IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.3118 of 2009
Date of Decision: March 04, 2009
The Managing Committee of Hindu Kanya College, Kapurthala,
Punjab
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar & Another
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
The Managing Committee of Hindu Kanya
College, Kapurthala has approached this Court in
challenge to Order dated 1.1.2009 (Annexure P-7),
Order dated 11.1.2009 (Annexure P-8) and Order dated
20.2.2009 (Annexure P-10).
Vide Order dated 1.1.2009, Annexure
P-7, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, addressed
a Memo to the petitioner. It has been stated therein
that University Syndicate, in its meeting dated
9.3.2008 had taken a decision that all colleges must
appoint regular Principals on or before 31.7.2008.
In the absence thereof, Rs.50,000/- per month shall
be recovered as penalty. The petitioner – College
CWP No.3118 of 2009 [2]
had been informed on 25.3.2008 and reminder had been
given on 3.11.2008 in regard to the decision of the
Syndicate. Penalty was imposable on the petitioner
for the period 1.8.2008 to 31.12.2008. The deposit
was required to be made by 15.1.2009.
Vide Order dated 11.1.2009, Annexure
P-8, the University again informed the petitioner in
regard to its conduct in delaying appointment of
regular Principal and violating mandate of the
Syndicate dated 9.3.2008. In addition to what was
stated in Annexure P-7, the petitioner had been
warned that the roll numbers of the students would
be with-held in case the requisite penalty is not
paid.
Under the third impugned order i.e.
Annexure P-10 dated 20.2.2009, again the University
informed the petitioner that the petitioner had
caused delay in appointment of regular Principal. A
decision had been taken by the University to with-
hold roll numbers of the students for non-payment of
the penalty as the penalty had not been paid till
issuance of order/ Memo, Annexure P-10.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has
not been able to dispute that there has been delay
on the part of the petitioner – College in
appointing a regular Principal. All that has been
argued is that the officials of petitioner were busy
in finalising admission and hence the delay. No
other argument has been addressed.
CWP No.3118 of 2009 [3]
A College, obviously cannot run
without an administrative head who is also required
to have better academic qualifications as against
the other persons in the faculty. The petitioner –
College is a degree college and is imparting
education in all the courses. The explanation for
delay is not acceptable in view of the fact that no
such ground was taken by the petitioner in the
representation made to the University for waiver of
penalty i.e. Annexure P-9. The conduct of petitioner
indicates callous approach although the importance
of having a Principal of an institution is of
paramount importance not only for administrative
control over the institution but also because
absence of a regular Principal would marginalise the
level of imparting quality education by members of
the faculty.
I have considered the issue. It is
clear from the record that the petitioner was
informed about the decision of the University
Syndicate dated 9.3.2008 well in advance. Despite
such being the facts, no appropriate or speedy steps
were taken for appointment of Principal from May
2008 till September 2008. Sufficient opportunity was
given to the petitioner as is evident from the
impugned orders themselves.
No ground for judicial review of the
impugned orders is made out.
The petition is dismissed.
CWP No.3118 of 2009 [4]
Learned counsel for the petitioner
states that since last date of deposit is today
(4.3.2009), the University might not even consider
issuance of roll numbers even after payment by the
petitioner.
Keeping in view the future of the
students, it is directed that the University would
accept the penalty amount in case the same is
deposited today and issue roll numbers.
Copy of the order be given under the
signatures of the Reader.
(AJAI LAMBA)
March 04, 2009 JUDGE
avin