( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed by the petitioner, who at present is employed with the respondent No. 1 as Reader and has impugned the selection to the Office of Principal -Incharge of evening college mainly on the ground that the Selection Committee, which had interviewed all the candidates and selected the present incumbent of that office, was not properly constituted inasmuch as the Member Secretary, i. e. ; the Principal Mr. Ratnakar Pandcy was not qualified to be there as on the material date had already been nominated a Member of Rajya Sabha of Parliament. University Grants. Commission (UGC) had recommended which was accepted by Delhi University, that a teacher of a college who is elected or nominated to the Parliament should not hold any administrative position in the college during, the period they are members of Parliament.

( 2 ) THE relevant extract of Resolution No. 638 is reproduced below:-

"the University Grants Commission had referred this question earlier to its Advisory Committee of Vice-Chancellors and the commission after considering the advice of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors had expressed the view that "the teachers who are either elected or nominated to the Parliament /state Legislatures may not be required to resign their academic position or to take long leave during the tenure of their membership. In order that the teaching work may not suffer, the University may consider prescribing the minimum number of days that such teachers should be available for their academic, teaching and the research work in the University. Such teachers should not hold any administrative position/responsibilities in the University or College during the period they arc members of Parliament /legislature. "

( 3 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner has referred to the University Calender to point out that the Executive Council is the Chief Executive Body of the University and it had accepted the recommendations of UGC. The petitioner says that this was a solitary restriction placed on all those, who were nominated/elected as Members of Parliament because UGC never wanted the interest of the students to be compromised with the other activities of the teachers. He has referred to Statutes 11 G and 12 of this Calender and Ordinance 18 (7) (ii ). It may be pointed out here that apart from the above objection, the petitioner has not raised any other plea of malafides or even bias of the said Principal Mr. Ratnakar Pandey against the petitioner. The petitioner has pointed out that not only the Principal was not competent to act on 3. 3. 1992, but even the meeting of the Governing Body, which was convened and wherein two members of the Governing Body were nominated on the Selection Committee could not have been so nominated because their nomination was influenced by respondent No. 3, Principal and as such, they were also not competent to act. The meeting of the Governing Body held on 3. 3. 1992 was attended by the following:-

1. Shri J. Veeraraghavan 2. Shri R. M. Vatsa 3. Prof. Yogendra Singh 4. Dr. Abhishek Singhvi 5. Ms. Shovana Narayan 6. Prof. B. K. Sawhney 7. Prof. R. Vasudevan 8. Prof. G. C. Trigunayat 9. Dr. Ratnakar Pandey, Principal and Member Secy. 10. Dr. R. S. Saini, Offg. Vice-Principal and Incharge, Eve. Classes 11. Shri O. P. Sehgal 12. Dr. (Mrs.) P. L. Sharma 13. Dr. J. P. Mishra 14. Shri R. K. Malhotra

( 4 ) IN that meeting, held on 3. 3. 1992, they constituted the following as the Selection Committee for the appointment of a Vice-Principal and Incharge, Evening Classes. The relevant resolution reads as under:-

"resolved that a meeting of the Selection Committee, be convened on 22. 3. 92 at 10 A. M. in the College and the interview letters be sent to the candidates who have applied for the post of Vice-Principal and Incharge Evening Classes. Further the Governing Body elected the following on the Selection Committee. 1. Shri J. Veeraraghavan, Chairman, Governing Body in the chair 2. Ms. Shovana Narayan, Treasure