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