Shyam Lal College Vs. Vice Chancellor, Delhi University - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
constitution - validity - whether statute 30 (1) (d) ultra virus constitution of india as it violates right guaranteed under article 19 (1) (g) to run administration of college be denying petitioner college right to choose principal of their choice - main dispute in writ petition arises from the appointment of a principal sought to be made by the governing body of the college and challenge inter alias has been made to the selection committee comprising the experts nominated by the academic council of the delhi university and two members of the governing body - clause 7 (2) of ordinance 28 provided for 3 experts to be nominated by governing body out of panel of experts approved by vice-chancellor - members of the executive council of delhi university are wholly independent members and academicians of repute - constitution of the selection committee is necessary so as to ensure the excellence of education required to be maintained in the constituent colleges of the delhi university - process of approval by the selection committee, cannot be in any manner said to infringe the right of administration - a university is entitled to ensure that only the best are selected as principal of its constituent colleges - as such governing body played important role in appointment of principal of college - further appointment of additional members to regularly constituted governing body of college of institution is done by executive council to maintain educational standards of college and university - held statute 30 (1) (d) is in public interest and protected by article 19 (6) of constitution - - 30 (1)(d) the executive council may, if it is satisfied, after such inquiry as it may think fit to make, that: 2 to clearly mention as to who the competent authority was who did not approve the appointment. 7. it is also required that the governing body shall submit to the university a list of persons who applied for the post of principal as well as other persons who may not have applied but whose names the governing body might desire to consider and the final selection is required to be made by a selection committee comprising of (a) vice chancellor (b) pro-vice-chancellor (c) a nominee of the visitor (d) chairman of the governing body of the college concerned; 10. the learned counsel for the petitioner, shri lahoty has placed strong reliance upon the judgment of the hon'ble supreme court in tma pai foundation's case (supra) and in particular paras 71 and 72 of the said judgment. in other words, rules and regulations that promote good administration and prevent maladministration can be formulated so as to promote the efficiency of teachers, discipline and fairness in administration and to preserve harmony among affiliated institutions. the state can very well provide the basic qualification for teachers. he has further submitted that the judgment in tma pai foundation's case (supra) construes the construction of 'occupation' to cover both establishment as well as management and administration of educational educational institutions. (e) statute 30(1)(d) which empowers the university to nominate additional members to the governing body of a college, if on an enquiry instituted by the executive council of the university, it is satisfied that the affairs of the college are being managed in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the university or the college, is constitutional because of the following reasons: this clearly shows the increasing importance of the governing body in appointment of the principal of the college. when colleges seek affiliation to a university of repute and standing such as the delhi university, the process of approval by the selection committee, which comprises of the senior academicians of the delhi university, cannot be in any manner said to infringe the right of administration, as the very stature of the constituents of such high level selection committee which approves the recommendations of the original selection committee clearly put it beyond the pale of bias or incompetence. a university is entitled to ensure that only the best are selected as principal of its constituent colleges. thus if it is assumed that the second selection committee which approves/disapproves the nominations of the first selection committee where the governing body of the college clearly has a larger say, such a procedure, cannot be said to in any manner affect the administration of the college. furthermore we cannot uphold the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the delhi university can be equated with the concept of `state' as referred to in the above judgments of the hon'ble supreme court in tma pai foundation's case (supra) and brahmo samaj education society's case (supra). while the delhi university may be an authority under article 12 of the constitution which is amenable to the exercise of the writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution, it cannot be equated with `state'.the reference to `state' in tma pai foundation's case (supra) and brahmo samaj education society's case (supra) clearly adverts to the state/central government. the visitor appoints one of three three persons to be the chairman of the committee [statute 11-f(2)]. this, clearly shows that the vice-chancellor of the delhi university is an independent academician of repute. 20. in so far as the challenge to statute 30 (1) (d) set out in the schedule under section 29(1) of the act is concerned, which statute gives the power to appoint additional members of the governing body, that also must fail because (a) the additional member on the governing body are appointed after an enquiry by the executive council of the delhi university which comprises of reputed academicians. 