Wed. Apr 21st, 2021

The Hindu Educational Trust vs University Of Delhi And Anr. on 30 May, 2017

7 min read

1. As the reliefs prayed for in all these writ petitions being the same with more or less

identical facts, the same are being disposed of by this common order / judgment. Suffice to

state the primary prayer in these petitions is for quashing of Executive Council Resolution

W.P.(C) 494/2013 and connected matters Page 1 of 57
No. 51 dated November 3, 2012. I may point out here that in Writ Petition (C) No.

1174/2013, the prayer also includes for quashing of Executive Council Resolution NO. 289

dated 21st August, 1975 and Resolution No. 138 dated 11th February, 2003.

Writ Petition (C) No. 494/2013

2. The facts as noted from the writ petition are, the Hindu College Society came to be

registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on October 24, 1945.

It is the case of the petitioner that the Society has framed its own Rules and Regulations.

The society was to consist of 15 members, out of which 10 members were to be nominated

by the Board of Trustees of the petitioner. The remaining 5 members were to comprise of

the Principal of Hindu College, Delhi, 2 members of the teaching staff of the Hindu College

and 2 members appointed by the respondent no.1, i.e., University of Delhi. All the

members of the Society were the members of the Governing Body of Hindu College, Delhi

and the members could hold office for not more than a year at a time, but were eligible for

re-appointment without any limitation on the number of terms already served on the

Governing Body of the Hindu College. It is the case of the petitioner that the Hindu

College was initially affiliated to Punjab University. However with the creation of the

University of Delhi, Hindu College came to be affiliated with the said University. It is the

case of the petitioner that the Rules and Regulations of the petitioner as well as the Hindu

College providing for appointment of members to the Governing Body amongst other

things have been approved by the respondent no.1 under Statute 30 (1)(C). It has been

W.P.(C) 494/2013 and connected matters Page 2 of 57
appointing the members of the Governing Body of Hindu College in accordance with and

subject to the Rules and Regulations for a term of one year as stipulated by Ordinance

XVIII. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.1 in the past has always

approved the appointment of members of the Governing Body of the Hindu College as

made by the petitioner. It is stated that the Executive Council of the respondent no.1,

University framed model Rules for composition and mode of appointment of the Governing

Body of the various colleges vide Executive Council Resolution no. 66 dated April 27,

1963, Executive Council NO April, 23, 1966 and Resolution No. 320 (a) dated November

19, 1966. It is stated that model Rules were never given effect to. It also contemplated that

the constitution, composition, term of office of members and Chairmanship of the

Governing Body has to be in accordance with Statute 30 read with Ordinance XVIII of the

Delhi University Act. Respondent no.1 vide Executive Council Resolution No. 289 dated

August 21, 1975 laid down guidelines for appointment of members of Trust nominees on

the Governing Body of a college. As per the guidelines amongst other things, the Trust was

advised to forward a panel of names to the University consisting of not less than 50% more

names than required numbers. It is the stand of of the petitioner that the guidelines of the

year 1975 were not having any statutory force and were not binding on the respondent no.1,

Hindu College, Delhi. Even otherwise, the said guidelines were contrary to Statute 30

(1)(C) which provides that Governing Body shall consist of not more than 20 members and

that the Rules relating to composition of the Governing Body should conform to the Statute

W.P.(C) 494/2013 and connected matters Page 3 of 57
and Ordinance of the University and the conditions of the Government grant to the College.

The Statute nowhere stipulates that the Trust has to forward a panel of names containing not

less than 50% more names than the required number. It is averred in the writ petition that

on September 10, 1997, respondent no.1, University of Delhi informed the Hindu College,

respondent no.2 herein that the Vice-Chancellor constituted a committee to recommend

modalities/guidelines for nomination of Members on the Governing Body of the Colleges

affiliated to the Delhi University including the proposal to have uniform policy of having 10

trust nominees on the Governing Body of all the colleges, out of which not less than 50%

should be from the panel prepared by the Executive Council of the University. It is the case

of the petitioner that the Board of the petitioner considered the aforesaid proposal of the

respondent no.1 and decided that the system of nominating 10 members of the Governing

Body by the Board of Trustees of the petitioner has been in practice for the last 40 years and

has been functioning well in so far as the Trust Colleges were concerned. No development

took place thereafter in the matter and the Board of Trustees of the petitioner continued to

make nomination of 10 members to the Governing Body of the Hindu College. It was only

vide Resolution No. 138 dated 11th February, 2003, respondent no.l formulated guidelines

for nominating members of the Governing Bodies of Trust Colleges wherein it was

provided that no member shall serve on the Governing Body of a Trust College for more

than 5 terms. It is the case of the petitioner that the said Resolution is contrary to Ordinance

XVIII (3)(1) and has no statutory force inasmuch as the said Ordinance provides that the

W.P.(C) 494/2013 and connected matters Page 4 of 57
member of the Governing Body shall hold office for a period of one year and shall be

eligible for re-appointment or re-election. Thus, there is no restriction in Ordinance XVIII

that a person cannot be re-appointed / re-nominated as a member of the Governing Body if

he has earlier been appointed for 5 times. For the year 2008-2009, the petitioner had sent

10 names for appointment as members of the Governing Body to Hindu College, Delhi.

Respondent no.1 in response thereto vide letter dated January 24, 2008 to the Principal of

the Hindu College stated that the matter of appointment of the trust and nominees was being

considered at appropriate level and the names sent by the College for nomination on the

Governing Body is not in accordance with the guidelines of the Executive Council vide

Resolution No. 289 dated August 21, 1975 and Resolution No. 138 dated February, 11,

2003. It was further requested that a panel of 50% more names along with the Bio-Data

including those of at least 2 women, be sent for nomination as trust nominees on the

Governing Body of the Hindu College, Delhi. The petitioner vide its letter dated February 2,

2008 conveyed its remarks on the stand taken by the respondent no.1 / University. It is the

case of the petitioner that the Vice-Chancellor approved the names forwarded for

appointment as Trust nominees to the Governing Body vide its letter dated August 12,

2009. In other words, the guidelines so referred to are only of a persuasive value and were

in reality never implemented. On August 23, 2011, the petitioner forwarded to the

Principal of Hindu College, Delhi the names of 10 members for appointment to the

Governing Body of the College for the year 2011-12, which was further forwarded to the

W.P.(C) 494/2013 and connected matters Page 5 of 57
respondent no.1 / University. It is the case of the petitioner that a representation dated

November 4, 2011 was made to the respondent no.1 for approving 10 members nominated

by the petitioner to the Governing Body for the year 2011-12. It is averred that the term of

the last Governing Body expired on August 31, 2011. Due to failure of the respondent no.1

to appoint the nominees to the Governing Body of the Hindu College, Delhi, it is

functioning with a truncated Governing Body that does not contain the persons nominated

by the petitioner in accordance with the Rules and Regulations. It received a

communication dated November 11, 2011 from the respondent no.1, wherein it was directed

by the respondent no.1 that four members, namely Shri Desh Raj Gupta, Shri S.N.P. Punj,

Shri Raj Kumar Gupta and Shri T.P. Gadodia have already availed more than 4 terms as

trust nominees on the Governing Body. They should be replaced and proposal for

nomination of trust nominees on the Governing Body of the Hindu College as per the

guidelines approved by the Executive Council be sent by the Hindu College for

consideration of the respondent no.1. Subsequently, yet another communication dated

January 5, 2012 was received by Hindu College from the respondent no.1 wherein, the

College has been called upon to send the panel of Trust nominees in accordance with the

guidelines for consideration by the Executive Council. It is averred that communications

dated November 11, 2011 as well as January 5, 2012 of the respondent no.1 were

challenged in W.P.(C) No. 537/2012. During the pendency of the said writ petition,

respondent no. 1 has approved the names of six persons to be members of the Governing

W.P.(C) 494/2013 and connected matters Page 6 of 57
Body on January 24, 2012. During the hearing of the writ petition, the respondent no.1

framed norms vide the Executive Council Resolution No. 51 dated November 3, 2012

relating to the composition of the Governing Body. Accordingly, the present writ petition

has been filed challenging the Executive Council Resolution No. 51 dated November 3,

2012.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply