THE CHAIRPERSON GOVERNING BODY DAULAT RAM COLLEGEversusDR. ASHA & ORS.

                         [2021] 1 S.C.R. 17                            17


           THE CHAIRPERSON GOVERNING BODY                              A
                 DAULAT RAM COLLEGE
                                 v.
                        DR. ASHA & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2021)                       B
                       JANUARY 05, 2021
         [ASHOK BHUSHAN AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
      Universities: University of Delhi – Power of Governing body/
Principal to appoint Warden of a College Hostel – Held: It is the
                                                                       C
Governing Body of the College which has the authority to appoint
Warden of the College Hostel – The Principal, however, who is
entrusted with the overall internal administration of the College is
a person who knows all the staff of the College and his/her
recommendation with regard to appointment of Warden of the College
Hostel is to carry weight – Thus, the Governing Body while making      D
appointment of Warden of the College Hostel has to give due weight
to the recommendation of Principal – The appointment of Warden
of the Hostel being in the domain of the Governing Body, in the
instant case, the High Court should have left it to the Governing
Body to take appropriate steps along with the Principal of the
                                                                       E
College for making appointment of the Warden of the College Hostel
– Governing body should initiate process for fresh appointment of
Warden of the Hostel of the College by inviting applications through
Principal of the College before the Hostel is open for housing the
students.
                                                                       F
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
      HELD : 1. The Governing Body of the College is to
administer the affair of the College. The Governing Body, thus,
has general supervision of the College. Even in the Colleges
and Institutions which are maintained by the University, it is
provided in Ordinance XX that the Governing Body which is              G
constituted by the Executive Council is empowered to appoint
the administrative staff of the College. Similarly, the Governing
Body of the affiliated Colleges is empowered to appoint

                                                                       H
                                17
18             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A    administrative staff of the College. The Ordinance does not
     empower the Principal to make any appointment of the Warden
     of the Hostel nor any other statutory provision has been referred
     which empowers the Principal to appoint Warden of the College.
     The Principal, however, who is entrusted the over all internal
     administration of the College is a person who knows all the staff
B
     of the College and his/her recommendation with regard to
     appointment of Warden of the College Hostel is to carry weight.
     The Governing Body while making appointment of Warden of
     the College Hostel has to give due weight to the recommendation
     of Principal. The appointment of Warden of the Hostel is made
C    from amongst the permanent staff of the College, the practice
     which is followed in the College and with which there is no dispute
     between the parties is that the applications are invited through
     notice by Principal for appointment of Warden and after
     recommendation is made by the Principal, a decision is taken by
     the Governing Body is to appoint Warden. [Paras 33, 34, 35]
D
     [32-F-G; 33-A-E]
           2. The dispute which ensued regarding the appointment of
     Warden of the College Hostel arose due to the fact that position
     regarding procedure and right to make appointment on the post
     of Warden was not clear and the claim was raised by the Principal
E    on the strength of letter of the University Grants Commission
     dated 19.02.1987. It is the Governing Body of the College which
     has the authority to appoint Warden of the College Hostel.
     However, the Principal being Executive head of the entire College
     and being in position to know the members of the staff as per
F    prevailing practice the applications are to be invited through the
     Principal of the College and after receipt of the applications the
     applications along with recommendation of the Principal may be
     placed before the Governing Body which is to take decision
     regarding appointment of the Warden of the Hostel of the College.
     [Para 39][34-E-G]
G
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 13 of
     2021.
           From the Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2019 OF the High
     Court of Delhi at New Delhi in L.P.A. No. 316 of 2018.
H
   THE CHAIRPERSON GOVERNING BODY DAULAT RAM                                 19
             COLLEGE v. DR. ASHA & ORS.

      Diya Kapur, Kshitij Dua, Satya Mitra, Rajesh Banati, Shailendra        A
Bhardwaj, Ms. Aroma S. Bhardwaj, Mohinder Jit Singh, Hardik Rupal,
Ms. Pratima Nain Lakra, Mrs. Pragya Baghel for the appearing parties.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
                                                                             B
       2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant questioning the
judgment dated 06.03.2019 of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court
issuing certain directions in LPA No.316 of 2018 filed by respondent
No.1-Dr. Asha, although not interfering with the judgment of the learned
Single Judge dated 09.03.2018 disposing of the writ petition filed by Dr.
Asha-respondent No.1. The appellant aggrieved by the directions issued       C
by the Division Bench has filed this appeal.
      3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are:
       Daulat Ram College is affiliated to the University of Delhi since
1960. The Hostel of the Daulat Ram College is an integral part of the        D
College. The Daulat Ram College Society is a registered Society which
was established on 03.03.1960 which in turn has established Daulat Ram
College (hereinafter referred to as the ‘College’). The Daulat Ram
College Society has a Memorandum of Association as well Rules. The
College has a Governing Body which is approved by the Executive Council
of the University (Delhi University). We in the present case are only        E
concerned with the Hostel of the Daulat Ram College and that too
appointment of Warden of the Hostel of the College. The Governing
Body of the College has been appointing the Warden of the Hostel of the
College.
       4. On 10.09.2013, respondent No.4-Dr.Kavita Sharma was                F
unanimously appointed as Warden of the College by the Governing Body
with effect from 12.09.2013 for a period of two years. The two years’
term of respondent No.4 as Warden was going to end on 11.09.2015, the
Governing Body of the College vide its Resolution dated 11.09.2015 re-
appointed respondent No.4 as Warden of the College for two years. The
                                                                             G
Governing Body of the College directed the Principal to seek her
willingness/ unwillingness in writing and in case she is willing, to issue
her a letter of appointment with effect from 12.09.2015. The Principal
issued a letter dated 15.09.2015 informing respondent No.4 that her term
of appointment as Warden of the Hostel of the College has been extended
                                                                             H
20            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A    upto 12.05.2016. The Chairperson of the Governing Body wrote to
     respondent No.3, Principal of the College questioning the letter dated
     15.09.2015 appointing respondent No.4 for a period of eight months only.
     The Chairperson of Governing Body informed that re-appointment was
     for a period of two years and explanation was called from respondent
     No.3 as to why she has not complied with the order of the Governing
B
     Body. The Chairperson issued a letter dated 02.05.2016 to respondent
     No.3 sending agenda for the meeting scheduled to be held on 07.05.2016.
            5. The Principal on 02.05.2016 issued notice inviting applications
     from permanent teachers who are interested to work as Warden of College
     Hostel. Dr. Asha submitted her application. The Principal, respondent
C    No.3 issued a letter dated 06.05.2016 appointing respondent No.1-Dr.
     Asha as Warden of the College Hostel and she was directed to assume
     charge on 21.05.2016. In the meeting of the Governing Body it was
     noted that vide Resolution dated 11.09.2015 respondent No.4 was
     appointed for a period of two years which term was to expire on
D    11.09.2017. It was resolved that necessary letters containing the term of
     appointment be sent accordingly. On 21.05.2016 a show cause notice
     was issued to respondent No.1 asking her to explain how she illegally
     and willfully attempted to occupy the post of the Hostel Warden when
     she was aware that respondent No.4 was the Hostel Warden appointed
     by the Governing Body vide its Resolution dated 11.09.2015 for a term of
E    two years. Respondent No.1 wrote a letter on 24.05.2016 to the
     Chairperson, Governing Body asking that show cause notice issued to
     her being unwarranted and not based on facts be withdrawn. The Principal
     wrote on June 9/14, 2016 to the Manager, Indian Overseas Bank informing
     that respondent No.1 has been appointed as a Hostel Warden with effect
F    from 21.05.2016 for two years and she will operate the College Hostel
     Accounts with effect from 21.05.2016. On 13.06.2016, the University of
     Delhi wrote a letter to respondent No.3 that appointment of Warden in a
     College Hostel is purely an administrative affair of the College and the
     University has no role to play in this behalf. The Principal was advised to
     act as per clause 6-A(5)(b)(iii) of Ordinance XVIII of the University.
G
           6. In the Minutes of the meeting of the Governing Body dated
     24.06.2016 it was recorded that the Principal has illegally appointed Dr.
     Asha as Warden of the Hostel of the College. The Governing Body
     resolved that earlier status quo be maintained and respondent No.4, Dr.
     Kavita Sharma would continue as the Warden till such time that proper
H
   THE CHAIRPERSON GOVERNING BODY DAULAT RAM                                     21
    COLLEGE v. DR. ASHA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

