( 1 ) THE petitioner has sought direction from this Court that she be appointed as Principal in pursuance to the recommendations of the Selection Committee dated 12. 2. 1993. She has further prayed that the decision of respondent No. 2 by which the candidature of the petitioner was rejected, be quashed.

( 2 ) IT is alleged that the petitioner is a highly qualified teacher with a Doctorate in Botany from the University of Delhi and has been a rank holder in the Delhi University during her studies in BSc. and MSc. in Botany.

( 3 ) THE main grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that despite the fact that she has been selected twice by the Governing Body and thereafter her name having been approved by the University for the post of the Principal, she has not been so appointed on the ground that according to the then Vice Chancellor of the University, she is not eligible for the said post, as she does not possess the Master s Degree in the subject which is taught in the College. According to the petitioner, the decision of the Vice Chancellor, of declaring her ineligible, to be appointed as Principal is totally erroneous, untenable, illegal and without jurisdiction.

( 4 ) THE petitioner submitted that it is not within the domain of the jurisdiction of the Vice Chancellor to scrutinise eligibility of the candidates. The eligibility of the candidate as per the ordinance is to be decided or is to be governed by a decision of the Governing Body and the University. It is only after eligibility is approved that the matter is sent to the Selection Committee for Final appointment/selection. The Governing Body as well as the university scrutinise the eligibility of the candidates who have specialised knowledge of the concerned subjects. The matter of eligibility cannot be determined and decided by the Vice Chancellor.

( 5 ) IT is submitted by the petitioner that according to the University statutes and ordinances, the Vice-Chancellor has a very limited role. He can exercise his powers only in the following situations: I. When there is an emergent need for appointment and there is not enough time to go through the entire selection process. II. Where in the opinion of the Vice- Chancellor it would be unnecessary to constitute the Selection Committee for the said purpose. Even in such a case the ultimate authority for appointment vests with the Governing Body which is the employer. The only other case where the Vice Chancellor can exercise powers is under Clause 7 of the Ordinance. Clause 7 of Ordinance XVIII is set out as under: CLAUSE 7 " (1) The appointment of. the Principal and other members of the teaching staff shall be made after advertisement. The Principal should, in addition to his duties, as Principal, be also required to undertake some teaching work in the College, or the University. (2) The appointment of the Principal shall be made by the Governing Body of the College on the recommendation of a Selection Committee consisting of the Chairman of the Governing Body, two representatives of the University on the Governing Body, one expert nominated by the Academic Council for the purpose and two members of the Governing Body nominated by it, provided that prior to final selection and appointment (a) the Governing Body shall submit to the University a list of persons who have applied for the post of Principal, as also names of persons, who may not have applied but whose names the Governing Body may desire to consider for the post, in a form as prescribed by the University and shall indicate the persons from which, in their opinion, the Final selection may be made; (b) the list thus submitted by the Governing Body shall be considered by a Selection Committee constituted for the purpose and consisting of the following: i) Vice-Chancellor; ii) Pro-Vice Chancellor; iii) A nominee of the Visitor; iv) Chairman of the Governing Body of the College concerned; and v) Two members of the Executive Council nomina