21. this emergent power to appoint additional members of the governing council which power is regulated and exercisable for a period not exceeding 3 years is only exercisable under certain specified conditions found to exist upon an enquiry conducted by the executive council which conditions indicate that the teaching is below par or the interests of the university or the college and the teachers or students are clearly affected. the principal of a college by virtue of his position becomes the member of the highest decision-making bodies of the university like the university court, executive council and academic council.mukul mudgal, j.1. this writ petition filed by the shyam lal college which is a constituent college of the delhi university challenges the constitutional validity of clause 7(2) of the ordinance xviii made under the delhi university act, 1922(hereinafter referred to as `the act') in exercise of the powers under section 30 of the said act read with the amendment approved by executive council (e.c.) of the delhi university, respondent no. 1 dated 10th february, 2004 and statute 30(1)(d) set out in the schedule under section 29(1) of the act and also seeks to quash the communications dated 10th february, 2004; 11th february, 2004; 9th july, 2004; 20th july, 2004 and 17th august, 2004 issued by the respondents.2. the learned counsel for the petitioner in the first instance was heard first on the question of validity of clause 7(2) of the ordinance xviii issued by the delhi university and the validity of statute 30(1)(d). the said clause 7 reads as follows:7. (1) the appointment of the principal and other members of the teaching staff shall be made after advertisement.the principal should, in addition to his duties, as principal, be also required to undertake some teaching work in the college, or the university.(2) the appointment of the principal shall be made by the governing body of the college on the recommendation of the selection committee consisting of the chairman of the governing body, two representatives of the university on the governing body, one expert nominated by the academic council for the purpose and two members of the governing body nominated by it, 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 governing body a list of persons mentioned in the order of preference whom the university would be prepared to recognize 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.provided that where in the opinion of the vice-chancellor, emergency action is called for or where in his opinion, it would be unnecessary to adopt the procedure prescribed in (b) and (c) above, the vice-chancellor may indicate merely which of the candidates included in the list submitted by the governing body under sub-clause 2(a) of clause 7 of ordinance xviii, will not be acceptable to the university, briefly indicating ground for the decision. in such a case, the governing body will be free to appoint any person from any of the candidates against whom no such disapproval has been indicated.3. the statute 30 (1) (d) as set out in the schedule under section 29(1) of the act which is relevant for the purpose of the determination of the issues raised in this writ petition reads as follows:30 (1)(d) the executive council may, if it is satisfied, after such inquiry as it may think fit to make, that:(a) the affairs of such college or institution are being managed in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the university or of such college or institution or of the teachers or students thereof; or(b) teaching is being conducted in such college or institution in a manner prejudicial to the standards of teaching in the university or any other activity of the university or to public interest.appoint to the regularly constituted governing body of such college or institution such number of additional members, not being more than one-half of the total number of members of the governing body, and for such period as it may think fit but not exceeding three years on any one occasion:provided that the person appointed as an additional member on the regularly constituted governing body of a college or institution shall, notwithstanding the expiry of the terms of office of the members of the regularly constituted governing body, hold office as additional member of such governing body for the period specified in the order appointing him as such member but any such additional may be recalled from his office as such at any time by the executive council and any other person may be appointed in his place to fill the vacancy caused by such recall.4. the brief facts of this case are as follows:(a) in the year 1922 the delhi university act, 1922(hereinafter referred to as the `act') came into force and in exercise of the power under section 30 of the act the impugned clause 7 of the ordinance was framed.(b) on 29th may, 1964 late shri padmashri shyam lal gupta founded the petitioner college(c) on 1st january, 1999 dr. r.k. sharma who has been a lecturer/professor in the petitioner college since 1967 was appointed as the officiating principal of the college.(d) on 8th december, 2000 an advertisement was published in newspaper by the petitioner college inviting applications to the post of the principal.(e) on 8th april, 2003, 12 candidates appeared for the interview out of the 17 selected candidates. since there was a division of votes cast by the members of the selection committee which held its meeting for recommending appointment to the post of principal in the petitioner college, the chairman of the committee used his casting vote in favor of dr. r.k. sharma.(f) on 9th april, 2003 the governing body unanimously resolved to accept the majority recommendation of the selection committee and forwarded dr. r.k. sharma's name to the university for appointment as principal in accordance with clause 7(2) of the ordinance xviii.