1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ In this public interest litigation the petitioner, a retired professor, as pro bono publico, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: “(a) directing respondents 3 to 6, all their teacher members and all other teachers to forthwith start teaching the new syllabi for all the prescribed 13 under-graduate science courses according to the semester system as directed by the University and to complete it before the examinations scheduled from December 6, 2010 onwards; (b) directing respondents No. 3 to 6 not to continue any strike / dharna and to declare such forms of protests by teachers as illegal and / or unconstitutional; (c) directing respondent No.1 and / or the relevant college managements to implement order dated 12.8.2010 of Respondent No.2 under Statute 11-G(4) of the University of Delhi Act, 1922 and the policy decision of the University of No Work-No Pay against those teachers who are resorting to strikes, dharnas and / or not teaching the students in semester mode / according to the new syllabi in the concerned science courses; (d) directing respondent no.1 and / or the relevant college managements to take disciplinary action against the erring teachers who have not given full effect to the implementation of semester system at undergraduate level in the 13 science courses in the current academic year 2010-2011; (e) directing the UGC to withdraw all funding of those colleges that do not take immediate steps to make their teachers follow the semester system as directed by the Delhi University; (f) Pass such and further orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. When this matter was listed on 29th October, 2010 after noting certain aspects the following order came to be passed:

“Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present case having a different scenario, this court may command the respondents to teach and not to go on strike so that the students can participate in the semester examinations.

In the course of hearing, a suggestion was given to Mr.Rao, learned senior counsel for the representing respondents No.3 to 6. Mr.Rao, after obtaining instructions from the competent authority of Delhi University Teachers Association (DUTA), submitted that the strike shall be withdrawn today and the teachers shall start teaching with effect from today. However, it is submitted by Mr.Rao that the University would be well advised to take the teachers into confidence before introducing the semester System. The facet shall be debated after the counter affidavits are filed. As undertaken by Mr.Rao, learned senior counsel for the respondents No. 3 to 6, no deviation would be tolerated and teachers must join and start teaching from today. In case of any kind of deviancy, this court shall take a serious view of the matter. Call on date fixed.”

3. Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 6, namely, the Secretary, the Joint Secretary and Treasurer of Delhi University Teachers Association (for short „DUTA), submitted that the University has imposed the semester system on the teachers in flagrant violation of Sections 23, 30 and 31 of Delhi University Act, 1922 (for short „the 1922 Act). It is urged by him that the Vice-Chancellor, in the facts and circumstances of the case, could not have exercised the emergency powers bestowed on him under Statute 11G(4) read with the provisions of the 1922 Act as such exercise of power is impermissible. The learned senior counsel submitted that if there is a change in the mode of teaching and introduction of a different system, there has to be deliberation, debate and discuss