* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3886/2008 DR. MANASVINI M YOGI ..... Petitioner Through Mr. PP Khurana, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Navin Kumar Jaggi, Advocate versus CHAIRMAN, GOVT. BODY I.P.COLLEGE AND ORS. .... Respondents Through Mr. Amit Bansal with Ms. Manisha Singh, Advocates for Delhi University Ms. Acharya, Adv. for respondent no.1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 20.05.2008 1. The matter came up for hearing in the morning. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was urgency in the matter as interview for the post of „Principal' is fixed on 22nd May, 2008. At the request of the counsel for the respondents and to examine the original files, the matter was passed over to be taken up after lunch. 2. Original files have been produced before me and on the basis of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties I am disposing of the present writ petition at the admission stage itself. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued only one issue relating to interpretation of Clause 7 of the University Ordinance Act, XVIII. The relevant portion of which is reproduced below : “(ii) The appointment of the Principal shall be made by the Governing Body of the College on the recommendation of a Selection Committee consisting of the Chairman of the Governing Body (Chairman), one member of the Governing Body to be nominated by the Chairman, two nominees of the Vice Chancellor, out of whom one should be an expert, the experts consisting of a Principal of a college, a Professor and an accomplished Educationist not below the rank of a Professor (to be nominated by the Governing Body) out of a panel of expert approved by Vice Chancellor (At least four members, including two experts, should constitute the quorum), provided that prior to final selection and appointment (a) the Governing Body shall submit to the University a list of persons, who have applied for the post of Principal, as also names of persons, who may not have applied but whose names the Governing Body may desire to consider for the post, in a form as prescribed by the University and shall indicate the persons from whom, in their opinion, the final selection may be made; (b) the list thus submitted by the Governing Body shall be considered by a Selection Committee constituted for the purpose and consisting of the following: (i) Vice-Chancellor, (ii) Pro-Vice-Chancellor, (iii) A nominee of the Visitor, (iv) Chairman of the Governing Body of the College concerned; and (v) Two members of the Executive Council, nominated by it; and (c) on the recommendation of the Selection Committee the University shall transmit to the Governing Body a list of persons mentioned in the order of preference whom the University would be prepared to recognise as Principal or, if none of the applicants are considered suitable, shall refrain from sending a list, in which case the post shall be re- advertised.” 4. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel that the list submitted by the first Selection Committee is to be considered by the second Selection Committee and at that stage the second Selection Committee must call all the applicants mentioned in the list. It is stated that at this stage also the entire process of selection is open and the second Selection Committee cannot restrict itself only to the recommendations made by the first Selection Committee. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case interview letters have been sent to only three candidates who were recommended by the first Selection Committee and other persons mentioned in the list have not been called for interview. 5. I have examined the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner but do not find any merit in the same. Clause 7(ii) as reproduced above, shows that a three tier selection procedure has been prescribed for appointment to the post of „Principal‟. At the first stage, Selection Committee consisting of the Chairman of the Governing Body, one member of the Governing Body to be nominated by the Chairman, three experts and two nominees of the Vice Chancellor, hold interviews and submit their recommendations. The first stage of the selection procedure has been complied with in the present case. I may note here that Clause 7(ii) begins with the words “appointment of the Principal shall be made by the Governing Body on the recommendation of a Selection Committee”. Thus appointment of a Principal is on the basis of recommendation of the first Selection Committee. 6. The Governing Body is required to submit list of persons who had applied for the post of Principal and also names of those whom the Governing Body desires to consider for the said post, to the University in the prescribed form. This list obviously will include the recommendation made by the first Selection Committee. 7. At this stage, the second Committee consisting of Vice Chancellor, Pro- Vice-Chancellor, nominee of the visitor, Chairman of the college concerned and two members of the Executive Council, examine and consider the list submitted by the Governing Body. The second Committee is at liberty to call anyone for interview. At this stage it is not required that all persons mentioned in the list should be called for the interview. The second Committee only considers the recommendations made by the Selection Committee. If the second Committee feels that some person mentioned in the list should be called for interview, it is open to them to do so. It cannot be said that it is mandatory for the second Committee to interview all candidates mentioned in the list and thus duplicate the entire selection procedure once again. The scope of the second Committee is to consider the recommendation made by the Selection Committee. To consider and decide on the recommendations made, the second Selection Committee can call candidates for interview. It does not function or replicate the functions and the role of the first Selection Committee. 8. The third stage begins after deliberations and findings are given by the second Committee. List of candidates in the order of preference is prepared and sent to the Governing Body. The second Committee also has option not to send any name and in such case the post is to be re- advertised. 9. This procedure has been followed for last several decades. All candidates mentioned in the list are not called for interview at the second stage. 10. In the present case, the second Committee is to meet on 22nd May, 2008. This is the first meeting of the second Committee. Learned counsel for the respondent/University has clarified that if required the second Committee will hold subsequent meetings. In this meeting the second Committee will decide and consider the list including the recommendations made by the first Selection Committee. If deemed appropriate the second Committee may call other persons mentioned in the list for interview. The second Committee has not yet made or applied its mind and has not decided and considered the list. 11. In view of the above, I do not think at this stage the Court is required to interfere. The second Committee is still to meet and deliberate upon and consider the list given by the Governing Body including the recommendations made by them. The petitioner cannot claim any vested right under Clause 7(ii) of the University Ordinance Act, XVIII to be called for interview by the second Committee. It is the option of the second Committee whether or not to call the petitioner or any other person mentioned in the list for interview. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Dasti under signature of the Court Master. SANJIV KHANNA, J. MAY 20, 2008 Vld/P/vld