Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. AHMADI AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.
University of Delhi, Appellant
Versus
Raj Singh and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1819 of 1994
Decided on 8-9-1994.
Advocates appeared
M.P.P. Rao, Mr. V. P. Chowdhary and Mr. Jitendra Sharma, Sr. Advocates, Mr. P. Gaur, Ms. G. Dara and Mr. R. Sasiprabhu, Advocates with them, for Appellant; Ms. Kumud L. Das, Mr. S.B. Upadhyay and Mr. R. D. Upadhyay, Advocates, for the Intervenor - Applicants Nos. 2-8 and 10 in I.A. No. 15; Mr. B. K. Pal, Advocate, for Intervenor - in I. A. No. 14; Mr. M. P. Jha, M. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Advocates, for Intervenor - in I. A. Nos. 12 and 13; Mr. Milan K. Banerjee, Attorney-General and Mr. Gaurab Banerjee, Mr. Rathin Das, Advocates with him, for U.G.C.; Mr. A. Sharan, Advocate, for Intervenor - C.S.I. R.; Mr. A. K. Ganguli, Sr. Advocate and Mr. A. D. N. Rao, Advocate with him, for D.U.R.A.; Mr. A. K. Ganguli, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Navin Prakash, Advocate with him, for Respondent No. 1.
C.W.P. No. 3570 of 1992, Dated 15-10-1993 (Del.)
Delhi University Act, 1922 - Section 2(g) - U.G.C.Act - Section,14 - Ministry of Human Resources Development - Advertisement - Appeal Delhi High Court that University Grants Commission required of a person to be appointed to teaching staff of a University and institutions affiliated Regulations University Grants Commission second respondent in this appeal were valid and mandatory and Delhi University appellant was obliged under law to comply - Delhi University was directed to select lecturers for appointment in itself and in its affiliated colleges strictly in accordance with said Regulations- This appeal by special leave is filed by Delhi University Regulations and that candidates who had not passed that test would not be called for interview- writ petition was contested Delhi University- It was case Delhi University that said Regulations were beyond competence of University Grants Commission and that in any event y were and not mandatory- Delhi University it was submitted was an autonomous body and no condition of eligibility could be imposed upon it- case of Delhi University was not accepted by High Court –Held, Court think not necessary to consider whether or not letter addressed by Department of Education Ministry of Human Resources Development Government of India to U-G-C- can be said to be a directive Act concerning a question of policy relating to national purposes- It is enough say that do not bear out submission that Regulations were made at behest of Government of India Court issued in allowing writ petition- It that notification dated 19th which said Regulations were published was valid and mandatory and Delhi University was obliged under law to comply - Delhi University was directed to select lecturers for itself and affiliated and subordinate colleges strictly in accordance with notification- Put shortly Delhi University is mandated to comply with said Regulations- As above therefore Delhi University may appoint as lecturer in itself and its affiliated colleges one who has cleared test prescribed by said Regulations or it may seek prior approval for relaxation of this requirement in a specific case or may appoint lecturer one who does not meet this requirement without having first obtained UGCs approval in which event it would if it failed to show cause for its failure to abide by said Regulations satisfaction forfeit its grant from If however it did show cause to satisfaction of not only would not forfeit its grant but appointment made without obtaining prior approval would stand regularized – Appeal dismissed
The points regarding the advisory nature of UGC guidelines unless adopted by States are discussed in the paragraph that explains the legal status and enforceability of the guidelines. Specifically, this information is covered in the paragraph that states:
"The legal document indicates that the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC) are primarily recommendatory or advisory in nature. The UGC's regulations and guidelines concerning qualifications and standards are designed to guide universities and affiliated institutions, but they do not automatically have the force of law unless they are adopted or implemented by the respective State authorities or Universities themselves." (!)
This paragraph elaborates on the advisory status of the guidelines and the conditions under which they become binding.
JUDGMENT
BHARUCHA, J. :- Upon a writ petition filed by Raj Singh (the first respondent in this appeal) the Delhi High Court held that the University Grants Commission (Qualific- ations required of a person to be appointed to the teaching staff of a University and institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 1991, notified on 19th September, 1991, by the University Grants Commission (the second respondent in this appeal) were valid and mandatory and the Delhi University (the appellant) was obliged under law to comply therewith. The Delhi University was directed to select lecturers for appointment in itself and in its affiliated colleges strictly in accordance with the said Regulations. This appeal by special leave is filed by the Delhi University.
2. The writ petition was filed because Raj Singh had applied for the post of lecturer in Commerce in three colleges affiliated to the Delhi University but had not been called for an interview. He averred that the advertisement for applications in this behalf did not lay down that candidates should have passed the test prescribed by the said Regulations and that candidates who had not passed that test would not be called for interview. The writ petition was contested by the Delhi University. It was the case of the Delhi University that the said Regulations were beyond the competence of the University Grants Commission (U.G.C) and that, in any event, they were directory and not mandatory. The Delhi University, it was submitted, was an autonomous body and no condition of eligibility could be imposed upon it. The case of the Delhi University was not accepted by the High Court.
3. The Delhi University was established under the Delhi University Act, 1922 . Section 2(g) thereof defines teachers to include "Professors, Readers, Lectures and other persons imparting instruction in the University or in any college or Hall". Section 2(h) defines teachers of the University to mean "persons appointed or recognised by the University for the purpose of imparting instruction in the University or in any college". "College" is defined in clause (a) thus:
"College", means an institution maintained or admitted to its privileges by the University, and includes an Affiliated College and a Constituent College".
By reason of S. 20 the Court is " the supreme authority of the University". Section 21 states that the Executive Council would be the executive body of the University. Section 23 states that the Academic Council would be the academic body of the University and would, subject to the provisions of the Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances, "have the control and general regulation, and be responsible for the maintenance of standards of instruction, education and examination within the University, and shall exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be conferred or imposed upon it by the Statutes. It shall have the right to advise the Executive Council on all academic matters......"Section 29 deals with the Statutes of the University, No Statute dealing with, inter alia, "the conditions on the fulfilment of which the teachers of colleges and institutions may be recognised as teachers of the University" may be made, amended or repealed by the Executive Council except with the prior concurrence of the Academic Council. Statute 6, so far as is relevant, reads thus:
(1) The Executive Council shall, subject to the control of the Court, have the management and administration of the revenue and property of the University and the conduct of all administrative affairs of the University not otherwise provided for.
(2) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances, the Executive Council shall in addition to all other powers vested in it, have the following powers, namely:
(i) to appoit, from time to time, the Registrar, Librarian, Principals of Colleges and Institutions established by the University and such Professors, Readers, Lecturers and other members of the teaching staff as
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
