Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. This writ petition filed by the Shyam Lal College which is a constituent college of the Delhi University challenges the constitutional validity of Clause 7(2) of the Ordinance XVIII made under the Delhi University Act, 1922(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in exercise of the powers under Section 30 of the said Act read with the amendment approved by Executive Council CE.C') of the Delhi University, respondent No.1 dated 10th February, 2004 and Statute 30 (1) (D) set out in the Schedule under Section 29 (1) of the Act and also seeks to quash the communications dated 10th February, 2004;. 11th February, 2004; 9th July, 2004; 20th July, 2004 and 17th August, 2004 issued by the respondents.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the first instance was heard first on the question of validity of Clause 7(2) of the Ordinance XVIII issued I by the Delhi University and the validity of Statute 30(1)(D). The said Clause 7 reads as follows:

"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 the 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 whom 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 recognize 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 wherein the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor, emergency action is called for or wherein 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;•"

3. The Statute 30 (1) (I)as set out in the Schedule under Section 29 (1) of the Act which is relevant for the purpose of the determination of the issues raised in this writ petition reads as follows:- .

"30(1)(D) The Executive Council may, if it is satisfied, after such inquiry as it may think fit to make, that:

(a) The affairs of such College or Institution are being managed in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the University or of such College or Institution or of the teachers or students thereof; or

(b) teaching is being conducted in such College or Institution in a manner prejudicial to the standards of teaching in the University or any