The Appointment of the Warden in College Affiliated To or Constituted of University of Delhi Is an Administrative Affair and University Has No Role To Play in This Regard: Supreme Court

Must Read

WhatsApp Emails Delhi HC Judge Asking Her Not To Hear the Plea Challenging New Privacy Policy

The Delhi High Court raised strong objection to an E-mail sent by WhatsApp asking a judge not to hear the plea which challenges its new privacy policy. Justice Pratibha Singh said that the e-mail that was withdrawn later was totally unwarranted as she was anyway going to recuse from hearing the plea which was filed by Rohilla Chaitanya who contends that the new privacy policy of WhatsApp provides 360-degree access to a customer’s virtual activity and is against the fundamental right of privacy.

TRP Scam Case: Bombay HC Extends Protection To Arnab Goswami and Other Employees Till the Next Hearing

On Friday, the Bombay High court extended the protection that was given, to Republic TV’s Editor in Chief Arnab Goswami and other employees of ARG Outlier Media Private Limited till January 29th in the alleged case of Television Rating Point manipulation. A status report was submitted by the police to the division bench of Justices S.S.Shinde and Manish Pitale by the Police on the ongoing case.

Plea Seeks FIR Against Maharashtra Minister Dhananjay Munde in Bombay HC for False Info

A plea has been filed in Bombay High Court seeking an FIR against Maharashtra minister Dhananjay Munde who is undergoing times of trouble due to his extra-marital affair. Recently, an FIR had been lodged against Munde by a woman, accusing him of raping her sister. Munde clarified that he was actually in a relationship with that woman and had two children. He accused the two women of blackmailing him.

Writ Petition for Compensation Accepted by Calcutta High Court 

Introduction The Petitioner Purna Ch. Biswas filed a Writ Petition with the complaint that their claims for a higher quantum...

No Members Could Be Disqualified Without Authorisation by Political Party: Gujarat High Court

Excerpt The dispute application no.7 of 2020 filed by respondent no.2 before designated authority. Thereafter the designated authority order dated...

Delhi High Court Directs Delhi Jal Board To Make Supply of Potable Drinking Water

The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Delhi Sainik Cooperation Housing Ltd. v. Union of India &...

Follow us

This case concerns the question of whether the appointment of the warden of the College Hostel can be made by the Principal of the College and discussed the procedure to be adopted for making the appointment of the Warden. 

Brief Facts of the Case

This appeal was filed by the petitioner- The Chairperson Governing Body, Daulat Ram College questioning the directions issued by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in LPA filed by respondent No.1 Asha, although not interfering with the judgment of a single judge. 

The issue, in this case, concerned the appointment of the warden of the hostel of the college. Respondent No.4- Dr Kavita Sharma was appointed as warden of the College by the governing body from 12.09.2013 for two years. The term of appointment was going to an end, so Governing Body through a resolution re-appointed respondent No.4 as the warden for two years. 

The Governing Body directed the Principal, respondent No.3 to seek her willingness in writing, in case she agrees, issue her letter of appointment. The letter issued by the Principal, specified the term of appointment to be eight months only. Later, at the end of eight months, the Principal invited applications from permanent teachers interested to work as Warden of College Hostel. Respondent No.1 applied and was appointed as the Warden from 21.05.2016. 

In the meeting dated 24.06.2016, the Governing Body recorded that the Principal had illegally appointed respondent No.1. The Governing Body resolved that earlier status quo to be maintained and respondent No.4 would continue as warden till the time proper guidelines for appointment of warden are made by the Governing Body. 

The Respondent No.3-Principal dissented in the meeting and issued notice dated 30.07.2016 inviting applications from the interested permanent teachers for the post of the warden. Respondent No.1 filed a writ against this notice as she was appointed for two years and took charge on 21.05.2016. 

The Single Judge did not maintain Dr Asha’s position as warden and the Division Bench also did not interfere but issued certain directions.

Appellant’s Argument

The Governing Body of the College is the appointing authority of Warden of the College Hostel. The appointment of respondent No.1 was directly made by the Principal without the approval of the Governing Body, thus, illegal. 

Both the Single Judge and Division Bench had found the appointment of respondent No.1 illegal. The appointment made in pursuance of the judgment of Single Judge should be maintained and there was no occasion for fresh appointment as directed by Division Bench of the High Court. 

The Delhi University in its letters clarified that the appointment of warden and Matron in College Hostel is purely an administrative affair and the University of Delhi has no role to play in this regard. 

The Division Bench directed the Governing Body to make a fresh appointment by inviting application form interested permanent teachers, which will be placed before the staff council which will take the decision. However, the Ordinance XVIII, 6A(5)(b)(iii) of the University does not confer any authority to the staff council to appoint a Warden of the Hostel.

The letter of the University Grants Commission dated 19.02.1987 did not confer any authority on the Principal to make the appointment of Warden of the Hostel. The directions issued by the Division Bench encroached on the right of the Governing Body to exercise its jurisdiction of appointing authority of Hostel warden of the College. 

Respondent’s Argument

Respondent No.3 submitted that Daulat Ram College is affiliated with the University of Delhi and 95% of grants are funded by the University Grants Commission (UGC) and only 5% of the funds to be paid by the Ram Daulat College Society- Trust. The letter dated 19.02.1987 written by the UGC, which was ratified by the Executive Council of the University in its meeting said that the Principal is the appointing authority for the Warden of the College Hostel, as he is the administrative head of the College, thus entitled to make an appointment.  The Staff Council has no role in the appointment of Warden. 

