Prof. Sharda Sharma vs University Of Delhi & Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 3935 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  W.P.(C) No. 5568/2013 & CM No.12362/2013 (Stay)

%                                                  4th September, 2013

PROF. SHARDA SHARMA                                     ......Petitioner
                 Through:             Mr. Saumyajit Pani, Adv.


                         VERSUS

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS                         ...... Respondents
                  Through:             Mr. M.J.S.Rupal, Adv. for R-1.

                                      Ms. Mamta Tiwari, Adv. for Mr.
                                      Amitesh Kumar, Adv. for R-2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes.


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.    Petitioner is working as a Professor in the Department of Sanskrit of

the respondent no.1-University of Delhi. By this writ petition, petitioner

seeks the relief that she should be appointed as Head of the Department of

Sanskrit in the respondent no.1-University.          Petitioner claims this

entitlement on the ground that petitioner will now be the senior most person

in the Department of Sanskrit.




WPC 5568/2013                                                    Page 1 of 5
 2.    Admittedly, the relevant provisions with respect to appointing of Head

of the Department of Sanskrit are Statute 9 (2) (d) and Ordinance XXIII

which read as under:-


      Statute 9(2)(d)

      "2.   xxx                       xxx                       xxx
      (d) (i) Each Department shall have a Professor as its Head
      provided that when in a Department there is only one Professor or
      no Professor eligible to be the Head, a Reader may be appointed
      as its Head and when there is no Professor or Reader eligible to be
      the Head, the Dean of the Faculty concerned shall act as the Head
      of the Department.
      (ii) No person shall ordinarily be appointed or continue as the
      Head of a Department on his attaining the age of sixty two years.
      (iii) Subject as aforesaid, the duties and functions, terms and
      conditions and method of appointment of the Head of a
      Department shall be prescribed by the Ordinances."
      Ord. XXIII. Heads of Departments

      "1. The Head of the Department shall be appointed by the Vice-
      Chancellor by observing, as far as possible, the principle of rotation.
      Such appointments shall be reported to the Executive Council.
      2.    Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause 1, if for any
      reason it has not been possible to appoint a person as Head of the
      Department who is senior to the person (persons) who has already
      served or is serving as Head of the Department, it shall be open to the
      Vice-Chancellor to appoint that person as Head of the Department
      whenever a vacancy next occurs if he can otherwise be so appointed.



WPC 5568/2013                                                   Page 2 of 5
       3.     The Head of the Department shall hold office for a period of
      three years. A person shall not ordinarily be appointed as Head of the
      Department for a second consecutive term."
                   QUALIFICATIONS OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS
       4.     Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause-2, pending the
appointment of a Head of the Department or during his absence on leave, the
Vice-Chancellor may ask any Professor or any Reader in the Department
either to discharge the current duties of the Head of the Department or to act
as Head of the Department, as the case may be, as a purely temporary
measure.
      Note: The Principle of rotation will apply from the persons who is
            next in order of seniority to the person who has already served
            or is serving as Head of the Department."


3.    I put it to counsel for the petitioner as to where it is provided in the

Ordinance XXIII that it is only the senior most person who has necessarily

to be appointed as the Head of the Department, and to which, counsel for the

petitioner draws attention to sub-Ordinance (2) of Ordinance XXIII above.


4.    In my opinion, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that

only the senior most person can be appointed as the Head of the Department

is misconceived because the provision of Ordinance XXIII gives entitlement

to the Vice-Chancellor to appoint any person, provided the principle of

rotation is observed i.e one person cannot be re-appointed unless there is no

other person available and qualified for being appointed as Head of the

Department.
WPC 5568/2013                                                    Page 3 of 5
 5.    So far as sub-Ordinance (2) of Ordinance XXIII is concerned, all that

is provided is that there is an option given to the Vice-Chancellor to consider

the senior most person. Existence of an option is much different from a

compulsory statutory mandate for a senior most person to be necessarily

appointed as Head of the Department. This provision does not say that only

the senior most person should compulsorily be appointed as the Head of the

Department. Therefore, the provisions quoted above do not support the

petitioner that it is only a senior most Professor who has to be necessarily

appointed as Head of the Department.


6.    Counsel for the petitioner then urged that even if Vice-Chancellor is

entitled to take a decision under the aforesaid Statute and Ordinance,

however, that decision must be actuated by reason and therefore petitioner

has been wrongly overlooked as no reasons have been given to the

petitioner. In my opinion, since the decision in question of appointing a

Head of the Department is only an administrative decision, and not a quasi

judicial decision, principles of natural justice do not have to be followed

including of passing of a speaking order communicating the reasons for

appointing a particular person and not appointing another person. Courts

ordinarily do not substitute themselves for the decisions taken by the

WPC 5568/2013                                                     Page 4 of 5
 administrative authorities with respect to administrative decisions inasmuch

as the administrative authorities know best how the organization-public

institution is run. In an extreme case of clear cut malafides or some other

equally strong reason, Courts can step in, however, I do not find that merely

on the principle of the seniority being pleaded that automatically strong

grounds exist to question the administrative decision for the reason that

relevant Statute and Ordinance do not require the senior most person to be

appointed as the Head of the Department.


7.    Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 states that the respondent no.1-

University does not compulsorily follow any policy that only the senior most

person is appointed as Head of the Department.


8.    In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition, and

the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




SEPTEMBER 04, 2013                            VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib