Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dav College Managing Committee vs Panjab University And Others on 4 May, 2012
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Letters Patent Appeal No.612 of 2012
Date of Decision : May 04, 2012
DAV College Managing Committee, Hoshiarpur
....Appellant
Versus
Panjab University and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. R.D. Anand, Advocate
for the appellant.
T.P.S. MANN, J.
The instant appeal has been filed by the Managing Committee of the DAV College, Hoshiarpur, hereinafter referred to as the "appellant-Committee", against the order dated 28.3.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby application (CM No.2732 of 2012) filed by the appellant- Committee seeking vacation/modification of the earlier order dated 16.3.2011 had been dismissed.
On 6.2.2009, Panjab University, Chandigarh apprised the appellant-Committee about the decision taken by the Syndicate at its meeting held on 25.1.2009 to consider the reply of the Committee to the show cause notice dated 6.12.2008 that the Letters Patent Appeal No.612 of 2012 -2- decision of the Syndicate with regard to the appointment of respondent No.2 as Principal of the D.A.V. College, Hoshiarpur run by appellant-Committee be complied with by giving him appointment letter immediately. Aforementioned letter dated 6.2.2009, copy of which is available on the record as Annexure P-6, was challenged by the appellant-Committee by filing writ petition (CWP No. 3804 of 2009) which, after issuance of notice, came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 16.3.2011. While observing that the affidavit filed by the Secretary of the appellant- Committee was bordering the contempt of Court, the learned Single Judge found it appropriate to direct the Secretary to remain present in the Court in order to explain the contents of the affidavit. The case was ordered to be listed on 5.7.2011 and it was further directed that, in the meanwhile, no grant-in-aid be released to the appellant-College. On 5.7.2011, the Secretary of the appellant-Committee presented himself in the Court and explained the contents of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the matter had been reconsidered and necessary action taken. However, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted before the Court that the matter could not be reconsidered by the appellant-Committee as it was for the University to take decision in the case. While directing the appellant-Committee and its Secretary as well as the State of Punjab to file their respective affidavits in regard to the above, Letters Patent Appeal No.612 of 2012 -3- learned Single Judge adjourned the writ petition for further hearing. The appellant then filed a miscellaneous application (CM No.2732 of 2012) with a prayer for recalling the order dated 16.3.2011 whereby the State of Punjab had been ordered not to release the grant-in-aid to the appellant-Committee. The said application was, however, dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 28.3.2012 after finding no ground to modify the order dated 16.3.2011 and observing that the appellant- Committee was adamant and not willing to appoint respondent No.2 as Principal of the appellant-College though he had been selected by a validly constituted Selection Committee consisting nominee of the DPI (Colleges), Punjab; President of the appellant- Committee; Vice-President of the appellant-Committee; Secretary of the appellant-Committee; nominee of the Management; nominee of the Vice-Chancellor and two subject experts. It was also noticed that though respondent No.2 was already working as Principal in another college yet this did not mean that his selection per se was illegal. It was further observed that majority of the members of the Selection Committee were either office bearers or representatives of the appellant-Committee when respondent No.2 was selected but after the change of office bearers, the rules were also sought to be changed which could not be permitted in law.
Learned counsel for the appellant has been heard and the impugned order perused.
Letters Patent Appeal No.612 of 2012 -4-
Admittedly, respondent No.2 was recommended for appointment as Principal of the appellant-College by the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 14.7.2008. Despite the fact that four out of the eight members of the Selection Committee were either office bearers or nominee of the appellant-Committee whereas the remaining four were nominees of DPI (Colleges) and the Vice-Chancellor and two subject experts, the Managing Committee in its meeting held on 6.8.2008 opted to reject the recommendation of the Selection Committee on the ground that the President, the Vice-President and the Secretary of the appellant-Committee could not support the recommendation in view of the startling information/antecedents of respondent No.2 pointed out by other members of the Committee in the meeting. Also, respondent No.2 had earlier worked as Principal in the appellant-College in the year 2006-07 but his appointment was not approved by DPI (Colleges) and for that reason his probation/service was terminated. Apparently, the decision of the appellant-Committee taken in its meeting held on 6.8.2008 was for the sole purpose of keeping respondent No.2 away from being appointed as Principal of the College. After seeking proper advise, the University instructed the appellant-Committee to honour the selection of respondent No.2 and allow him to join as Principal but the Committee did not allow him to do so. Instead, vide letter dated 10.11.2008, the appellant-Committee informed the Letters Patent Appeal No.612 of 2012 -5- University that the power to appoint the Principal was with the appellant-Committee and the proceedings of the Selection Committee were only recommendatory in nature. This did not find favour with the Syndicate of the University and, accordingly, show cause notice was issued to the appellant-Committee as to why the affiliation granted to the appellant-College be not withdrawn under Regulation 11.1 (5) at page 160 of P.U. Calendar Vol.I.2007. In response thereto, the President of the appellant- Committee submitted its reply and prayed for withdrawing the show cause notice. Permission was also sought to enable the Committee to select a fresh candidate after inviting fresh applications. The reply in response to the show cause notice was considered by the Syndicate of the University at its meeting held on 25.1.2009 and the appellant-Committee was directed to comply with its decision immediately by appointing respondent No.2 as Principal of the appellant-College.
Once half of the members of the Selection Committee, which consisted of the President, the Vice President, the Secretary and the nominee of the appellant-Committee, were party to the decision in recommending the selection of respondent No.2 as Principal of the appellant-College and, that too, without a murmur on their part as well as the fact that the remaining members of the Selection Committee were nominees of the DPI (Colleges) and the Vice-Chancellor, besides two subject experts, such a decision Letters Patent Appeal No.612 of 2012 -6- could not have been upset by the Managing Committee only on the ground that members of the Managing Committee were armed with startling information/antecedents of respondent No.2. While filing its affidavit in the writ petition filed by the appellant-Committee, the Secretary of the Managing Committee pleaded certain facts which, according to the learned Single Judge, were bordering the contempt of Court. However, before issuing any such notice to him, he was directed to remain present in the Court and explain the contents of the affidavit. The learned Single Judge also directed that, in the meanwhile, no grant-in-aid be released to the appellant-College. Apparently, learned Single Judge was of the view that the appellant-Committee had not bothered to comply with the lawful commands issued by the University Syndicate directing it to appoint respondent No.2 as Principal of the College and for that reason, directions were issued to the State of Punjab not to release the grant-in-aid.
In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned order.
The appeal is without any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) (T.P.S. MANN) May 04 2012 JUDGE JUDGE satish