V.K. Singhal, J. - (1.) The Petitioners have challenged the order of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Disputes Tribunal, Jaipur dated 6.9.1995 by which the order of the petitioner dated 27th July, 1994 was quashed and it was held that Dr. Shanta Mehtani is eligible and has requisite experience for appointment on the post of Principal of Post-Graduate College.
(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the Kanoria Charitable Trust under which the Kanoria Mahila Mahavidhyalaya (here-in-after called as College) is functioning, is affiliated to the University of Rajasthan. The non-petitioner No.2 was appointed as Lecturer in Philosophy Department and on account of the post of Principal having fallen vacant, it was advertised and she was appointed as Principal of the college which was a degree college at that time, on 13.6.1989. It is stated that her lien on the post of Lecturer in Philosophy Department came to an end when she was appointed as Principal. The petitioner college was up-graded as post-graduate college and the provisional affiliation was also granted by the University of Rajasthan on the condition that the Ordinance, Statute, Rules and Regulations of the University would be followed. In accordance with Ordinance 65 of the Rajasthan University, non-petitioner No. 2, is not eligible for continuing and a letter was received from the University of Rajasthan on 11.12.1993 that some of the affiliated colleges to the University are not having duly selected Principals of the college/post graduate college. On 18.12.1993, the syndicate observed that the affiliated colleges are under obligation to follow the ordinance and according to the resolution of the Syndicate vide letter dated 7.2.1995, the University directed the petitioner to appoint a qualified person on the post of Principal of the post of Graduate College with a threat that if the college fails to comply with the direction, it would be dis-affiliated. Number of reminders in this regard were received. The non-petitioner No. 2 was given an opportunity to explain her position in the Governing Body's meeting dated 3.3.1994. Further opportunities were given, but the respondent No. 2 absented from the meeting and accordingly by order dated 23.7.1994 she was reverted from the post of Principal to the post of Lecturer.
(3.) The above order was challenged before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Disputes Tribunal on the ground that the procedures as required under Section 18 have not been followed and the principles of natural justice have been violated and she is qualified under the Rules of 1986 and Rules of 1986 will override the Ordinance of the University. It is also stated that there was no dismissal or removal or reduction in rank by way of punishment nor it is a case of reversion, but is a case of retrenchment and absorption and the opportunities were given. The Rules of Government Colleges are not applicable to non-government colleges because the post of Principal of Post-graduate College is filled-in 100% by promotion whereas in Non-Government College the post is filled by open selection. The qualifications under Ordinance 65 and the Rules of 1986 are different and no benefit can be taken from the Rules of 1986. The directions under Ordinance of the University are binding and have been followed. The non-petitioner No. 2 was not having the requisite qualification in accordance with the Ordinance. The Tribunal quashed the order and declared the non-petitioner No. 2 as qualified to hold the post of Principal which has been challenged on the ground that she has never appointed as Principal of the Post-graduate college and that a person who is continuing as Principal of the Degree College would not automatically be entitled to continue on the post of Principal of the Post-Graduate College when the college is up-graded. A procedure for selection has to be followed. According to the petitioner the post of Principal of Degree College came to an end on up-gradation of the college. There were only two options left, either to relieve the non-petitioner No. 2 or absorb her in college. If the latter option has been exercised by the Governing Body, it cannot be considered to be illegal.;