Supreme Court Upholds Appointment of Vice-Principal: Governing Body Swami Shraddhanand College vs. Amar Nath Jha (23 January 2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 23 January 2020

Citation: 2020 INSC 47

Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and A.S. Bopanna, J.

Can a University reject the appointment of a Vice-Principal by a college’s Governing Body merely because prior approval was not sought, especially when past practices show approvals were often granted after the appointment? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning the appointment of a Vice-Principal at Swami Shraddhanand College. The core issue revolved around whether the University of Delhi was justified in declining approval for the appointment of Dr. Amar Nath Jha as Vice-Principal, despite the college’s Governing Body having already approved his selection.

The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice A.S. Bopanna, with the opinion authored by Justice A.S. Bopanna.

Case Background

The dispute began when the Governing Body of Swami Shraddhanand College approved the appointment of Dr. A.N. Jha as Vice-Principal on 29 December 2015. Following this, a communication was sent to the University of Delhi on 28 December 2015, seeking approval for the appointment. However, the University declined to grant approval on 13 January 2016, citing procedural irregularities, specifically the lack of prior approval as mandated by Clause 4(4) of Ordinance XVIII of the University.

Aggrieved by the University’s decision, Dr. A.N. Jha filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi, seeking the quashing of the University’s rejection letters and a direction for the University to approve his appointment as Vice-Principal. The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition on 10 November 2016, directing the University to grant approval.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi, after examining the University’s reasons for declining approval, noted that the University did not claim that Dr. Jha was unfit or ineligible for the post. The rejection was primarily based on the procedural lapse of not seeking prior approval, as required by Clause 4(4) of Ordinance XVIII. The Single Judge, however, observed that in past appointments, the University had granted approvals post-facto. Therefore, the Single Judge directed the University to grant approval for Dr. Jha’s appointment.

The University appealed this decision before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s order, noting that Clause 7(3) of Ordinance XVIII does not prohibit the appointment of a Vice-Principal when the post of Principal is vacant. The Division Bench also noted that the regular Principal had retired on 31 December 2014, and no regular appointment had been made since then. The Division Bench directed the Governing Body of the College to be formed within one month and to take a decision regarding the appointment of the Principal.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of specific clauses of Ordinance XVIII of the University of Delhi.

Clause 4(4) of Ordinance XVIII of the University of Delhi states:

“The Governing Body is required to secure prior approval of the University to appoint a Vice-Principal.”

Clause 7(3) of Ordinance XVIII of the University of Delhi states:

The High Court interpreted this clause to mean that the post of Vice-Principal can be filled even when the post of regular Principal is vacant.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the University and the College:

• The University and the College, represented by Shri Sachin Datta, argued that the appointment of Dr. A.N. Jha as Vice-Principal was not valid because prior approval from the University was not obtained, as required by Clause 4(4) of Ordinance XVIII. They contended that the University had rightly rejected the request for approval.

• They further argued that Dr. A.N. Jha could not act as the Principal, even if appointed as Vice-Principal, and the petition’s prayer was limited to quashing the rejection communications, not for a direction to act as Principal.

• They referred to a communication dated 2/3 February 2016, stating that a committee was constituted to inquire into the management of the college, and this communication was not challenged in the writ petition.

• They also referred to the minutes of the expanded Governing Body meeting on 29 February 2016, where it was recorded that Dr. A.N. Jha was illegally holding the post of acting Principal, and Dr. Prakash Vir Khatri was recommended to act as Principal.

Arguments on behalf of Dr. A.N. Jha:

• Shri A.K. Thakur, representing Dr. A.N. Jha, contended that the University’s rejection was unjustified. He argued that the writ petition sought the quashing of the rejection letters and a direction for the University to approve his appointment as Vice-Principal, which was the primary issue.

• He argued that the issue of the Principal’s appointment was extraneous to the case and that the regulations would take care of such a situation.

• He pointed out that the Division Bench of the High Court had noted that in most prior appointments to the post of Vice-Principal, the approvals had been granted post-facto.

• He contended that the Governing Body had already decided to appoint Dr. A.N. Jha, and the University should have approved it. Any subsequent decision by the enlarged Governing Body was made with malafide intentions.

Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the primary issue before the court, derived from the arguments and the High Court’s decisions, was:

1. Whether the University was justified in rejecting the appointment of Dr. A.N. Jha as Vice-Principal on the ground that prior approval was not sought, despite the Governing Body of the College having approved his appointment and past practices showing post-facto approvals.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in its judgment. However, it did refer to the following legal provisions:

• Clause 4(4) of Ordinance XVIII of the University of Delhi: This clause mandates that the Governing Body must secure prior approval from the University to appoint a Vice-Principal.