Respondent No.1 had adopted the submission made by respondent No.3. Further, submitted that after the judgment of Division Bench, respondent No.1 was recommended as the Warden of the College Hostel by the Staff Council. The Chairperson of the Governing Body had no power to appoint any one of her choices as the Warden.

Respondent No.2- University of Delhi submitted that the appointment of existing teaching staff as the Warden of a College Hostel has not been specifically provided under any of the provisions of University of Delhi Act,1922, statutes and ordinances. 

All the colleges which are affiliated to or constituent of the University of Delhi, follow the practice of inviting application form interested teachers by putting up a notice by the Principal of the College and then the Principal Shortlists or recommends the name for the appointment, whereafter the Governing Body grants approval.

Observation by the Court

The letter of the UGC dated 19.02.1987, was written to the Vice-Chancellor of the Delhi University regarding revising the staffing patterns in the Hostels of the colleges affiliated to the Delhi University. This letter indicated that the Commission took the decision to provide additional staff for the smooth functioning of the Hostel of the College and no decision was taken regarding the appointment of the Warden. 

The aforesaid letter was ratified by the Executive Council, but the minutes indicate that the Commission approved the raising of the funding pattern of salaries of the employees of the Hostel from 75% to 95% and remaining by the Management. Only to this extent of the decision of the Commission Executive Council reiterated and there was no decision by the University that the appointment of Hostel Warden to be made by the Principal. 

It was further observed that the appointment of Warden in the College Hostel is purely an administrative affair of the College and the University has no role to play on this behalf. 

The Ordinance XVIII, 6-A deals with staff Council. Clause 5(a) of 6-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 matters enumerated therein. Clause 5(b) provides that the staff Council should make recommendations in matters enumerated therein. Formulation of guidelines regarding arrangements for the residence and welfare of the students in consultation with the appropriate student organization, in no manner, can constitute a power to appoint a Warden. 

The Ordinance XX empowers the Governing Body which is constituted by the Executive Council to appoint the administrative staff of the college and does not empower the Principal to make the appointment of the Warden and was neither empowered by any other statutory provisions. 

The Decision of the Court

The directions issued by the Division Bench of the High Court were set aside. 

The appeal was allowed with observations that the Governing Body should initiate the process for fresh appointment of Warden of the Hostel by inviting applications through the Principal of the College.

Click here to read the judgment.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

WhatsApp Emails Delhi HC Judge Asking Her Not To Hear the Plea Challenging New Privacy Policy

The Delhi High Court raised strong objection to an E-mail sent by WhatsApp asking a judge not to hear the plea which challenges its new privacy policy. Justice Pratibha Singh said that the e-mail that was withdrawn later was totally unwarranted as she was anyway going to recuse from hearing the plea which was filed by Rohilla Chaitanya who contends that the new privacy policy of WhatsApp provides 360-degree access to a customer’s virtual activity and is against the fundamental right of privacy.

TRP Scam Case: Bombay HC Extends Protection To Arnab Goswami and Other Employees Till the Next Hearing

On Friday, the Bombay High court extended the protection that was given, to Republic TV’s Editor in Chief Arnab Goswami and other employees of ARG Outlier Media Private Limited till January 29th in the alleged case of Television Rating Point manipulation. A status report was submitted by the police to the division bench of Justices S.S.Shinde and Manish Pitale by the Police on the ongoing case.

Plea Seeks FIR Against Maharashtra Minister Dhananjay Munde in Bombay HC for False Info

A plea has been filed in Bombay High Court seeking an FIR against Maharashtra minister Dhananjay Munde who is undergoing times of trouble due to his extra-marital affair. Recently, an FIR had been lodged against Munde by a woman, accusing him of raping her sister. Munde clarified that he was actually in a relationship with that woman and had two children. He accused the two women of blackmailing him.

Writ Petition for Compensation Accepted by Calcutta High Court 

Introduction The Petitioner Purna Ch. Biswas filed a Writ Petition with the complaint that their claims for a higher quantum of compensation have not yet...

No Members Could Be Disqualified Without Authorisation by Political Party: Gujarat High Court

Excerpt The dispute application no.7 of 2020 filed by respondent no.2 before designated authority. Thereafter the designated authority order dated 28.10.2020 disqualified the petitioner and...

Delhi High Court Directs Delhi Jal Board To Make Supply of Potable Drinking Water

The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Delhi Sainik Cooperation Housing Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors held that right to...

Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Security To BJP Leader Alleged for Not Supporting Farmers Protest

The Order had come in the form of a Writ Petition filed by Tikshan Sood under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition before...

Lahore High Court Outlaws Two-Finger Virginity Test

The Lahore High Court in Pakistan has outlawed the use and conduct of virginity tests, namely, the use of the “two-finger” virginity test and...

London Court Rejects Assange’s Extradition – What Happens Now? 

Earlier last week, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, sitting in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court denied the Government of the U.S.A.'s request to the U.K. to...

Calcutta High Court Decides in Favor of Contractor as He Accidentally Pays an Excessively High Amount

Introduction The present writ petition has been filed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to revoke the Petitioner’s offer as...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -