating University of
whom one should be a subject expert.
4. Three experts consisting of the Principal of a
college, a Professor and an accomplished
educationist not below the rank of a Professor
(to be nominated by the Governing Body of
the college) out of a panel of six experts
approved by the relevant statutory body of the
university concerned. An academician
representing
SC/ST/OBC/Minority/Women/Differently-
abled categories, if any of the candidates
representing these categories is the applicant,
to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor, if
any of the above members of the selection
committee do not belong to that category.
(b) At least five members, including two experts, should
constitute the quorum.
(c) All the selection procedures of the selection
committee shall be completed on the day of the selection
committee meeting itself, wherein, minutes are recorded
along with the scoring proforma and recommendation

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 37 of 53

made on the basis of merit with the list of selected and
waitlisted candidates / Panel of names in order of merit,
duly signed by all members of the selection committee.
(d) The term of appointment of the College Principal
shall be FIVE years with eligibility for reappointment for
one more term only after the similar selection committee
process.
55. During the course of hearing a reference is made to the
Regulations of 2018, (notified on August 13, 2018), the same
shall not be applicable to this selection process as it was initiated
on April 27, 2018 (before notification) and the Selection
Committee meeting was also held on July 13, 2018. In any case
the same shall not have any bearing on the issue. I reproduce the
Regulation of 2018 in respect of Selection Committee asunder
under:
VIII. College Principal and Professor
A. Selection Committee
(a) The Selection Committee for the post of College
Principal and Professor shall have the following
composition:
i) Chairperson of the Governing Body to be
the Chairperson.
ii) Two members of the Governing Body of the
college to be nominated by the Chairperson

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 38 of 53

of whom one shall be an expert in academic
administration.
iii) Two nominees of the Vice-Chancellor who
shall be Higher Education experts in the
subject/field concerned out of which at least
one shall be a person not connected in any
manner with the affiliating University. In case
of Colleges notified/declared as minority
educational institutions, one nominee of the
Chairperson of the College from out of a
panel of five names, preferably from minority
communities, recommended by the Vice-
Chancellor of the affiliating university of
whom one should be a subject expert.
iv) Three Higher Education experts consisting
of the Principal of a College, a Professor and
an accomplished educationist not below the
rank of a Professor (to be nominated by the
Governing Body of the college out of a panel
of six experts approved by the relevant
statutory body of the university concerned).
v) An academician representing
SC/ST/OBC/Minority/Women/Differently-
abled categories, if any of candidates
representing these categories is the applicant,
to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor, if

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 39 of 53

any of the above members of the selection
committee does not belong to that category.
vi) Two subject-experts not connected with
the college to be nominated by the
Chairperson of the governing body of the
college out of a panel of five names
recommended by the Vice Chancellor from
the list of subject experts approved by the
relevant statutory body of the university
concerned. In case of colleges
notified/declared as minority educational
institutions, two subject experts not connected
with the University nominated by the
Chairperson of the College governing body
out of the panel of five names, preferably
from minority communities, recommended by
the Vice Chancellor from the list of subject
experts approved by the relevant statutory
body.
(b) Five members, including two experts, shall
constitute the quorum.
(c) All the selection procedures of the selection
committee shall be completed on the day/last day of
the selection committee meeting itself, wherein,
minutes are recorded along with the scoring
Proforma and recommendation made on the basis of

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 40 of 53

merit with the list of selected and waitlisted
candidates/Panel of names in order of merit, duly
signed by all members of the selection committee.
(d) The term of appointment of the College
Principal shall be five years, with eligibility for
reappointment for one more term only after an
assessment by a Committee appointed by the
University as per the composition given in sub-
clause (B) of 5.1 (VIII).
(e) After the completion of his/her term as Principal,
the incumbent shall join back his/her parent
organization with the designation as Professor and
in the grade of the Professor.
56. As a comparison was made, between the UGC Regulations
and Ordinance, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant provision
of Ordinance as well, i.e., Ordinance XVIII Clause 7(2).
PROVISION PARTICULARS
Ordinance
XVIII Clause
7 Rule 2

{Annexure A-16, Page
328 of the Amendment
Application}
“(2) The appointment of the Principal shall
be made by the Governing Body of the
College on the recommendation of a
Selection Committee (Modified to bring
them in Ordinance with UGC regulations
vide letter no.F.3-1/2000(PS) dt. 4.4.2000
as directed by the Hon’ble Visitor vide
MHRD letter no. F.4- 22/2002-(Desk) (U)
dt. 7.1.2004) consisting of

st
[1 Selection committee] The Chairman of
the Governing Body (Chairman), one

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 41 of 53

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 the Principal of a College, a
Professor and an accomplished
educationist not below the rank of a
Professor (to be nominated by the
Governing Body) out of a panel of experts
approved by the 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 ; [There is no word as ‘in order of
Merit’]

[2nd Selection committee / Apex
Committee]
(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


W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 42 of 53

(c) on the recommendation of the Selection
Committee the University shall transmit to
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.

