( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged the action of the University of Delhi in not appointing her as Principal of the Bharti Mahila College. In response to an advertisement for appointment to the said post the petitioner had applied on 29th October 1992. She had been selected for the said post by the Governing Body of the College. However, her name was not approved by the University and, therefore, she was not appointed. According to the stand of the University the petitioner is not eligible for the said appointment as she does not possess Masters Degree in a relevant subject.

( 2 ) I have had the benefit of perusing the judgments given by two of my learned colleagues. In view of the difference in the opinion expressed by the two learned Judges the matter has been referred to me. The relevant Ordinances of the University are quoted hereinafter:- ORDINANCE XVI. Qualification of University Teachers:- PRINCIPAL

(I) Good academic record with at least second class (C in the seven point scale Master s degree in a relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign University with Doctor s Degree or equivalent published work and teaching experience of degree classes of not less than 10 years or (ii) Good academic record with at least second class (C in the seven point scale) Master s Degree in a relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign University with teaching experience of degree classes of not less than 15 years. Ordinance XVIII Clause 7 (1) The appointment of the Principal and other members of the teaching staff shall be made after advertisement. (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 nominated by it, and (c) on the recommendation of the Selection Committee the University shall transmit to Governing Body a list of persons mentioned in the order of preference whom the University would be prepared to recognise as Principal or, if none of the applicants are considered suitable, shall refrain from sending a list, in which case the post shall be re-advertised; Provided that where in the opinion of the vice-Chancellor, emergency action for or where in his opinion, it would be unnecessary to adopt the procedure prescribed in (b) and (c) above, the vice-Chancellor may indicate merely which of the candidates included in the list submitted by the Governing Body under sub-Clause 2 (a) of Clause 7 of Ordinance XVIII, will not be acceptable to the University, briefly indicating ground for the decision. In such a case, the Governing Body will be free to appoint any person from any of the candidates against whom no such disapproval has been indicated. The controversy in the present writ petition revolves around the meaning and weightage to be given to the words `in a relevant subject in Ordinance XXVI. The words `in a relevant subject were introduced by way of an amendment in March 1985. Prior