V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

1. As the reliefs prayed for in all these writ petitions being the same with more or less identical facts, the same are being disposed of by this common order/judgment. Suffice to state the primary prayer in these petitions is for quashing of Executive Council Resolution No. 51 dated November 3, 2012. I may point out here that in Writ Petition (C) No. 1174/2013, the prayer also includes for quashing of Executive Council Resolution NO. 289 dated 21st August, 1975 and Resolution No. 138 dated 11th February, 2003.

Writ Petition (C) No. 494/2013

2. The facts as noted from the writ petition are, the Hindu College Society came to be registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on October 24, 1945. It is the case of the petitioner that the Society has framed its own Rules and Regulations. The society was to consist of 15 members, out of which 10 members were to be nominated by the Board of Trustees of the petitioner. The remaining 5 members were to comprise of the Principal of Hindu College, Delhi, 2 members of the teaching staff of the Hindu College and 2 members appointed by the respondent no.1, i.e., University of Delhi. All the members of the Society were the members of the Governing Body of Hindu College, Delhi and the members could hold office for not more than a year at a time, but were eligible for re-appointment without any limitation on the number of terms already served on the Governing Body of the Hindu College. It is the case of the petitioner that the Hindu College was initially affiliated to Punjab University. However with the creation of the University of Delhi, Hindu College came to be affiliated with the said University. It is the case of the petitioner that the Rules and Regulations of the petitioner as well as the Hindu College providing for appointment of members to the Governing Body amongst other things have been approved by the respondent no.1 under Statute 30 (1)(C). It has been appointing the members of the Governing Body of Hindu College in accordance with and subject to the Rules and Regulations for a term of one year as stipulated by Ordinance XVIII. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.1 in the past has always approved the appointment of members of the Governing Body of the Hindu College as made by the petitioner. It is stated that the Executive Council of the respondent no.1, University framed model Rules for composition and mode of appointment of the Governing Body of the various colleges vide Executive Council Resolution no. 66 dated April 27, 1963, Executive Council on April, 23, 1966 and Resolution No. 320 (a) dated November 19, 1966. It is stated that model Rules were never given effect to. It also contemplated that the constitution, composition, term of office of members and Chairmanship of the Governing Body has to be in accordance with Statute 30 read with Ordinance XVIII of the Delhi University Act. Respondent no.1 vide Executive Council Resolution No. 289 dated August 21, 1975 laid down guidelines for appointment of members of Trust nominees on the Governing Body of a college. As per the guidelines amongst other things, the Trust was advised to forward a panel of names to the University consisting of not less than 50% more names than required numbers. It is the stand of the petitioner that the guidelines of the year 1975 were not having any statutory force and were not binding on the respondent no.1, Hindu College, Delhi. Even otherwise, the said guidelines were contrary to Statute 30 (1)(C) which provides that Governing Body shall consist of not more than 20 members and that the Rules relating to composition of the Governing Body should conform to the Statute and Ordinance of the University and the conditions of the Government grant to the College. The Statute nowhere stipulates that the Trust has to forward a panel of names containing not less than 50% more names than the required number. It is averred in the writ petit