{Annexure A-16- Page-328 of the
Amended Writ Petition}
Clause 3.0.0-
UGC Regulations
on Minimum
Qualifications for
Appointment of
Teachers, and Academic
Staff in Universities and
Colleges and measures
for the maintenance of
Standards in Higher
Education, 2010
▪ Sub-clause 3.1.0
The direct recruitment to the posts of
Assistant Professor, Associate Professor
and Professor in the Universities and
Colleges, and Senior Professor in the
Universities, shall be on the basis of merit
through an all-India advertisement,
followed by selection by a duly-constituted
Selection Committee as per the provisions
made under these Regulations. THESE
PROVISIONS SHALL BE
INCORPORATED IN THE STATUTES /
ORDINANCES OF THE UNIVERSITY
CONCERNED . The composition of such a
committee shall be as specified in these
Regulations.”

{Annexure A-11- Page-212, of the Amended
Writ Petition, Clause 3.1.0 on Page 212}

▪ Sub-clause 4.2.0: PRINCIPAL
iii) Associate Professor/Professor with a
total experience of 15 years teaching/
research/ administration in Universities,
Colleges, and other institutions of higher
education.

{Annexure A-11- Page-212, of the

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 43 of 53

Amendment Application, Clause 4.2.0 on
Page 214}

57. The difference in the procedure under the Regulations
and the Ordinance for selecting Principal is that the Regulations
of 2010 do not stipulate the selection process through the Apex
Committee (Second Committee) of the University. It
contemplates one Selection Committee at the College level, the
composition of which has already been noted above.
58. The plea of Mr. Behra was, the astrix in Ordinance
depicts, University has adopted UGC Regulations in terms of
letter of Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Government of India of 2002 dated January 7, 2004 and the
same contemplates selection of Principal through apex
committee as well and the apex committee having not
recommended Dr. Chopra as Principal, he cannot be appointed
so. This plea is not tenable in view of Regulations of 2010
reproduced above, which admittedly have been notified much
after 2004, without including therein what has been stated in
Ordinance about the apex committee.
59. The position under regulations is reiterated by the UGC
in its affidavit in W.P.(C) 4521/2019, wherein it stated
“thereafter was again interviewed by another Selection
Committee on August 2, 2018, which is not in consonance with
the Regulations as has been stated herein before”. Based on
the affidavit, the University has also submitted a note that it
shall abide by the UGC Regulations with respect to

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 44 of 53

appointment of Dr. Chopra. So, the Governing Body is justified
to review its decision dated February 6, 2019 and appoint Dr.
Chopra as the Principal of the College.
60. That apart, I am also of the view that the petitioner has no
locus to challenge the appointment of Dr. Chopra as the
Principal of the College as she was not part of the three names
recommended by the Selection Committee on July 13, 2020 nor
she has challenged the said proceedings. Her only case as
canvassed by Mr. Behra is, pursuant to the decision of the
Governing Body of the College dated February 6, 2019 on re-
advertisement, the petitioner shall have the right of
consideration for appointment as Principal is not appealing.
61. This I say so for two reasons, firstly the petitioner having
not challenged the proceedings, dated July 13, 2018 of the
Selection Committee and dated August 2, 2018 of the Apex
Committee, cannot challenge the decision and communications,
dated March 12, 2021, March 17, 2021 and March 18, 2021 of
the Governing Body and the University as the genesis /
foundation of the impugned decision / communications is the
proceedings of the Selection Committee / Apex Committee.
62. Secondly, the right of consideration would have accrued
only on the issuance of advertisement, pursuant to the decision
dated February 6, 2019. In the absence of an advertisement no
right exist in favour of the petitioner to seek consideration.

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 45 of 53

63. Further the stand of the University as canvassed by
Mr. A. Mariarputham is, that in view of challenge by Dr.
Chopra to the proceedings of Apex Committee dated August 2,
2018; the affidavit of the UGC in W.P.(C) 4521/2019 and the
stand of University that it would go by the affidavit of UGC, the
University has rightly reviewed its decision of August 2, 2018
and accepted the recommendations of the Selection Committee
dated July 13, 2018 recommending Dr. Chopra at serial No.1, is
appealing. This I say so as there is no bar on the University to
review its decision and by the decision it has brought the
selection in conformity with the UGC regulations. I must also
state Mr. Behra has not disputed Dr. Chopra’s eligibility and
suitability to the post of Principal, which also justifies the
impugned decision / communications.
64. In so far as the Judgments relied upon by Mr. Behra are
concerned, in R.K. Sharma v. University of Delhi, W.P.(C)
5923/2003 , a Coordinate Bench of this Court has in Para 36
held that the democratic norm of collective decision
contemplated by sub-clause 2 of clause 7 of Ordinance XVIII
has to be given full force. Similarly, in Shyam Lal College
(supra) this Court has upheld the constitutional validity of
Clause 7 (2) of Ordinance XVIII. In this Judgment the Court
has dealt with the same provision as exists in Ordinance of the
University on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Behra. It
contemplates the selection process to the post of Principal by
the Apex Committee headed by the Vice-Chancellor. In Dr.
Manaswini M. Yogi (supra), wherein the Division Bench