(g) on 16th april, 2003 the petitioner college request the respondent no. 2 to approve the proposal of the governing body recommending the appointment of dr. r.k. sharma. since no response was sent by the university, on 14th may, 2003 a reminder was sent by the university to the respondent no. 1 requesting for an early action.(h) on 15th may, 2003 the university informed the petitioner college that appointment of dr. r.k. sharma had not been approved by the competent authority. on 19th may, 2003 the petitioner college asked the respondent no. 2 to clearly mention as to who the competent authority was who did not approve the appointment.(i) on 13th june, 2003 the petitioner received a letter from deputy registrar (colleges) stating that the appointment of dr. r.k. sharma was not approved because the due procedure had not been followed in recommending his name and the petitioner college was again directed to readvertise the post of the principal which was done by the petitioner college on 17th august, 2003.(j) on 29th august, 2003 dr. r.k. sharma preferred a writ petition no. 5923 of 2003 in this court inter alias seeking a direction to quash the decision dated 15th may, 2003 and 13th june, 2003. the writ petition was allowed by this court which quashed the communications dated 13th june, 2003 and the advertisement dated 17th september, 2003. the court also issued mandamus directing the university to place the recommendation of the governing body of the college before the selection committee.(k) on 1st july, 2004 the petitioner college was informed about the meeting of the selection committee to be held on 8th july, 2004 on 9th july, 2004 the respondent no. 2 communicated to the petitioner college that the selection committee had once again directed the petitioner college for readvertising the post of the principal.(l) on 14th july, 2004 the petitioner college requested the respondent no. 2 to supply the minutes of the meeting dated 8th july, 2004 of the selection committee which request was rejected by the respondent no. 3 vide communication dated 20th july, 2004(m) on 17th august, 2004 the respondent no. 2 directed the petitioner college to re-advertise the post of the principal.(n) on 31st august, 2004 the petitioners preferred the present writ petition against the order dated 9th july, 2004; 20th july, 2004 and 17th august, 2004 of the respondents.5. the main dispute in this writ petition arises from the appointment of a principal sought to be made by the governing body of the college and challenge inter alias has been made to the selection committee comprising the experts nominated by the academic council of the delhi university and two members of the governing body.6. the appointment of the principal is required to be made by the selection committee which comprises of:(a) chairman of the governing body;(b) two representatives of the university on the governing body;(c) one expert nominated by the academic council of the university; and(d) two members of the governing body nominated by it.7. it is also required that the governing body shall submit to the university a list of persons who applied for the post of principal as well as other persons who may not have applied but whose names the governing body might desire to consider and the final selection is required to be made by a selection committee comprising of (a) vice chancellor (b) pro-vice-chancellor (c) a nominee of the visitor (d) chairman of the governing body of the college concerned; and (e) two members of the executive council, nominated by it.8. the said clause 7(2) was eventually modified on 10th february, 2004 and nominees to the selection committee for the post of principal of an affiliated college of the delhi university now consists of the following:1. chairperson of the governing body as chairperson.2. one member of the governing body to be nominated by the chairperson.3. two vice-chancellor's nominees, out of whom one should be an expert.4. three experts consisting of the principal of the college, a professor and an accomplished educationist not below the rank of a professor (to be nominated by the governing body) out of the panel of experts approved by the vice- chancellor.the validity of the above clause 7(2) of ordinance xviii has been challenged in the present writ petition.9. the main challenge raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, mr. m.l. lahoty is that the right to administer the college is taken away by denying the management of the college any effective and meaningful say in the appointment of principal of a college. it is submitted that the principal is a vital pillar of the administration of a college and to deny a constituent college of the delhi university, a right to select its own principal runs contrary to the mandate of law laid down by the hon'ble supreme court in t.m.a. pai foundation and ors. v. state of karnataka and ors. reported as : air2003sc355 and brahmo samaj education society and ors. v. state of west bengal and ors. reported as : (2004)6scc224 . the challenge thus in essence is to the validity of amendment to clause 7(2) of ordinance xviii and statute 30(1)(d) as set out in the schedule made under section 29(1) of the act as ultra virus of the constitution of india.10. the learned counsel for the petitioner, shri lahoty has placed strong reliance upon the judgment of the hon'ble supreme court in tma pai foundation's case (supra) and in particular paras 71 and 72 of the said judgment. the said paras 71 and 72 of the tma pai foundation's case (supra) reads as follows:71. while giving aid to professional institutions, it would be permissible for the authority giving aid to prescribe by rules or regulations, the conditions on the basis of which admission will be granted to different aided colleges by virtue of merit, coupled with the reservation policy of the state. the merit may be determined either through a common entrance test conducted by the university or the government followed by counselling, or on the basis of an entrance test conducted by individual institutions __ the method to be followed is for the