Dr. A.N. Jha vs. University of Delhi: Appointment of Vice-Principal Case

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on the case involving Dr. A.N. Jha and the University of Delhi regarding the appointment of a Vice-Principal. The judgment sheds light on the rights and responsibilities of both parties in this legal matter. Stay tuned to learn more about the implications of this significant decision. #SupremeCourt #LegalCase #UniversityOfDelhi #DrANJha


  • The University of Delhi declined approval for the appointment of Vice-Principal
  • Communication seeking approval was sent to the University of Delhi on 28.12.2015
  • Leave granted to proceed with the legal proceedings
  • Division Bench upheld the order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeals.
  • Reason for non-approval of appointment held unjustified by the Single Judge.
  • University declined approval citing issues with appointment process and lack of prior approval for Vice-Principal selection.
  • Single Judge found non-approval unjustified as it did not state lack of fit or eligibility criteria.
  • Single Judge allowed the writ petition after detailed consideration.
  • Division Bench noted Clause 7(3) of Ordinance XVIII, stating no bar to appoint a Vice-Principal in the absence of a regular Principal.

Also Read: Solapur Municipal Corporation vs. Majarewadi Gram Panchayat Employees


  • Dr. A.N. Jha, the petitioner in the case, sought approval from the University for his appointment as Vice-Principal.
  • The Governing Body of the College recommended the senior most eligible teacher, Dr. Prakash Vir Khatri, to act as the Principal.
  • The appointments made to the post of Vice-Principal in the past had mostly received approval post facto.
  • The University formed a committee to inquire if the College Governing Body was managing affairs in accordance with the University’s regulations.
  • Dr. A.N. Jha, even if appointed as the Vice-Principal, was not eligible to act as the Principal.
  • The College did not appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge, which directed the University to grant approval for Dr. A.N. Jha’s appointment as Vice-Principal.
  • The High Court concluded that the vacancy of a regular Principal does not bar the filling of the Vice-Principal position, as per Ordinance XVIII.
  • The respondent argues that the appeals should be dismissed.
  • It is contended that there are no substantial questions of law involved in the appeals.
  • The respondent believes that the lower courts have correctly interpreted and applied the law.
  • There is a lack of merit in the appeals according to the respondent.

Also Read: Vaishali Wadhwani and Mamta Mishra vs. MPPSC: Upholding Justice and Integrity in Recruitment Processes


  • The factual matrix indicated the Governing Body’s resolution to appoint Dr. A.N. Jha as Vice-Principal dated 29.12.2015.
  • The University rejected the approval request in a communication dated 13.01.2016, which was challenged by Dr. A.N. Jha.
  • The rejection based on lack of prior approval was deemed unjustified as Dr. A.N. Jha was found suitable and not ineligible.
  • The High Court upheld Dr. A.N. Jha’s right to be appointed as Vice-Principal.
  • The subsequent resolution by the Governing Body on 29.02.2016 seemed like an attempt to prevent Dr. A.N. Jha from acting as Principal.
  • If the appellants fail to appoint a regular Principal and the post remains vacant, Dr. A.N. Jha should be allowed to act as Vice-Principal.
  • The conclusion reached by the High Court is justified based on various aspects considered.
  • The apprehension that the Vice-Principal, if acting as Principal, would hinder the appointment of a regular Principal is unfounded.
  • The High Court’s decision does not warrant interference given the circumstances at hand.

Also Read: Jagdishchandra v. Joint Charity Commissioner & Ors.


  • All pending applications shall stand disposed of.
  • The right to act as regular Vice-Principal will accrue to Dr. A.N. Jha if no steps are taken to appoint a regular Principal.
  • The appeals have been dismissed with no order as to costs.
  • It was desired that the appointment of regular Principal be made within two months.
  • Dr. Prakash Vir Khatri will continue as the acting Principal.
  • Dr. A.N. Jha will continue as the acting Vice-Principal.
  • The appellants are obligated to take necessary action for the appointment of regular Principal.
  • The period given for the appointment of regular Principal should not be curtailed in favor of Dr. A.N. Jha at this stage.
  • The interest of the Institution remains the primary concern.
  • The benefits available under Regulation 7(3) will be considered but not allowed at this stage to ensure the Institution’s interests.


Case Number: C.A. No.-000580-000580 / 2020

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *