Letters Patent Appeal No.346 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.346 of 2009 Date of decision: 24.9.2009 *** The Managing Committee, Hindu Kanya College, Kapurthala ...Appellant Versus Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr.Amar Vivek, Advocate for the appellant. S.D.ANAND, J. In pursuance of Syndicate decision taken in the course of the meeting held on 9.3.2008, respondent no.1 informed the appellant college to appoint a regular Principal of the Institution by or on 31.7.2008. The penalty, in the alternative for non-compliance, was a hefty sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. The Syndicate decision was taken in generality for all the colleges within the jurisdictional arena of respondent no.1; while communication dated 1.1.2009 had been addressed in particular to the appellant in pursuance thereof. It was followed up by reminders dated 25.3.2009 and 3.11.2009. The appellant concededly did not comply. The fragile plea to explain non-compliance was negatived by respondent no.1 which ordered Letters Patent Appeal No.346 of 2009 -2- **** the impugned penal imposition for the dereliction period from 1.8.2008 to 31.12.2008. It is apparent from the impugned order itself that the non- compliance of the communication dated 1.2.2009 is not a matter of dispute. It is further apparent that the only plea put forward to explain non- compliance was that the establishment of the appellant was busy in the process of admissions to the college. The fact that this was the only plea raised would be evident from the following part of the impugned order under challenge which is extracted hereunder:- “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 the petitioner were busy in finalising admission and hence the delay. No other argument has been addressed.” Though the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is not in a position to contest the correctness of the factual premise aforementioned, he argues that there had been otherwise a compliance with that order because a Principal on adhoc basis did come to be appointed. The plea raised thereby is that the communication dated 9.3.2008 had been practically complied with. We are not impressed with the plea. The appointment of a regular head of an educational institution has a noticeable significance insofar as the administration of the institution is concerned. A stop gap appointee may not perhaps be able to invite that much of hierarchal respect. Be that as it may, there was a conscious decision taken by the University Letters Patent Appeal No.346 of 2009 -3- **** Syndicate in the course of its meeting dated 9.3.2008, that all colleges must appoint regular Principal by or on 31.7.2008. When a decision of the indicated category is taken by an august Institution like the University Syndicate, it has to be assumed that lot many factors must have gone into consideration before the decision came to be taken. The decision gave about four months period to all the educational institutions of higher learning to ensure that regular incumbents are in place. It is not the plea on behalf of the appellant that any step had been taken towards the appointment of a regular Principal. For want of even an averment to that effect, the plea qua the appointment of a stop-gap Head of the institution as a mitigating factor or as constituting compliance would appear to be too fragile to be sustained in a Court of law. Nothing else was argued to persuade us to take a view different from the one obtained by the learned Single Judge. Dismissed. (S.D.ANAND) JUDGE September 24, 2009 (J.S.KHEHAR) Pka JUDGE