Supreme Court settles College Hostel Warden Appointment: Governing Body Holds Authority (05 January 2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 05 January 2021
Citation: 2021 INSC 13
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J. and M.R. Shah, J.

Who has the final say in appointing a college hostel warden—the principal, the staff council, or the governing body? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case involving Daulat Ram College. The court clarified that the power to appoint a college hostel warden rests with the Governing Body, not the Principal or the Staff Council. The judgment emphasizes the administrative structure of colleges and the limits of authority within these institutions. The bench comprised Justices Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah.

Case Background

Daulat Ram College, affiliated with the University of Delhi since 1960, includes a hostel as an integral part of the institution. The Daulat Ram College Society, established in 1960, manages the college, which has a Governing Body approved by the University’s Executive Council. The dispute arose concerning the appointment of the Warden of the College Hostel.

On September 10, 2013, Dr. Kavita Sharma was appointed as Warden by the Governing Body for a two-year term. Her term was extended on September 11, 2015, for another two years. However, the Principal of the College, on May 6, 2016, appointed Dr. Asha as Warden, leading to a conflict. The Governing Body, in a meeting on June 24, 2016, resolved to maintain the status quo, with Dr. Kavita Sharma continuing as Warden until new guidelines were established. Dr. Asha then filed a writ petition challenging this decision.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework discussed in the judgment includes:

• University Grants Commission (UGC) Letter dated 19.02.1987: This letter discusses revising the staffing pattern in college hostels, stating that the Warden should be appointed by the Principal from amongst senior teachers. The Supreme Court noted that this letter was related to providing additional staff for the smooth functioning of the Hostel of the College and not about the appointment of Warden.

  The relevant portion of the letter states: “…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.”

• Ordinance XVIII of the University of Delhi: This ordinance deals with the Staff Council in every college. Clause 6-A(5)(b)(iii) discusses the formulation of guidelines for the residence and welfare of students. The Supreme Court clarified that this clause does not empower the Staff Council to make recommendations regarding the appointment of the Warden.

  The relevant portion of the ordinance states: “Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances of the University, the Staff Council shall make recommendations in respect of the following matters : (iii)Formulation of guidelines regarding arrangements for the residence and welfare of students in consultation with appropriate students organisations;”

• Ordinance XVIII Chapter VII-2: This provision states that the Governing Body has general supervision and control of the affairs of the College.

  The relevant portion of the ordinance states: “The Governing Body will meet at least once in a term, and, 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.”

Arguments

Appellant (Governing Body) Arguments:

• The Governing Body is the appointing authority for the Warden of the College Hostel. The appointment of Dr. Asha by the Principal was illegal as it lacked the Governing Body’s approval.

• The Delhi University clarified that the appointment of Warden and Matron is an administrative affair of the College, with no role for the University.

• Ordinance XVIII, 6A(5)(b)(iii) does not authorize the Staff Council to appoint a Warden.

• The University Grants Commission letter dated 19.02.1987 does not empower the Principal to appoint the Warden.

• The Division Bench’s directions encroach on the Governing Body’s jurisdiction to appoint the Warden.

Respondents (Principal and Dr. Asha) Arguments:

• The Principal, as the administrative head of the College, is the appointing authority for the Warden, based on the University Grants Commission letter dated 19.02.1987, which was ratified by the Executive Council of the University.

• The Staff Council has no role in the appointment of the Warden, which is the Principal’s domain.

• After the Division Bench’s judgment, the Staff Council recommended Dr. Asha for appointment as Warden.

Respondent No. 2 (University of Delhi) Arguments:

• The appointment of an existing teaching staff as Warden is not specifically provided for under the University of Delhi Act, Statutes, or Ordinances.

• Colleges affiliated with the University follow the practice of inviting applications through the Principal, who then recommends a name for the Governing Body’s approval.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

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 to appoint Warden is vested?
2. What is the procedure to be adopted before making appointment of Warden of the College Hostel?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• Interpretation of the University Grants Commission Letter: The Court found that the UGC letter dated 19.02.1987 did not explicitly grant the Principal the authority to appoint the Warden. The letter was intended to address the staffing pattern of hostels and provide additional staff.

• Interpretation of University Ordinances: The Court clarified that Ordinance XVIII, 6-A(5)(b)(iii) does not empower the Staff Council to make recommendations regarding the appointment of the Warden. The Court also noted that the Governing Body has general supervision and control of the affairs of the College.

• Administrative Structure of the College: The Court emphasized that the Governing Body is responsible for the overall administration of the College, including the appointment of key administrative staff like the Warden.

• Lack of Statutory Basis for Principal’s Claim: The Court noted that neither the University Act, Statutes, nor Ordinances specifically empower the Principal to appoint the Warden of the College Hostel.

Key Takeaways

• Governing Body’s Authority: The Governing Body of a college is the competent authority to appoint the Warden of the College Hostel.

• Principal’s Role: The Principal’s recommendation is important, and the applications are to be invited through the Principal, but the final decision rests with the Governing Body.

• Staff Council’s Limited Role: The Staff Council does not have the statutory power to make recommendations regarding the appointment of the Warden.

• Administrative Clarity: The judgment clarifies the administrative structure within colleges, ensuring that the Governing Body’s authority is recognized in matters of appointment.

• Procedure for Appointment: The procedure for appointment of Warden is that applications are to be invited through the Principal of the College, and 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.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Governing Body to initiate a fresh process for the appointment of the Warden of the College Hostel by inviting applications through the Principal of the College. The Court emphasized that this process should be undertaken before the Hostel is reopened for students.

Specific Amendments Analysis

(Omitted as the judgment does not discuss any specific amendments)

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Governing Body of a college, not the Principal or the Staff Council, is the competent authority to appoint the Warden of the College Hostel. This judgment clarifies the administrative structure within colleges and the limits of authority of the Principal and the Staff Council. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment clarifies the existing position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in The Chairperson Governing Body Daulat Ram College vs. Dr. Asha & Ors. clarifies that the Governing Body of a college is the competent authority to appoint the Warden of the College Hostel. The Court set aside the directions of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which had directed the Staff Council to make recommendations for the appointment of Warden. The Supreme Court held that the Principal’s recommendation is important, but the final decision rests with the Governing Body. This ruling provides clarity on the administrative structure within educational institutions and ensures that the Governing Body’s authority is upheld.