• Clause 7(3) of Ordinance XVIII of the University of Delhi: The High Court interpreted this clause to mean that the post of Vice-Principal can be filled even when the post of regular Principal is vacant.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

Treatment of Submissions

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

✓ Clause 4(4) of Ordinance XVIII: The Court acknowledged the requirement for prior approval but did not consider it an absolute bar, given the past practice of post-facto approvals.

✓ Clause 7(3) of Ordinance XVIII: The Court agreed with the High Court’s interpretation that this clause does not prevent the appointment of a Vice-Principal when the post of Principal is vacant.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Past Practice: The Court gave significant weight to the fact that the University had, in the past, granted approvals for the appointment of Vice-Principals post-facto. This established a precedent that the University failed to adhere to in this case.

• Suitability of the Candidate: The Court noted that the University did not dispute Dr. A.N. Jha’s suitability or eligibility for the post. The rejection was solely based on a procedural technicality, which the Court found to be unjustified.

• Malafide Intent: The Court observed that the subsequent actions of the expanded Governing Body appeared to be an attempt to prevent Dr. Jha from acting as Principal, thus indicating a malafide intention to deny him his rightful appointment as Vice-Principal.

• Fairness and Equity: The Court emphasized that the respondent should not be victimized because the appellants did not take appropriate steps to appoint a regular Principal.

Ranking of Sentiment Analysis

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was a blend of factual considerations (past practices, suitability of the candidate) and legal interpretations (Ordinance XVIII). The factual aspects weighed slightly more in the Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered the argument that prior approval was necessary but noted that the University had granted post-facto approvals in the past. The court also noted that the University did not claim that Dr. Jha was unfit or ineligible. The Court held that the rejection was not justified on the ground of lack of prior approval.

The court also considered the argument that Dr. Jha could not act as Principal even if appointed as Vice-Principal. The Court noted that the primary issue was the appointment of the Vice-Principal and that the issue of the Principal’s appointment was separate. The Court observed that if the post of Principal remains vacant, Clause 7(3) of Ordinance XVIII would come into play.

Key Takeaways

• Importance of Past Practice: The Supreme Court emphasized that past practices and precedents should be considered when interpreting and applying rules and regulations.

• Substance over Form: The Court prioritized the substance of the appointment (the suitability of the candidate) over a procedural technicality (lack of prior approval), especially when the candidate was not otherwise ineligible.

• Malafide Intent: The Court took a serious view of the malafide intent of the Governing Body to prevent Dr. Jha from acting as Principal and ensured that such actions should not take away his right to be appointed as Vice-Principal.

• Institutional Responsibility: The Court held that the appellants cannot victimize the respondent for their failure to appoint a regular Principal.

• Future Impact: This judgment clarifies that Universities cannot reject appointments based on procedural technicalities when past practices indicate a different approach, and the candidate is otherwise eligible. This ruling also emphasizes the importance of good faith in institutional governance.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the appellants to take necessary action to ensure that Dr. A.N. Jha functions as the regular Vice-Principal. The Court also reiterated its interim order that the appellants should initiate the process of appointing a regular Principal. The Court had previously indicated that this appointment should be made within two months. The Court clarified that if no steps are taken to appoint a regular Principal, Dr. A.N. Jha would be entitled to act as the regular Vice-Principal and exercise other rights as per the regulations.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion of any specific amendments in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a University cannot reject the appointment of a Vice-Principal by a college’s Governing Body solely on the ground of lack of prior approval, especially when past practices show that such approvals have been granted post-facto, and the candidate is otherwise eligible. This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural technicalities should not override substantive justice and that past practices should be considered when interpreting and applying rules. This case also highlights the importance of good faith in institutional governance.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court’s decision, affirming the appointment of Dr. A.N. Jha as the Vice-Principal of Swami Shraddhanand College. The Court emphasized that the University’s rejection was not justified, considering the past practice of granting post-facto approvals and the fact that Dr. Jha was otherwise eligible for the position. The Court also addressed the issue of the Principal’s appointment, directing the appellants to take steps to appoint a regular Principal and clarifying that if they fail to do so, Dr. Jha would be entitled to act as the regular Vice-Principal and exercise other rights as per the regulations.