Supreme Court Upholds Appointment of Vice-Principal at Delhi University’s Swami Shraddhanand College

The case of Governing Body of Swami Shraddhanand College vs. Amar Nath Jha & Anr. was a significant ruling concerning the appointment of a Vice-Principal in an affiliated college under the University of Delhi. The Supreme Court had to decide whether the refusal of approval by the University of Delhi for the appointment of Dr. A.N. Jha as Vice-Principal was justified under the University Ordinances.

Background of the Case

Dr. A.N. Jha was selected by the Selection Committee for appointment as the Vice-Principal of Swami Shraddhanand College, an institution affiliated with the University of Delhi. His selection was approved by the Governing Body of the college, and an appointment letter was issued on December 29, 2015. On the same date, a communication was sent to the University of Delhi seeking approval for his appointment.

However, the University of Delhi declined to grant approval through its letter dated January 13, 2016. The refusal was primarily based on two reasons:

• The alleged irregularities in the appointment of the Acting Principal of the college.
• The claim that prior approval from the University was not sought before appointing the Vice-Principal, as required under Clause 4(4) of Ordinance XVIII.

Aggrieved by the refusal, Dr. A.N. Jha approached the Delhi High Court, challenging the rejection and seeking approval for his appointment.

Arguments by the Petitioner

The petitioner, Dr. A.N. Jha, made the following arguments:

• The refusal of approval was arbitrary and unjustified, as it was not based on his qualifications or fitness for the role.
• The appointment process was conducted as per established norms, and the Governing Body of the college had followed due procedure.
• The claim regarding the lack of prior approval under Clause 4(4) of Ordinance XVIII was incorrect, as past appointments had been approved post facto.
• The University had previously granted approvals for similar appointments even when prior approval was not taken.

Arguments by the Respondent

The respondents, including the University of Delhi and the Governing Body of Swami Shraddhanand College, countered with the following arguments:

• The University’s rules required prior approval before appointing a Vice-Principal, and in this case, it was not sought.
• The appointment was made without consulting the University, violating the procedures outlined in Ordinance XVIII.
• There were administrative issues regarding the functioning of the college’s Governing Body, which warranted an inquiry.

High Court Ruling

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Dr. A.N. Jha, holding that:

• The University’s refusal to grant approval was unjustified.
• The appointment process had followed due procedure.
• The rejection was based on procedural technicalities rather than substantive grounds.
• A direction was issued to the University of Delhi to grant approval for Dr. Jha’s appointment.

The University of Delhi and the Governing Body of the college challenged this ruling before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling, agreeing that the rejection of approval was not justified. The Court made the following key observations:

“The refusal to approve the appointment was not based on Dr. A.N. Jha’s qualifications or eligibility but on procedural grounds. Past instances show that such approvals were granted post facto, and there was no reasonable basis to deny it in this case.”

The Court further elaborated:

• Clause 4(4) of Ordinance XVIII does require prior approval, but in practice, approvals have been granted post facto in similar cases.
• There was no indication that Dr. Jha was unfit for the post or lacked the required qualifications.
• The refusal appeared to be more of an administrative decision rather than a substantive rejection of his eligibility.
• The Governing Body had followed the established process, and the University’s rejection was inconsistent with past practices.

Legal Precedents Considered

The Supreme Court referred to several key rulings:

• University of Delhi vs. Raj Singh – Establishing that appointments in affiliated colleges must follow university regulations but should not be arbitrarily rejected.
• Shri Anandi Mukta Sadguru vs. V.R. Rudani – Emphasizing the role of fairness and reasonableness in academic appointments.
• State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh – Holding that past precedents and approvals must be considered in administrative decisions.

Final Outcome

The Supreme Court passed the following orders:

• The University of Delhi was directed to grant approval for Dr. A.N. Jha’s appointment as Vice-Principal.
• The ruling of the Delhi High Court was upheld.
• The college was directed to ensure that future appointments adhered strictly to procedural requirements.

This ruling reaffirmed the principle that procedural requirements should not be used arbitrarily to deny legitimate appointments. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for fairness and consistency in administrative decisions within academic institutions.

Petitioner Name: Governing Body of Swami Shraddhanand College.
Respondent Name: Amar Nath Jha & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice A.S. Bopanna.
Place Of Incident: Delhi.
Judgment Date: 23-01-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Governing Body of Sw vs Amar Nath Jha & Anr. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 23-01-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in Judgment by A. S. Bopanna
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category