guidelines for appointment of Warden are made by the Governing Body              A
Hostel Committee. Respondent No.3 recorded her dissent in the meeting
dated 24.06.2016. The Principal issued a notice dated 30.07.2016 inviting
applications from interested permanent teachers of the College for the
post of Warden in the College Hostel. Respondent No.1 filed a Writ
Petition No.7289 of 2016 praying for issuing a writ, order or direction in
                                                                                 B
the nature of mandamus and/or certiorari directing respondent Nos.2
and 3, i.e., the Principal and Chairperson of the Governing Body to
withdraw the notice dated 30.07.2016, declaration was sought that notice
dated 30.07.2016 is illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioner’s case in
the writ petition was that she was appointed as Warden of the Hostel of
the College by Principal vide letter dated 06.05.2016 for a period of two        C
years and took charge on 21.05.2016. The allegations were made against
the Chairperson, Governing Body that she has created obstruction in the
functioning of the writ petitioner.
       7. Learned single Judge vide order dated 19.08.2016 passed an
order of the status quo regarding the petitioner’s position as Warden of         D
the Daulat Ram College Hostel. Counter-affidavit was filed by the
Governing Body. Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties passed
a detailed order dated 25.11.2016 vacating the interim order dated
19.08.2016. Against order dated 25.11.2016 Letters Patent Appeal was
filed by respondent No.3, Principal, Daulat Ram College where order
dated 22.12.2016 was passed by the Division Bench directing the matter           E
to be listed on 10.01.2017 till such time, status quo as of that day be
maintained. The Division Bench also passed several orders subsequently
and made it clear that pendency of the appeal shall not come in the way
of the learned Single Judge in deciding the writ petition. Learned Single
Judge by judgment dated 09.03.2018 disposed of writ petition.                    F
        8. Learned Single Judge found that the appointment of the Warden
in the College Hostel is the administrative affair of the College. The
learned Single Judge held that appointment of the writ petitioner as Warden
in the College Hostel by the Principal is irregular. In paragraph 14 following
was held:                                                                        G
       “14. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this petition and
       application are disposed of with direction to the Governing Body
       of respondent-College, for the post of Warden in question and it
       be placed before the Staff Council of respondent-College, who
       shall make recommendation for the post of Warden in the College           H
22             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A          Hostel within a period of four weeks and the said recommendation
           be considered by the Governing Body of respondent-College within
           two weeks thereafter, so that the post in question is expeditiously
           filled up.”
            9. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated
B    09.03.2018, LPA No.316/2018 was filed by Dr. Asha-respondent No.1.
     The Chairperson, Governing Body wrote to the Principal and other
     members to initiate process for the appointment of the Warden. On
     Principal not initiating the process of the appointment, the Governing
     Body convened a meeting on 07.04.2018. The applications were also
     invited for the post of Hostel Warden. Respondent No.4 applied in
C    pursuance of the application. On 07.04.2018 Governing Body in its meeting
     resolved to appoint respondent No.4 as Warden of the College Hostel.
     Thereafter an interim order dated 01.05.2018 was passed by the Division
     Bench. On 22.05.2018 Letters Patent Appeal was filed by respondent
     No.1 against the judgment dated 09.03.2018 of the Learned Single Judge.
D           10. The Division Bench decided the LPA vide judgment dated
     06.03.2019. The Division Bench although did not interfere with the
     direction of the learned Single Judge but in addition issued various
     directions. The Division Bench vide its direction in paragraph 41 directed
     for issue of notice by the Principal of the College inviting applications for
E    appointment of Warden of the Hostel, which applications were required
     to be placed before the Staff Council which was to take a decision
     thereon and make its recommendations not later than 01.04.2019 and
     recommendations were to be placed before the Governing Body.
     Paragraph 41 of the Division Bench judgment is to the following effect:

F          “41. The Court, while not interfering with the directions issued by
           the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, issues the following
           directions:
           (i) Within a period ten days from today, and in any event not later
           than 18th March 2019, a notice will be issued by the Principal of
G          the College inviting applications for appointment as Warden of
           the Hostel from amongst the teaching Staff, not limited to the
           Teachers living on campus, but subject to the undertaking given
           by the applicant (if living outside the campus) that if appointed as
           Warden she will stay on campus in the two-room set in the Hostel
           building.
H
  THE CHAIRPERSON GOVERNING BODY DAULAT RAM                                    23
   COLLEGE v. DR. ASHA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      (ii) The applications received will be placed before the Staff Council   A
      which will take a decision thereon and make its recommendations
      not later than 1st April 2019.
      (iii) The recommendations of the Staff Council shall then be placed
      before the GB by the Principal forthwith, and in any event not
      later than 3rd April 2019.                                               B
      (iv) The GB will meet and take a decision on such recommendation
      of the Staff Council not later than 10th April 2019.
      (v) If for some reason the GB does not accept the
      recommendations of the Staff Council, it will give its reasons,
      which will form part of the minutes of its meeting and send the          C
      minutes to the Staff Council not later than 15th April 2019. In
      such event, the Staff Council will again convene and make a fresh
      recommendation from among the remaining applicants and this
      will be placed before the GB not later than 17th April 2019. The
      GB will be bound such recommendation and will take a decision            D
      on the appointment of the Warden not later than 20th April 2019.
      Dr. Kavita Sharma, if not appointed as Warden in the above process,
      shall immediately hand over charge to the newly appointed
      Warden. Likewise, the Matron would abide by the directions issued
      in para 39 above.
                                                                               E
      (vi) The minutes of the meetings of the Staff Council and the GB
      in compliance with the above directions will be placed before the
      Court on the next date.”
       11. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench dated
06.03.2019, the Chairperson, Governing Body, Daulat Ram College has            F
filed this appeal. While issuing notice in this appeal on 05.04.2019
following order was passed by this Court:
         “Issue notice.
         Till the next date the warden, who is as on date looking to the
      affairs of the hostel, shall continue.”                                  G
      12. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel appearing for the respondents.
      13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appointing
authority of Warden of the College Hostel is the Governing Body of the
College. The appointment of respondent No.1 was directly made by the           H
24            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A    Principal-respondent No.3 on 06.05.2016 without approval of the
     Governing Body which was an illegal appointment. Learned counsel
     submits that both learned Single Judge and Division Bench having found
     the appointment of respondent No.1 illegal, the appointment made by
     the Governing Body in pursuance of judgment of the learned Single Judge
     ought to have been maintained. There was no occasion for directing
B
     fresh appointment as has been directed by the learned Division Bench
     of the High Court. It is submitted that Delhi University vide its letter
     dated 23.10.2013 and letter dated 02.08.2016 had clarified that the
     appointment of Warden and Matron in College Hostel is purely an
     administrative affair of the College and the University of Delhi has no
C    role to play in this regard. It is submitted that Ordinance XVIII,
     6A(5)(b)(iii) does not confer any authority to Staff Council to appoint a
     Warden of the Hostel of the College. It is further submitted that the
     letter of the University Grants Commission dated 19.02.1987 does not
     confer any authority on the Principal to make appointment of Warden of
     the Hostel of the College. It is submitted that the learned Division Bench
D
     has issued various directions which encroach on the right of the Governing
     Body to exercise its jurisdiction of the appointing authority of the Warden
     of the Hostel of the College.
            14. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that
     Daulat Ram College is affiliated to the University of Delhi and 95%
E    grants is funded from University Grants Commission and only 5% of the
     funds is to be paid by the Society-Trust. The letter dated 19.02.1987
     was written by the University Grants Commission in response to the
     letter of the Vice-Chancellor, University of Delhi and said letter was
     ratified by the Executive Council of the University in its meeting dated
F    25.04.1987 that it is the Principal, who is the appointing authority of the
     Warden of the Hostel of the College. The Principal, being the
     administrative head of the College, is entitled to make appointment. It is
     also submitted that Staff Council also has no role in the appointment of
     Warden which is in the domain of the Principal of the College.
G          15. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has adopted
     the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.3. It is
     submitted that after judgment of the Division Bench, Staff Council in its
     meeting dated 01.04.2019 has recommended respondent No.1 for
     appointment as the Warden of the Hostel of the College, there is no
     power in the Chairperson of the Governing Body to appoint any one of
H    her choice as Warden of the Hostel of the College.
   THE CHAIRPERSON GOVERNING BODY DAULAT RAM                                  25
    COLLEGE v. DR. ASHA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

        16. On behalf of respondent No.2, it has been submitted that the      A
appointment of an existing teaching staff in an honorary capacity as
Warden of a College Hostel is not specifically provided for under any of
the provisions of University of Delhi Act, 1922, Statutes, and Ordinance.
It is submitted that all Colleges which are affiliated to or constituent of
University of Delhi follow the practice of inviting applications from
                                                                              B
interested teachers of their respective Colleges by putting up a notice by
the Principal of the College and thereafter Principal recommends/shortlist
the name for appointment whereafter the Governing Body grants approval
and the procedure for appointment takes thereafter.
       17. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the records.                                 C

      18. Only two questions arise for consideration in this appeal:
        (1)      Whether it is the Principal of the College who is
                 empowered to appoint Warden of the Hostel of the
                 College or it is the Governing Body in whom the power        D
                 to appoint Warden is vested ?, and
        (2)      what is the procedure to be adopted before making
                 appointment of Warden of the College Hostel ?
      19. Both the questions being inter-related are being taken together.
                                                                              E
       20. The claim of the Principal as well as respondent No.1 that it is
the Principal who is the appointing authority of Warden of the College
Hostel is based on letter of the University Grants Commission dated
19.02.1987. The letter dated 19.02.1987 was written by the Secretary
of University Grants Commission to the Vice-Chancellor of the Delhi
University regarding revising the existing staffing pattern in the Hostels    F
of the Colleges affiliated to Delhi University. The above letter has been
brought on record as Annexure-P2. It is useful to extract the entire
letter which is to the following effect:
                 “UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
            BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI                                  G

      D.O.NO.F.1-4/B84/884(NP-II) Vol.II
                                                    February 19, 1987
      Dear Professor Moonis Raza
            Kindly refer to your office DO letter No. DC/632/87 dated
       rd
      3 February, 1987 regarding revising the existing staffing pattern       H
26      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A    in the hostels of colleges affiliated to Delhi University in
     accordance with the recommendation of the Committee appointed
     by the University.
            The proposal has been considered in the light of the
     information earlier furnished by the University vide letter
B    No.DSW/85/9391 dated 17th October, 1985 which was required
     to streamline the rules about fees charged and facilities provided
     in the hostels of the central universities. We find that there is a
     need to revise the staffing pattern in the hostel mess staff which
     was fixed as far back as in 1971.

C           Though the Warden has been desired to be provided for
     the women’s hostels, it is felt that each hostel should have a warden
     who should be responsible for all hostel administration in the college
     and he/she should be appointed by the Principal from amongst
     senior teachers in the college. As an incentive for this extra work
     an allowance of Rs.300/- pm be paid. In order to have the accounts
D    of the hostel up to date and in perfect order a need for providing
     a clerk is also felt as a necessity. Since some of the hostels are
     also having the services of Chowkidar/Mali Safai Karamchari to
     be left categories provided the total staff in Group D for hostel
     mess staff does not exceed the prescribed limit of additional four.
E            In view of the above the commission agrees to provide the
     following additional staff for the smooth functioning of the hostel
     activities:
     1. Warden (One) To be paid Rs.30/- per month
     2.
F    3. Clerk (One) In the scale of pay of Rs.950-1500.
     3.Ground D          In the scale of pay of employees Rs.(four) in
                         the category 750-940. of Chowkidar/Mali/Safai
                         Karamchari
     The provision of the above staff will be effective from 1st January,
     1987 and the pattern of funding will be the same as for the payment
G
     of maintenance grant to Delhi Colleges i.e. 100% 95% as the
     case may be. You are requested to bring this decision to the notice
     of the concerned colleges having hostel facilities with a request
     that they should send 2 separate statements of accounts in respect
     of staff working in the hostels on the existing pattern and on the
H
   THE CHAIRPERSON GOVERNING BODY DAULAT RAM                                    27
    COLLEGE v. DR. ASHA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      basis of the revised pattern with the accounts of the college for         A
      the year 1986-87.
      With regards,
                                                     Yours sincerely,

                                                  (S.P. Gupta)                  B
      Prof. Moonis Raza,
      Vice-Chancellor,
      University of Delhi.”
      21. The emphasis has been laid by the counsel for respondent
No.2-University of Delhi on the following sentence occurring in the letter:     C
      “…it is felt that each hostel should have a warden who should be
      responsible for all hostel administration in the college and he/she
      should be appointed by the Principal from amongst senior teachers
      in the college.”
       22. The letter of the Secretary dated 19.02.1987 communicates            D
the decision of the Commission. The last portion of the letter incorporates
decision of the Commission beginning with the word:
      “In view of the above the commission agrees to provide the
      following additional staff for the smooth functioning of the hostel
      activities:                                                               E
      1. Warden (One) To be paid Rs.30/- per month…”
        23. A careful reading of the aforesaid letter indicates that the
decision of the Commission which was communicated by the Secretary
was the decision of the University Grants Commission to provide additional
staff for smooth functioning of the Hostel of the College. The Commission       F
neither took decision regarding appointment of the Warden nor such
decision was communicated by the said letter.
        24. It is further submitted that the above decision of the University
Grants Commission dated 19.02.1987 has been ratified by the Executive
Council of the Delhi University vide its minutes dated 25.04.1987. In the       G
counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3 the minutes of the Executive
Council dated 25.04.1987 are filed in which proceeding, Item No.15, the
letter of the University Grants Commission dated 19.02.1987 has been
referred to and the decision taken by the Executive Commission was
                                                                                H
28            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A    recorded. The relevant minutes of the proceeding of Item No.15 is as
     follows:
              “15. Resolved that receipt of the following letters from the
           University Grants Commission and the Government of India and
           the action taken thereon wherever necessary be recorded:-
B                             Letters from the U.G.C.
                      Letter No.& Date                          Subject
             1.               …                                 …
             2.               …                                 …
C
             3.                …                                  …
             4.       F.I-4/84(NP-II)           Conveying the Commissions
                      Vol.II, dated             approval to(i) raising the
                      19.2.1987                 funding pattern of Salaries
                                                of Hostel, employees from
D                                               75% to 95% (100% in case of
                                                University maintained institu-
                                                tions) subject to the condition
                                                that the remaining 5% of the
                                                expenditure may be made by
E                                               the Management as in the case
                                                of College administration with
                                                no      financial      burden,
                                                whatsoever, on the students
                                                residing in the Hostels. (ii)
                                                Sanction for a few additional
F                                               posts for smooth functioning
                                                of Hostel activities.”
             25. A perusal of the above minutes of the Executive Council of
     the Delhi University indicates that what Executive Council noticed in
     the minutes is that the Commission has approved the raising of the funding
G    pattern of salaries of the employees of the Hostel from 75% to 95% and
     the remaining 5% of the expenditure was to be made by the Management
     as in the case of College administration with no financial burden on the
     students residing in the Hostels. Only to the extent of the above part of
     the decision of the Commission the Executive Council reiterated and
     there was no decision by the University that appointment of Warden of
H    the Hostel is to be made by the Principal of the College.
   THE CHAIRPERSON GOVERNING BODY DAULAT RAM                                    29
    COLLEGE v. DR. ASHA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

        26. The University has filed counter-affidavit in the writ petition     A
before the High Court where it has categorically taken the stand that the
University Act, Statutes and Ordinance do not provide for appointment
of the Warden of the Hostel College and it is a private matter concerning
the respective college. In the LPA affidavit was called for and the affidavit
dated 11.01.2019 by Prof. T.K. Das, Registrar, University of Delhi was
                                                                                B
filed. In paragraph 5 of the said affidavit following has been stated:
      “5. The appointment of an existing teaching staff in an honorary
      capacity as Warden of a college is not specifically provided for
      under any of the provisions of University of Delhi Act, 1922
      statutes, and Ordinance; being a private matter concerning the
      respective college and University of Delhi has no role to play.           C
      However, all the collages, which have their own hostel and, are
      affiliated or constituted of University of Delhi follow the practice
      of inviting applications from interested teachers of their respective
      college by putting up notice by the Principal of said College, willing
      to take on this honorary charge. Then the Principal of the                D
      respective college considers such application received and
      recommends/shortlist the name for such appointment. Thereafter,
      the name of shortlisted teacher and appointed to the honorary
      post of warden is placed before the Governing Body for approval.”
       27. Two earlier letters dated 21.10.2013 and 13.06.2016 which            E
have been brought on record as Annexure-P7 and Annexure-P23 have
also communicated that appointment of Warden in the College Hostel is
purely an administrative affair of the College and the University has no
role to play in this behalf.
      28. In view of the aforesaid, letter dated 19.02.1987 issued by the       F
University Grants Commission cannot be read to mean that it is Principal
who is the appointing authority of the Warden of the Hostel of the College.
       29. Learned single Judge in its judgment dated 19.08.2016 has
rightly held that University Grants Commission’s letter dated 19.02.1987
is of no avail.                                                                 G
      26. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for the
respondent on Ordinance XVIII which deals with “Of Colleges and Halls”.
Ordinance XVIII, 6-A deals with Staff Council. 6-A relevant for the
present case is quoted hereunder:
                                                                                H
30      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                               [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A    “6-A. (1) There shall be a Staff Council in every College.
     (2) All the members of the teaching staff, the Librarian and the
     Director of Physical Education shall constitute the Staff Council.
     (3) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Statutes and the
     Ordinances of the University, the Principal shall act as Principal-
B    in-Council in respect of matters on which Staff Council is required
     to take decisions.
                             ORDINANCE XVIII
     (4) (a) The Principal shall be ex-officio Chairman of the Staff
C    Council.
     (b) The Council shall elect its Secretary, who shall hold office for
     a term of one year. The Secretary may be re-elected for a second
     term but no person shall hold office of Secretary for more than
     two consecutive terms.
D    (5) (a) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Statutes and the
     Ordinances of the University, the Staff Council shall take decisions
     in respect of the following matters:
     (i) Preparation of College time-table.
     (ii) Allocation of extra-curricular work of teachers not involving,
E    payment of remuneration.
     (iii) Organising extra-curricular activities, including cultural activities
     of students, sports, games, National Service Scheme and other
     social services schemes and academic societies.

F    (iv) Laying down guide-lines for purchase of library books and
     laboratory equipment in consultation with the appropriate
     departments.
     (v) Organising admission of students.
     (b) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Statutes and the
G    Ordinances of the University, the Staff Council shall make
     recommendations in respect of the following matters :
     (i) Formulation of recommendations on introduction of new
         teaching posts in the departments and expansion of the existing
         departments;
H
   THE CHAIRPERSON GOVERNING BODY DAULAT RAM                                     31
    COLLEGE v. DR. ASHA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

       (ii) Formulation of admission policy within the framework of the          A
            policy laid down by the University;
       (iii) Formulation of guidelines regarding arrangements for the
             residence and welfare of students in consultation with
             appropriate students organisations;
       (iv) Formulation of guide-lines regarding discipline of the students;     B

       (v) Formulation of policies for recommending names of teachers
           for participation in seminars and conferences and financial
           assistance to teachers.
       Note : The administrative staff of the College will not be within         C
       the purview of the Staff Council.”
       30. The reliance has been placed on 6-A(5)(b)(iii), formulation of
guidelines regarding arrangements for the residence and welfare of
students in consultation with appropriate students organisations. When
we read the Ordinance 6-A which deals with the Staff Council of every            D
College, clause (5)(a) provides that subject to the provisions of the Act,
the Statutes and the Ordinances of the University, the Staff Council has
to take decisions in respect of the matters enumerated therein. There is
reliance only on clause (5)(b)(iii) which is extracted above. Clause (5)(b)
provides that subject to the provisions of the Act, the Statutes and the
Ordinances of the University, the Staff Council shall make                       E
recommendations in respect of the matters mentioned therein. Formulation
of guidelines regarding arrangements for the residence and welfare of
students in consultation with appropriate students organisations, in no
manner can embrace in it the power to make appointment of Warden. It
has been clearly stated by the University in its letters and affidavit that it   F
is a matter of administration of the College and is not dealt in the Act,
Statutes and Ordinances. Had the Ordinance 6-A(5)(b)(iii) contemplated
recommendation of Staff Council for appointment of Warden, the
University could have very well taken that stand which stand has not
been taken in the present proceedings.
                                                                                 G
      31. The Delhi University has also filed a counter-affidavit in the
proceedings before this Court. In the counter-affidavit filed by the
University of Delhi in these proceedings, the stand of University of Delhi
has again been taken in paragraph 4 which is to the following effect:

                                                                                 H
32             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A          “4. The appointment of Warden of the hostel maintained by the
           College constituent/affiliated to the University of Delhi is purely
           an administrative affair of the College and the University has no
           role to play in this behalf. It is respectfully submitted that the
           appointment of an existing teaching staff in an honorary capacity
           as Warden of a college is not specifically provided for under any
B
           of the provisions of the University of Delhi Act, 1922 Statutes,
           and Ordinances. However all the Colleges, which have their own
           Hostel and, are affiliated or constituent of University of Delhi,
           follow the practice of inviting application from interested teachers
           of their respective College by putting up notice by the Principal of
C          said College, willing to take up the honorary charge. Then the
           Principal of the respective College considers such application
           received and recommends/shortlist the name for such appointment.
           Thereafter, the name of the shortlisted teacher to be appointed to
           the honorary post of Warden is placed before the Governing Body
           of the said college for approval. This practice has been in vogue,
D
           more or the less in the light of the letter of UGC dated 19.02.1987
           (Annexure P-2 herein). The Hindu college for instance also follows
           the same practice.”
            32. In the counter-affidavit of the University referring to practice,
     the University clearly states that appointment of Warden is purely an
E    administrative affair of the College and the University has no role to
     play and further the same is not provided for under any of the provisions
     of the University of Delhi Act, Statutes and Ordinances. We, thus, come
     to the conclusion that Ordinance XVIII 6-A(5)(b)(iii) does not empower
     the Staff Council to make any recommendation with regard to the
F    appointment of Warden of the College Hostel.
            33. The Governing Body of the College is to administer the affair
     of the College. Ordinance XVIII Chapter VII-2 at page 47 of the paper
     book is to the following effect:
           “2. The Governing Body will meet at least once in a term, and,
G          subject as hereinafter provided, shall have general supervision
           and control of the affairs of the College and maintain its own
           records of its proceedings which shall be open to inspection by
           the inspection authority.”

H
   THE CHAIRPERSON GOVERNING BODY DAULAT RAM                                   33
    COLLEGE v. DR. ASHA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

       34. The Governing Body, thus, has general supervision of the            A
College. Even in the Colleges and Institutions which are maintained by
the University, it is provided in Ordinance XX that the Governing Body
which is constituted by the Executive Council is empowered to appoint
the administrative staff of the College. Similarly, the Governing Body of
the affiliated Colleges is empowered to appoint administrative staff of
                                                                               B
the College. The Ordinance does not empower the Principal to make
any appointment of the Warden of the Hostel nor any other statutory
provision has been referred which empowers the Principal to appoint
Warden of the College.
       35. The Principal, however, who is entrusted the over all internal
administration of the College is a person who knows all the staff of the       C
College and his/her recommendation with regard to appointment of
Warden of the College Hostel is to carry weight. The Governing Body
while making appointment of Warden of the College Hostel has to give
due weight to the recommendation of Principal. The appointment of
Warden of the Hostel is made from amongst the permanent staff of the           D
College, the practice which is followed in the College and with which
there is no dispute between the parties is that the applications are invited
through notice by Principal for appointment of Warden and after
recommendation is made by the Principal, a decision is taken by the
Governing Body is to appoint Warden.
                                                                               E
       36. With regard to the role of Staff Council in the appointment of
Warden of the Hostel, we have already observed that Ordinances do
not empower the Staff Council to make any recommendation with regard
to the appointment of Warden. We have found that the Principal has no
authority to appoint Dr. Asha-respondent No.1 as Warden in the Hostel
of the College and appointment made by the Principal was irregular.            F
The Division Bench also did not interfere with the judgment of the learned
Single Judge. The Division Bench in the directions in paragraph 41 has
directed that the applications received in response to notice for
appointment of Warden to be placed before the Staff Council which
was to take a decision and make recommendations on the said                    G
applications. We having found that Staff Council is not statutorily
empowered to make any recommendation regarding appointment of
Warden of the College Hostel, the direction of the Division Bench requiring
placement of all applications before the Staff Council was uncalled for.
The appointment of Warden of the Hostel being in the domain of the
                                                                               H
34            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A    Governing Body, the High Court should have left it to the Governing
     Body to take appropriate steps along with the Principal of the College
     for making appointment of the Warden of the Hostel of the College. We,
     thus, are of the view that directions in paragraph 41 of the Division
     Bench judgment cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside.
B          37. The High Court has also appointed two Advocates as
     Commissioners to visit the Hostel premises. The Commissioners visited
     the Hostel and submitted report to the High Court. No further directions
     are needed in the above reference.
            38. Respondent No.4 in its counter-affidavit has stated that in
C    pursuance of direction of the learned Single Judge, respondent No.4
     was appointed by the Governing Body as Warden of the Hostel of the
     College whereas respondent No.1 claims that respondent No.1 has been
     appointed as Warden in pursuance of notice issued by the Principal on
     08.03.2019. The appointment of respondent No.4 as Warden which was
     made subsequent to the judgment of the learned Single Judge by the
D    Governing Body on 07.04.2018, the tenure of which has come to end.
     The initial appointment of respondent No.1 on 06.05.2016 as well as
     subsequent appointment as claimed by respondent No.1 cannot be held
     to be valid.
            39. The dispute which ensued regarding the appointment of Warden
E    of the College Hostel arose due to the fact that position regarding
     procedure and right to make appointment on the post of Warden was not
     clear and the claim was raised by the Principal on the strength of letter
     of the University Grants Commission dated 19.02.1987 which we have
     dealt as above. From the discussion as above, it is clear that it is the
F    Governing Body of the College which has the authority to appoint Warden
     of the College Hostel. However, the Principal being Executive head of
     the entire College and being in position to know the members of the staff
     as per prevailing practice the applications are to be invited through the
     Principal of the College and after receipt of the applications the
     applications along with recommendation of the Principal may be placed
G    before the Governing Body which is to take decision regarding
     appointment of the Warden of the Hostel of the College.
            40. The affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondent
     No.3 that Hostel of the College is closed since June 2019 which has not
     yet been opened. An affidavit has also been filed by the appellant stating
H
   THE CHAIRPERSON GOVERNING BODY DAULAT RAM                                 35
    COLLEGE v. DR. ASHA & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

that Schools and Colleges were closed under the orders issued by the         A
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and it has to be opened
in the fair manner. The appellant submits that Schools, Colleges and
Hostels cannot be opened as of now. The issue regarding opening of the
Hostels is not being subject matter of this appeal, we need not consider
the said issue in this appeal. It is for the University and College
                                                                             B
administration to take a call regarding opening of the Hostels. We,
however, observe that the Governing Body should initiate process for
fresh appointment of Warden of the Hostel of the College by inviting
applications through Principal of the College before the Hostel is open
for housing the students.
      41. In the result, the directions contained in paragraph 41 of the     C
Division Bench judgment are set aside. The appeal is allowed subject to
observations as above.

Devika Gujral                                              Appeal allowed.
                                                                             D




                                                                             E




                                                                             F




                                                                             G




                                                                             H