university or the government to decide. the authority may also devise other means to ensure that admission is granted to an aided professional institution on the basis of merit. in the case of such institutions, it will be permissible for the government or the university to provide that consideration should be shown to the weaker sections of the society.72. once aid is granted to a private professional institution, the government or the state agency, as a condition of the grant of aid, can put fetters on the freedom in the matter of administration and management of the institution. the state, which gives aid to an educational institution, can impose such conditions as are necessary for the proper maintenance of the high standards of education as the financial burden is shared by the state. the state would also be under an obligation to protect the interest of the teaching and non-teaching staff. in many states, there are various statutory provisions to regulate the functioning of such educational institutions where the states give, as a grant or aid, a substantial proportion of the revenue expenditure including salary, pay and allowances of teaching and non-teaching staff. it would be its responsibility to ensure that the teachers working in those institutions are governed by proper service conditions. the state, in the case of such aided institutions, has ample power to regulate the method of selection and appointment of teachers after prescribing requisite qualifications for the same. ever since in re, kerala education bill air 1958 sc 956 this court has upheld, in the case of aided institutions, those regulations that served the interests of students and teachers. checks on the administration may be necessary in order to ensure that the administration is efficient and sound and will serve the academic needs of the institutions. in other words, rules and regulations that promote good administration and prevent maladministration can be formulated so as to promote the efficiency of teachers, discipline and fairness in administration and to preserve harmony among affiliated institutions. at the same time it has to be ensured that even an aided institution does not become a government-owned and controlled institution. normally, the aid that is granted is relatable to the pay and allowances of the teaching staff. in addition, the management of the private aid institutions has to incur revenue and capital expenses. such aided institutions cannot obtain that extent of autonomy in relation to management and administration as would be available to a private unaided institution, but at the same time, it cannot also be treated as an educational institution departmentally run by government or as a wholly owned and controlled government institution and interfere with constitution of the governing bodies or thrusting the staff without reference to management.11. reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the hon'ble supreme court in brahmo samaj education society's case (supra) and in particular paras 2 and 7 which read as follows:. the state of west bengal passed the west bengal college teachers (security of service) act, 1975 (the security of service act) and the west bengal college service commission act, 1978 (the college service commission act). the latter mainly provides for the constitution of a college service commission in west bengal. vide section 7 of the college service commission act, the commission is vested with the duty to select persons for appointment to the post of teachers of a college; by virtue of which, the power of appointment of a teacher in a college or institution affiliated to a university in west bengal became vested in the government-appointed college service commission. pursuant to the college service commission act, the west bengal college service commission (manner of selection of persons for appointment to the posts of teachers including principals) regulations, 1980 were also made. appointments of teachers were made under this scheme thereafter....7. but that control cannot extend to the day-to-day administration of the institution. it is categorically stated in t.m.a. pai v. state of karnataka : air2003sc355 that the state can regulate the method of selection and appointment of teachers after prescribing requisite qualification for the same. independence for the selection of teachers among the qualified candidates is fundamental to the maintenance of the academic and administrative autonomy of an aided institution. the state can very well provide the basic qualification for teachers. under the university grants commission act, 1956, the university grants commission (ugc) had laid down qualifications to a teaching post in a university by passing regulations. as per these regulations ugc conducts national eligibility test (net) for determining teaching eligibility of candidates. ugc has also authorised accredited states to conduct state-level eligibility test (slet). only a person who has qualified net or slet will be eligible for appointment as a teacher in an aided institution. this is the required basic qualification for a teacher. the petitioner's right to administer includes the right to appoint teachers of their choice among the net-/slet-qualified candidates.12. the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the statute 30 (1) (d) is ultra virus of the constitution of india as it violates the right guaranteed under article 19(1)(g) to run the administration of the college, by denying the petitioner college, the right to choose the principal of their choice. he has further submitted that the judgment in tma pai foundation's case (supra) construes the construction of 'occupation' to cover both establishment as well as management and administration of educational educational institutions.13. clause 7 (2) of the ordinance xviii was framed in exercise of the powers under section 30 of the said act. section 30 of the act reads as follows:30.ordinances.