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 46 of 53

upheld the order of the Single Judge, accepting the action of the
Apex Committee to interview three candidates who were
recommended by the First Committee and not other candidates,
whose names were also sent to the Apex Committee by placing
reliance on the Judgment where procedure contemplated under
Clause 7(2) of the Ordinance XVIII has been upheld by this
Court. He relied on the above Judgments to oppose the stand of
the respondents that regulations made by the UGC need to be
given effect to in letter and spirit by stating that the Ordinance
of the University shall have the effect of law and has to be
adhered to and also past practice shows the Ordinance has been
followed and not regulations as framed by the UGC. On similar
proposition, learned Sr. Counsel had relied upon the Judgment
in the case of Ashok Mittal (supra) and Governing Body of
Hindu College (supra) .
65. It is true that the aforesaid Judgments of this Court had
decided the issue which fell for consideration in terms of Clause
7(2) of Ordinance XVIII of the University, but the same is
because no plea was raised by any party with regard to the
applicability of Regulations of the UGC over the Ordinance
XVIII of the University. In one case, i.e., University of Delhi v.
Ashvin Chaddha, LPA 814/2012 on which reliance was placed
by Mr. Behra has made some observations in that regard in Para
6 & 7 in the following manner:
“6. The debate before the learned Single Judge
was decided with reference to Clause 7(3) and
Clause 7(3)(c) of Ordinance XVIII of the

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 47 of 53

University of Delhi and the regulations framed by
the University Grants Commission. The issue in
the appeals concerns the apparent conflict
between the provisions of the Ordinance of the
University and the Regulations framed by the
University Grants Commission. It also embraces
the power of the Executive Council of the
University of Delhi.

7. Even if the interpretation of the legal position
concerning the regulations framed by the
University Grants Commission and the
Ordinances framed by the University of Delhi
survive for consideration, but that would be only
academic because as of today a regular Principal
has been appointed. The issue decided by the
learned Single Judge has even otherwise become
a non issue because the guidelines framed by the
University Grants Commission concerning
appointment of a Principal of a college affiliated
to a Central University have since been approved
by the Executive Council of the University of
Delhi and thus in future issues concerning
appointment of Principal of a college affiliated to
the University of Delhi would have to be decided
keeping in view the decision of the Executive
Council. We note that on said basis a subsequent
Writ Petition No.1528/2014 concerning
appointment of the Principal of Daulat Ram
College was disposed of by learned Single Judge
ignoring the impugned decision dated November
20, 2012. The order passed by the learned Single
Judge deciding WP(C)No.1528/2014 is dated
March 10, 2014.”

66. The aforesaid would reveal that the issue of applicability
of Regulations or Ordinance was not gone into. I must state
here that the Single Judge in the impugned Judgment (Ashvin

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 48 of 53

Chaddha v. University of Delhi, W.P.(C) 497/2012) in para 78
has held as under:
“78. UGC Regulations 2010 hold the field till
these are reviewed or altered and when there is a
conflict between the University and the UGC
Regulations, UGC Regulations would prevail
over the Regulations of the Universities.
Therefore, I am of the considered view that the
term of OSD cannot be for an indefinite period.”
67. A similar issue came up before this Court in the case of
Shubhanshu Singh and Ors. v. JNU, W.P.(C) 1557/2017
wherein in Para 44, this Court has held as under:
“44. Mr. Mehta is justified in his submission that
Regulations are mandatorily to be followed by the
University without any deviation and the binding
nature of the said Regulations is not dependent
upon it being adopted or accepted by the
respondent University or any other University in
the Country. In other words, the Regulations are
binding on the University by operation of Law,
i.e., UGC Act, 1956. This aspect has been
clarified by the UGC in its communication dated
February 13, 2017.”
68. The said Judgment has been taken in an appeal before the
Division Bench and has been stayed. The appeal is still pending
consideration.
69. In any case, the issue is no more res-integra in view of
the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Motin
v. Manisankar Maiti and Ors. 2018 (16) SCC Page 533 ,
wherein in Para 12 and 14, it is held as under:

