1. Appointment of Vice-Principal — Refusal of approval by University — Challenge to refusal — Writ petition for Mandamus to accord approval. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2020 Supreme(SC) 68
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Governing Body Swami Shraddhanand College – Appellant
Versus
Amar Nath Jha & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 580 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.20859 of 2019) With Civil Appeal No.581 of 2020 @ SLP(C) No.20786 of 2019
Decided On : 23-01-2020
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Mohinder Jit Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Shekhar Kumar, Advocate
For the Petitioner(s):Mohinder Jit Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Shekhar Kumar, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINTS
Appellants having conflicting interests but putting up common contention is not acceptable.
When the University had been granting post facto approvals, it could not single out the instant case to deny approval on ground that prior approval was not taken.
Headnote:
(a) Administration of justice - Governing body of college appointing respondent - University declining approval - Also forming a new governing body - Thus the University and the governing body having conflicting interests - However, both putting up common contention - Not acceptable. (Para 9)
(b) University service - Prior approval of University required for making appointment of Vice Principal - However in numerous cases in the past University granting post facto approval - Instantly, University denying approval on ground that prior approval was not taken - Not justified. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
The respondent Dr. A.N.Jha was chosen by the Selection Committee for appointment as the Vice-Principal of the Swami Shraddhanand College. The same was approved by the Governing Body and a letter was issued. A communication was addressed to the University of Delhi seeking approval for the appointment made as Vice-Principal. The University of Delhi however declined approval. The respondent Dr. A.N. Jha, thus being aggrieved by the refusal of approval approached the learned Single Judge of the High Court seeking that the letters dated 13.01.2016, 19.01.2016, 27.01.2016 be quashed and direct the University of Delhi to grant approval for his appointment as the Vice-Principal of the College. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition.
LPA thereagainst was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
Denial of approval by University was unjustified.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Mandatory requirement of prior approval for appointment — Suitability of candidate — Impact of vacancy in the post of Principal on Vice-Principal's appointment. (Para 7 , 8 )
3. Post-facto approval is common practice — Rejection based solely on lack of prior approval is not bonafide when candidate is eligible and suitable. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
4. Procedural non-compliance regarding prior approval cannot be used to deny appointment to an eligible candidate when post-facto approval is customary. (Para 10 )
5. Appeals dismissed — Direction to grant approval for appointment as Vice-Principal — Direction to initiate process for appointment of regular Principal. (Para 14 , 15 )
6. Does the lack of prior approval under university ordinances automatically justify the rejection of a Vice-Principal's appointment?
No. If the candidate is eligible and suitable, and the institution has a history of granting post-facto approvals, rejecting the appointment solely on the ground of lack of prior approval is not bonafide. (Para 10 )
7. Can a Vice-Principal be appointed when the post of regular Principal is vacant?
Yes. There is no bar to appointing a person to the post of Vice-Principal even in the absence of a regular Principal. (Para 5 , 6 )
8. Does the appointment of a Vice-Principal entitle them to act as Principal?
A Vice-Principal may act as Principal under specific regulations if the post of regular Principal remains vacant and the appointing authority fails to appoint a regular Principal. (Para 11 , 13 , 14 )
JUDGMENT :
A.S. BOPANNA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant in LPA No.694/2016 and CM Appln. No.46147/2016 – the University of Delhi is the appellant in the appeal arising from SLP(C) No.20786/2019 while the respondent No.2 in the said LPA – Governing Body of Swami Shraddhanand College is the appellant in the appeal arising from SLP(C) No.20859/2019. In both these appeals the appellants are assailing the judgment dated 09.05.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi. By the said judgment the Division Bench has upheld the order dated 10.11.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal
3. The respondent Dr. A.N.Jha was chosen by the Selection Committee for appointment as the Vice-Principal of the Swami Shraddhanand College. The same was approved by the Governing Body and a letter was issued on 29.12.2015. A communication dated 28.12.2015 was addressed to the University of Delhi seeking approval for the appointment made as Vice-Principal. The University of Delhi however declined approval through its letter dated 13.01.2016. The respondent Dr. A.N. Jha, thus being aggrieved by the refusal of approval approached the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.965/2016 seeking that the letters dated 13.01.2016, 19.01.2016, 27.01.2016 be quashed and direct the University of Delhi to grant approval for his appointment as the Vice-Principal of the College. The learned Single Judge on making a detailed consideration through the order dated 10.11.2016 allowed the writ petition.
4. In the said process the learned Single Judge has taken note of the contents in the letter dated 13.01.2016 by which approval was declined by the University mainly referring to the manner in which the College was appointing the Acting Principal and further since the selection of the Vice-Principal was made without seeking prior approval as mandated under Clause 4(4) of Ordinance XVIII of the University. The learned Single Judge therefore took note of the letter dated 13.01.2016 and concluded that the non-approval by the University was not justified inasmuch as the same does not record that he was not fit for the job or was lacking in eligibility criteria for being appointed as the Vice-Principal. The reason indicated about noncompliance of Clause 4(4) of Ordinance XVIII for not approving the appointment was held unjustified, taking into consideration the procedure followed during the earlier appointments when approval was granted post appointment. Hence, a direction was issued to the University to grant approval.
5. The University claiming to be aggrieved by such direction issued by the learned Single Judge filed the LPA before the Division Bench. The College which is one of the appellants herein did not choose to file the appeal before the High Court and assail the order of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench apart from noticing the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge has also taken note of the contents of the letter dated 13.01.2016 by which the University had refused approval for appointment of the Vice-Principal. In that background, reference was also made to Clause 7(3) of Ordinance XVIII and the High Court concluded that the same does not suggest that the post of Vice-Principal cannot be filled up when the post of regular Principal is vacant.
6. The Division Bench keeping in view the contents of Clause 7(3) of Ordinance XVIII has arrived at the conclusion that there is no bar to appoint a person to the post of Vice-Principal in the absence of a regular Principal.
In that light the Division Bench on upholding the decision of the learned Single Judge has also taken into consideration the fact that the regular Principal had superannuated way back on 31.12.2014 and there is no regular Principal appointed till this date and as such directed that the Governing Body of the College be formed within one month and a decision be taken in that regard.
7. Shri Sachin Datta, learned Senior Advocate appear
