JUDGMENT
D.P. Wadhwa, J.
(1) The petitioners, who are respectively a Reader and Lecturer in the S.G.T.B. Khalsa College (for short ‘college’) affiliated to the University of Delhi, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to have the re-employment of the fifth respondent as Principal of the college quashed. The four other respondents are respectively University of Delhi (‘the University’ for short);Vice-Chancellor of University of Delhi Governing Body of Sgtb Khalsa College;and Sgtb Khalsa College itself. It is stated that the re-employment of the fifth respondent as a Principal is in contravention of clause 3-A of the Ordinance Xii of the University. The University has been established under the Delhi University Act, 1922, and under section 30 is empowered to issue ordinances for various matters prescribed therein. Under these powers Ordinance Xii was issued which relates to college appointee teachers. Under clause I, unless the context otherwise requires, a teacher includes a Principal of a College, under Ordinance XII. Under clause 3-A, the retirement age of a Principal or a teacher is 60 years. Under subclause (2), however, the Governing Body of a College may, with the approval of ViceChancellor, re-employ any distinguished teacher after he has attained the age of 60 years for a period not exceeding 5 years on the whole but not beyond his completing the age of 65 years, if the Governing Body is satisfied that such re-employment is in the interest of the College. There is an explanation to clause 3-A which says that a Principal who has been a distinguished teacher may also be re-employed under the provisions of this clause. It would be appropriate to.set out clause 3-A in extenso :- “3-A.(1) Subject to the provisions of clauses 6,7 and 8 of the Agreement of Service, a person appointed permanently as pprincipal of a College or Institution or as a teacher therein shall be entitled to be in the service of that College or Institution until he completes the age of sixty. Provided that a Principal or a teacher, as the case may be, who has completed the age of sixty years and is still in the service of the College, or Institution by virtue of the provisions which were in force prior to 1-4-1975, shall continue to be in such service for the unexpired period of the extension already given to him. (2) The Governing Body of a College or an Institution may, with the approval of Vice-Chancellor, re-employ any distinguished teacher after he has attained the age of 60 years for a period not exceeding 5 years on the whole but not beyond his completing the age of 65 years, if the Governing Body is satisfied that such re-employment is in the interest of the College or Institution. (3) Subject to the provisions of sub-clause (2), the terms and conditions of service of a re-employed teacher including his salary, leave and other benefits admissible to him will be in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Government of India from time to time. Explanation:- A principal who has been a distinguished teacher may also be re-employed under the provisions of this clause. ”
(2) Contention raised is that a Principal though he can be re-employed under the explanation but only as a teacher and not as a Principal. On this account the appointment of fifth respondent is under challenge.
(3) Let us have a few facts. Fifth respondent who was working as a Principal of the College reached the age of superannuation on 8 October 1990. His employment was extended under clause 3-A aforesaid for a period of three years. Earlier there was no challenge to his re-employment as a Principal. Now when the Governing Body of the College again met on 24 July 1993 and passed a resolution for re-employment of the fifth respondent for two more years, and which resolution has since been approved by the Vice-Chancellor, there is this challenge. Perhaps this challenge has been made on account of a letter dated 5 July 1993 of the Director in the Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Government of India, addressed to the Registrar of the University. Again we reproduce this letter in extenso :- “PLEASE refer to the correspondence resting with d.o. letter No. D.R.(D)/93/7959 dated the 29th April 1993 from Shri J.C.Sachdev, Deputy Registrar, to Shri S.S. Mahlawat regarding re-employment of Principals in colleges of Delhi University The matter has been examined in consultation with Law Ministry. On a close reading of Clause 3A of Ordinance Xii of the University it is noted that Explanation given there under is meant for removing disqualification from being re-employed as a teacher in respect of a Principal who is also a distinguished teacher. It does not entitle a Principal to be reemployed as Principal. This is also clear from the language of the Explanation which does not make a Principal eligible for re-employment unless he is a distinguished teacher. Re-employment of a superannuated Principal as Principal is, therefore, violative of provisions of Ordinance Xii of the University. The University may like to revise their stand in the light of the above position advised by the Law Ministry and take appropriate measures to ensure that no violation of the impugned Ordinance occurs. The University may also apprise the Government of the & action taken.”
(4) Mr. Nauriya contended that there was no provision for re-employment of a Principal as a Principal on superannuation. He said that under sub-clause (2) of clause 3-A of Ordinance Xii of the University, the Governing Body of a College may, with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor, re-employ any distinguished teacher up to to the age of 65 years, and under the explanation to clause 3-A, a Principal who had been a distinguished teacher may also be re-employed but only as a teacher and not as a Principal. Mr. Nauriya derives strength from the aforesaid letter of the Government of India. We, however, do not find that the contention raised by the petitioners is correct. To us there appears to be noambiguityintheexplanationtoclause3-A. It is not denied that fifth respondent himself is a distinguished teacher and has been taking classes in the College. “Re-employed” in the explanation refers to re-employment of a Principal who has been a distinguished teacher. That being so, a Principal can also be re-employed after the date of his superannuation up to his completing the age of 65 years. The view expressed in the Government of India’s letter mentioned above is not correct. The challenge, therefore, fails and this petition is dismissed in liming.