Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

- University issued a communication stating that the appointment of the Principal made by the petitioner - Institution through its own Selection Committee is illegal. It has thus been ordered to be rejected and cancelled. The petitioner has been issued a notice as to why action for cancellation of affiliation should not be taken for violation of College Code Statute No.28.

13. It is this action which has been challenged in the present writ petition.

14. Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Principal was appointed by the Management of the School and the Principal was holding requisite qualifications, as per statutory provisions provided under the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 and College Code Statute No.28. He has further stated that initially the State Government has issued a notice on 13.05.2016 directing the College to deliver charge to a particular person and later on University has issued notice on 17.05.2016 calling explanation from the Institution as to why Principal has been appointed when a Committee has not been constituted by the University, keeping in view the College Code Statute No.28. The University by the impugned order dated 17.05.2016 has directed the College to remove the Principal appointed by the petitioner - Institution.

20. The stand of respondents No.1 and 2 / The State of Madhya Pradesh is that the petitioner / Institution itself has placed on record advertisement (Annexure P/4 and Annexure P/5) in which it has been specifically stated that the qualifications and eligibility are as per University Grants Commission / Department of Higher Education, Bhopal / Norms of Selection under College Code Statute No.28. As per letter dated 24.02.2016 (Annexure P/5), the petitioner / Institution requested to respondent No.3 / University in respect of appointment of Principal under College Code Statute No.28 on a non-grant-post. As per the Governing Body meeting held on 02.12.2015, a resolution was passed in respect of appointment of Principal under College Code Statute No.28 in pursuance of which, an advertisement has been issued in various newspapers. As per the impugned communication dated 17.05.2016 (Annexure P/17), respondent No.3 / University has specifically observed that in the process of appointment for the post of Principal, the petitioner / Institution has failed to comply with College Code Statute No.28 and as per minutes of the meeting dated 12.03.2016 (Annexure P/12), interviews were conducted 12.03.2016 at 11.30 AM and all the five candidates and the said procedure appears to have been completed at 12.30 PM. The whole process of interview and recording of minutes of Board of Governors of the petitioner / Institution was concluded at 12.30 PM within one hour. This shows the manner and method in which the petitioner / Institution proceeded for the appointment on the post of Principal.

21. The second ground of respondents No.1 and 2 / State of Madhya Pradesh is that the advertisement issued by the petitioner / Institution provides that qualifications and eligibility are as per the UGC / Department of Higher Education Bhopal Norms, which clearly postulates that the norms of College Code Statute No.28 are not applicable and accepted by the petitioner / Institution for making appointment in its Institute. Thus, the contention of non- applicability of the College Code Statute No.28 is affected by the principle of estoppel and hence, in accordance with the prescribed procedure, the Selection Committee must consist the subject expert, so the candidature can be properly and transparently evaluated as per the Rules and Regulations, which is admittedly has not been done by the petitioner / Institution.

39. The petitioner has also challenged the vires of College Code 28 asking the Court to "hold and declare para- graph No.16 and 17 of the College Code No.28 to be illegal / inapplicable to the petitioner - minority educational institu-

tion, but no arguments were made by the learned counsel and he gave the aforesaid relief. Admittedly, Dr. S.N. Sahay does not fulfill the requisite qualifications as prescribed un- der the UGC Regulations / Statute No.28. The contention of the learned counsel was that in all fairness, they could have issued "show cause notice to the petitioner / Institution and thereafter authority competent to determine whether he pre- scribe the requisite qualifications or not. The action is in vi- olation of the principle of natural justice.