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 49 of 53

“12 . Having heard the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and having considered
the ratio in Annamalai University [Annamalai
University v. Information & Tourism Deptt.,
(2009) 4 SCC 590 : 3 SCEC 532] , we are of the
view that the effect of that decision is to the
contrary. In Annamalai University [Annamalai
University v. Information & Tourism Deptt.,
(2009) 4 SCC 590 : 3 SCEC 532] , this Court
observed that the University Grants Commission
Act which was enacted by Parliament under
Schedule VII List I Entry 66 to the Constitution
of India, was so enacted for effectuating
coordination and determination of standards in
universities. Its provisions are binding on all
universities whether conventional or open and
its powers are very broad. The Regulations
framed under that Act apply equally to open
universities as well as also to formal
conventional universities vide paras 40-42 of the
said judgment which read as under: (SCC p.
607)
“40. The UGC Act was enacted by Parliament in
exercise of its power under Schedule VII List I
Entry 66 to the Constitution of India whereas the
Open University Act was enacted by Parliament
in exercise of its power under Entry 25 of List III
thereof. The question of repugnancy of the
provisions of the said two Acts, therefore, does
not arise. It is true that the Statement of Objects
and Reasons of the Open University Act shows
that the formal system of education had not been
able to provide an effective means to equalise
educational opportunities. The system is rigid
inter alia in respect of attendance in classrooms.
Combinations of subjects are also inflexible.
41. Was the alternative system envisaged under
the Open University Act in substitution of the
formal system, is the question. In our opinion, in
the matter of ensuring the standard of education,

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 50 of 53

it is not. The distinction between a formal system
and informal system is in the mode and manner
in which education is imparted. The UGC Act
was enacted for effectuating coordination and
determination of standards in universities. The
purport and object for which it was enacted
must be given full effect.
42. The provisions of the UGC Act are binding
on all universities whether conventional or open.
Its powers are very broad. The Regulations
framed by it in terms of clauses (e), (f), (g) and
(h) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 are of wide
amplitude. They apply equally to open
universities as also to formal conventional
universities. In the matter of higher education, it
is necessary to maintain minimum standards of
instructions. Such minimum standards of
instructions are required to be defined by UGC.
The standards and the coordination of work or
facilities in universities must be maintained and
for that purpose required to be regulated. The
powers of UGC under Sections 26(1)(f) and
26(1)(g) are very broad in nature. Subordinate
legislation as is well known when validly made
becomes part of the Act. We have noticed
hereinabove that the functions of UGC are all-
pervasive in respect of the matters specified in
clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 12-A and
clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (2) thereof.”
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
14. In view of the observations in Annamalai
University [Annamalai University v. Information
& Tourism Deptt., (2009) 4 SCC 590:3 SCEC
532] and the above directive, we are of the view
that as a consequence, PhD degree issued by an
open university and another PhD degree issued
by a formal conventional university must,
therefore, be treated on a par having been so

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 51 of 53

issued under the uniform standards prescribed
by the University Grants Commission Act.”
(emphasis supplied)
70. So, it must follow the appointment of Principal in the
College has to be as per the recommendation of the Selection
Committee constituted as per Regulation 5.1.6 of the UGC
Regulations and not as per Ordinance XVIII 7(2) of the
University. The College is justified in overlooking the decision of
the Apex Committee dated August 2, 2018 and re-visit its earlier
decision dated February 6, 2019 in view of the Regulations of the
UGC and appoint Dr. Chopra as the Principal on permanent basis
in terms of its recommendation dated July 13, 2018. The decision
and communications dated March 12, 2021, March 17, 2021 and
March 18, 2021 of the College / University need to be upheld. I
do not see any illegality in the decision. In view of my conclusion
above, W.P.(C) 3684/2021 has to be dismissed.
71. Having said that, in so far as the challenge in W.P.(C)
10615/2019 wherein the petitioner has challenged the appointment
of Dr. Basra as acting Principal, of the College. The challenge is
primarily on the ground, she does not fulfil the eligibility; and the
approval of the Vice-Chancelor has not been taken. The stand of
the College / University / Dr. Basra is at variance, inasmuch as she
is the senior-most teacher eligible for appointment as acting
Principal. Be that as it may, in view of my conclusion in W.P.(C)
3684/2021, upholding the appointment of Dr. Chopra as Principal
on permanent basis, the challenge in this petition, to the
appointment of Dr. Basra as Acting Principal shall not survive for

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 52 of 53

consideration and the petition needs to be dismissed as
infructuous.
72. The consequence of my above discussion is that both the
writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.
CM Nos. 33446/2020, 34940/2020 & 5096/2021 in W.P.(C)
10615/2020
CM Nos. 11168/2021 and 12477/2021 in W.P.(C) 3684/2021
Dismissed as infructuous.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
/jg
MAY 07, 2021

W.P.(C) 10615/2020 and connected case Page 53 of 53