__subject to the provisions of this act and the statutes, the ordinances may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely _.(f) the conduct of examinations, including the terms of office, and manner of appointment and the duties of examining bodies, examiners and moderators....(k) the emoluments and the terms and conditions of service of teachers of the university;(l) the management of colleges and other institutions founded or maintained by the university;(m) the supervision and inspection of colleges and other institutions admitted to privileges of the university; and(n) all other matters which by this act or the statutes are to be or may be provided for by the ordinances.14. the learned counsel for the respondent shri a.k. nigam has submitted as follows:(a) the delhi university act, 1922 gives power to the university to frame statutes and ordinances on being affiliated to the university and on being admitted to the privileges of the university, a college is fully bound by the university act, ordinances, statutes, rules and regulations.(b) the right guaranteed under article 19(1)(g) of the constitution is not an absolute right but is regulated by article 19(6) of the constitution which provides for reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public. any step aimed at preventing maladministration in the college is, thereforee, fully protected by the article 19(6) of the constitution. thereforee, the petitioner's contention that ordinance xviii (7) is vocative of article 19(1)(g) of the constitution of india cannot be sustained.(c) ordinance xviii (7) of the act is regulatory in nature and does not in any manner divest the petitioner from its rights and privileges because of the following reasons:(i) it provides for selection of principal after an advertisement is issued in the newspapers and is thereforee in consonance with article 14 of the constitution.(ii) the representation by the university is limited to only two nominees by the vice-chancellor.(iii) the governing body of the college has a substantial representation and say in the selection to the post of the principal. further the governing body is represented by the principal and another member of the governing body. three experts are also required to be selected by the governing body out of the panel of experts approved by the vice-chancellor.(iv) members of the selection committee are experts in the field, principal of a college and persons of the rank of a professor so as to ensure that the selection is fair and proper.(v) the list submitted by the governing body is considered by a committee consisted of vice-chancellor, pro-vice-chancellor, a nominee of the visitor, the chairman of the governing body of the college, and two members of the executive council of the university nominated by it.(vi) the vice-chancellor, who is the chief executive officer of the university has been entrusted with wide powers by the statute and the ordinances to act in situations of emergency. since such wide powers have been entrusted by the statutes and ordinances, the same cannot be said to be mala fide exercise of power by the vice-chancellor.(vii) the university never forces the college to appoint a principal of its choice. it selects a suitable candidate for the post of the principal only from the panel of the candidates submitted by the governing body of the college.(d) as per statutes 2, 5 and 7 when a person is appointed as principal of a college he gets a right to be a member of the university court, executive council and academic council respectively, which are the highest decision making bodies of the university. thereforee, the university has rightly been conferred the power of prior scrutiny before a person is appointed as principal of the college since he would participate in the decision-making process of the university.(e) statute 30(1)(d) which empowers the university to nominate additional members to the governing body of a college, if on an enquiry instituted by the executive council of the university, it is satisfied that the affairs of the college are being managed in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the university or the college, is constitutional because of the following reasons:(i) statute 30(1)(d) has been enacted in public interest and for maintaining standards in all the educational institutions affiliated to the university hence it is protected by article 19(6) of the constitution.(ii) statute 30(1)(d) does not in any way interferes with the day-to-day management of the college but is to be invoked only in the special circumstances prescribed by the statute.(iii) similar provisions exist under section 397 to 402 of the companies act, 1956 wherein the company law board is empowered to appoint an additional director in the company in case there is mismanagement in the said company.(iv) it would be wrong to interpret statute 30(1)(d) as taking over the management of the college because the additional members added to the governing body are not more than one half of the total members of the governing body.(f) the petitioner college is an aided non-minority institution and the aid provided to the college is up to the extent of 95 per cent grant for the morning shift while the evening shift is entirely aided/funded by the university grants commission. in view of the position of law laid down by the hon'ble supreme court in tma pai foundation's case (supra) that the extent of control and regulation in so far as an aided institution is concerned, the same would be larger than in the case of non-aided, non-minority institution.(g) the facts in brahmo samaj education society's case (supra) are not applicable to the present case though even in the said case the principle laid down in tma pai foundation's case (supra) has been reiterated and followed.15. in our view in so far as the challenge to clause 7 (2) of the ordinance xviii is concerned, the plea of the petitioner relating to the constitutional validity is flawed for two reasons:(i) the nomination of the experts was done by the university who were independent experts in the field of academics from the list of experts framed by the vice chancellor. such experts thus cannot be said to be interested parties affecting the choice of the college.(ii) the experts are chosen on the basis of their sound academic credentials and it cannot be said that the said experts are in any way compromising the right of choice of the college. the first selection committee for the post of the principal consists of a chairperson of the governing body who is also the chairperson of the selection committee, one member of the governing body to be nominated by the chairperson, two nominees of the vice- chancellor out of whom one should be an expert and three experts consisting of the principal of the college, a professor and an accomplished educationist not below the rank of a professor to be nominated by the governing body out of the panel of experts approved by the vice-chancellor.16. thus, it is clear that by virtue of clause 7(2) of the ordinance xviii, the committee of 7 members for the appointment to the post of principal of a college affiliated to the delhi university, comprises of 4 such members in whose nomination to the selection committee, the governing body has a decisive role to play. in other words, the chairperson of the governing body who is also the chairperson of the selection committee and 3 experts consisting of a principal of the college, a professor and an educationist not below the rank of a professor are nominated by the governing body of the college out of a panel of experts approved by the vice-chancellor. thus, the governing body does have primacy in the selection of the principal. in this view of the matter the absolute right of selection of the principal as canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, even if it be assumed to exist, cannot in any event said to be diluted materially by operation of clause 7(2) of the ordinance xviii. a member of the selection committee who is an expert in the subject chosen by the governing body cannot be said to be a party hostile to the petitioner college. further the original clause 7(2) of the ordinance xviii provided for nomination of two members by the governing body whereas the amended clause 7(2) of the ordinance xviii provides for three experts to be nominated by the governing body out of the panel of experts approved by the vice-chancellor. this clearly shows the increasing importance of the governing body in appointment of the principal of the college.17. mr. lahoty has further submitted that even if it be assumed that the governing body had primacy in the selection of principal, nevertheless by the very fact that the said list needed the approval of a second selection committee where the governing body at the college had only one member, namely, the chairman, the right to administer the college in fact stands severely affected.18. we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner because it cannot be said that a vice chancellor, pro-chancellor and a nominee of the visitor(the president of india) who could be said to be persons inherently biased against the petitioner college in any manner. the members of the executive council of delhi university are also wholly independent members and academicians of repute. the constitution of the selection committee is necessary so as to ensure the excellence of education required to be maintained in the constituent colleges of the delhi university. when colleges seek affiliation to a university of repute and standing such as the delhi university, the process of approval by the selection committee, which comprises of the senior academicians of the delhi university, cannot be in any manner said to infringe the right of administration, as the very stature of the constituents of such high level selection committee which approves the recommendations of the original selection committee clearly put it beyond the pale of bias or incompetence. a university is entitled to ensure that only the best are selected as principal of its constituent colleges. thus if it is assumed that the second selection committee which approves/disapproves the nominations of the first selection committee where the governing body of the college clearly has a larger say, such a procedure, cannot be said to in any manner affect the administration of the college.19. in our view even if it is held that there is some restriction on the right to administer a college as averred by the petitioner, such restriction is covered under the provisions of article 19(6) of the constitution. furthermore we cannot uphold the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the delhi university can be equated with the concept of `state' as referred to in the above judgments of the hon'ble supreme court in tma pai foundation's case (supra) and brahmo samaj education society's case (supra). while the delhi university may be an authority under article 12 of the constitution which is amenable to the exercise of the writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution, it cannot be equated with `state'. the reference to `state' in tma pai foundation's case (supra) and brahmo samaj education society's case (supra) clearly adverts to the state/central government. the delhi university is a central university constituted under a central statute. the very constitution of the delhi university shows its independent character. the president of india is the visitor of the delhi university [section 7-a(1) of the act]. the chief justice of the supreme court of india is the pro- chancellor of the university (statute 11-d). the vice-president of india is the chancellor of the university (statute 11-b). even in the selection of the vice chancellor of the delhi university, the president of india has a role to play. the vice-chancellor of the delhi university is appointed by the president from a panel of not less than 3 persons selected by a committee [statute 11- f(1)]. the committee consists of three persons two of whom are persons not connected with the university or a recognised college or institution nominated by the executive council and one person nominated by the visitor. the visitor appoints one of three three persons to be the chairman of the committee [statute 11-f(2)]. this, clearly shows that the vice-chancellor of the delhi university is an independent academician of repute. thus the vice-chancellor and the pro-vice-chancellor cannot be in any event said to be the persons inimical/hostile to the governing body of a college.20. in so far as the challenge to statute 30 (1) (d) set out in the schedule under section 29(1) of the act is concerned, which statute gives the power to appoint additional members of the governing body, that also must fail because (a) the additional member on the governing body are appointed after an enquiry by the executive council of the delhi university which comprises of reputed academicians. (b) appointments of additional members is made after the satisfaction of the executive council that the affairs of the college are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the(i) university(ii) the college(iii) students/teacher or on the basis that the teaching in the college is being conducted in a manner prejudicial to the standards of teaching in the university or any other activity of the university or to public interest. further the appointment cannot be of more than one half of the total members of the governing council and for periods not exceeding 3 years on any occasion.21. this emergent power to appoint additional members of the governing council which power is regulated and exercisable for a period not exceeding 3 years is only exercisable under certain specified conditions found to exist upon an enquiry conducted by the executive council which conditions indicate that the teaching is below par or the interests of the university or the college and the teachers or students are clearly affected. not only is the enquiry required to be ordered by the executive council, but such additional members of the governing council are appointed only after the perusal of the enquiry report by the executive council and its satisfaction that the affairs of the college are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the university. thereforee, there is no merit in the plea of the petitioner that the statute 30(1)(d) is vocative of article 19(1)(g) of the constitution as the appointment of additional members to the regularly constituted governing body of a college or institution is done by the executive council to maintain the educational standards of the college and the university. thus statute 30(1)(d) is in public interest and is protected by article 19(6) of the constitution.22. the learned counsel for the petitioner, shri lahoty had also relied upon the position of law laid down by the hon'ble supreme court in tma pai foundation's case (supra) to contend that to deny a college a right to select its own principal is contrary to the mandate of law laid down in tma pai foundation's case (supra) and brahmo samaj's case (supra). however, we are unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. the position of law laid down in tma pai foundation's case (supra) in fact does not help the petitioner but reinforces the view that an authority giving financial aid to an educational institution has a right to prescribe rules and regulations to maintain the standards of education in such educational institutions. para 72 of the judgment in tma pai's case (supra) is relevant and lays down the following position of law:72... the state, which gives aid to an educational institution, can impose such conditions as are necessary for the proper maintenance of the high standards of education as the financial burden is shared by the state.....in many states, there are various statutory provisions to regulate the functioning of such educational institutions where the states give, as a grant or aid, a substantial proportion of the revenue expenditure including salary, pay and allowances of teaching and non-teaching staff.23. the learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the position of law laid down in paras 2 and 7 of the brahmo samaj's case (supra) wherein it was held that the independence of the selection of teachers among the qualified candidates is fundamental to the maintenance of academic and administrative autonomy of an aided institution. however, in the present case the issue is not of the appointment of regular college teachers but of a prestigious and responsible position of a principal of a college on whose shoulders the future of the college and indeed the reputation of delhi university rests. the principal of a college by virtue of his position becomes the member of the highest decision-making bodies of the university like the university court, executive council and academic council. thus his position cannot be equated with the regular teachers and thereforee the clause 7(2) of the ordinance xviii by prescribing the criteria of appointment of the principal the university does not in any appreciable manner affect the day-to-day administration of the college. consequently brahmo samaj's judgment (supra) relating to appointment of teachers cannot support the plea of the petitioner as a principal's position by virtue of rights he gets to participate in important decision-making processes of the delhi university is pivotal and cannot be equated ipso facto with that of the teachers.24. thus the challenges to the validity of clause 7(2) of the ordinance xviii made under the act in exercise of the powers under section 30 of the said act and statute 30 (1)(d) in the schedule under section 29(1) of the act have no merit and are rejected.