J. K. Mehra, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed by the petitioner, who at present is employed with the respondent No. 1 as Reader and has impugned the selection to the Office of Principal -Incharge of evening college mainly on the ground that the Selection Committee, which had interviewed all the candidates and selected the present incumbent of that office, was not properly constituted inasmuch as the Member Secretary, i. e. ; the Principal Mr. Ratnakar Pandcy was not qualified to be there as on the material date had already been nominated a Member of Rajya Sabha of Parliament. University Grants. Commission (UGC) had recommended which was accepted by Delhi University, that a teacher of a college who is elected or nominated to the Parliament should not hold any administrative position in the college during, the period they are members of Parliament. ( 2 ) THE relevant extract of Resolution No. 638 is reproduced below:- "the University Grants Commission had referred this question earlier to its Advisory Committee of Vice-Chancellors and the commission after considering the advice of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors had expressed the view that "the teachers who are either elected or nominated to the Parliament /state Legislatures may not be required to resign their academic position or to take long leave during the tenure of their membership. In order that the teaching work may not suffer, the University may consider prescribing the minimum number of days that such teachers should be available for their academic, teaching and the research work in the University. Such teachers should not hold any administrative position/responsibilities in the University or College during the period they arc members of Parliament /legislature. " ( 3 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner has referred to the University Calender to point out that the Executive Council is the Chief Executive Body of the University and it had accepted the recommendations of UGC. The petitioner says that this was a solitary restriction placed on all those, who were nominated/elected as Members of Parliament because UGC never wanted the interest of the students to be compromised with the other activities of the teachers. He has referred to Statutes 11 G and 12 of this Calender and Ordinance 18 (7) (ii ). The petitioner says that this was a solitary restriction placed on all those, who were nominated/elected as Members of Parliament because UGC never wanted the interest of the students to be compromised with the other activities of the teachers. He has referred to Statutes 11 G and 12 of this Calender and Ordinance 18 (7) (ii ). It may be pointed out here that apart from the above objection, the petitioner has not raised any other plea of malafides or even bias of the said Principal Mr. Ratnakar Pandey against the petitioner. The petitioner has pointed out that not only the Principal was not competent to act on 3. 3. 1992, but even the meeting of the Governing Body, which was convened and wherein two members of the Governing Body were nominated on the Selection Committee could not have been so nominated because their nomination was influenced by respondent No. 3, Principal and as such, they were also not competent to act. The meeting of the Governing Body held on 3. 3. 1992 was attended by the following:- 1. Shri J. Veeraraghavan 2. Shri R. M. Vatsa 3. Prof. Yogendra Singh 4. Dr. Abhishek Singhvi 5. Ms. Shovana Narayan 6. Prof. B. K. Sawhney 7. Prof. R. Vasudevan 8. Prof. G. C. Trigunayat 9. Dr. Ratnakar Pandey, Principal and Member Secy. 10. Dr. R. S. Saini, Offg. Vice-Principal and Incharge, Eve. Classes 11. Shri O. P. Sehgal 12. Dr. (Mrs.) P. L. Sharma 13. Dr. J. P. Mishra 14. Shri R. K. Malhotra ( 4 ) IN that meeting, held on 3. 3. 1992, they constituted the following as the Selection Committee for the appointment of a Vice-Principal and Incharge, Evening Classes. The relevant resolution reads as under:- "resolved that a meeting of the Selection Committee, be convened on 22. 3. 92 at 10 A. M. in the College and the interview letters be sent to the candidates who have applied for the post of Vice-Principal and Incharge Evening Classes. Further the Governing Body elected the following on the Selection Committee. 1. Shri J. Veeraraghavan, Chairman, Governing Body in the chair 2. Ms. Shovana Narayan, Treasurer, Governing Body 3. Dr. Abhishek Singhvi, Member, Governing Body 4. Professor K. R. G. Nair, Nominee of the Academic Council, University of Delhi 5. Professor G. C. Trigunayat, University representative on the Governing Body 6. 1. Shri J. Veeraraghavan, Chairman, Governing Body in the chair 2. Ms. Shovana Narayan, Treasurer, Governing Body 3. Dr. Abhishek Singhvi, Member, Governing Body 4. Professor K. R. G. Nair, Nominee of the Academic Council, University of Delhi 5. Professor G. C. Trigunayat, University representative on the Governing Body 6. Professor R. Vasudevan, University representative on the Governing Body 7. Dr. Ratnakar Pandey, Principal, Motilal Nehru College. ( 5 ) FURTHER the Principal was requested to write to the University for one member to be nominated by the Academic Council on the Selection Committee. " ( 6 ) ON that very date, the Governing Body also passed two more resolutions being Resolution Nos. 3a and 3b,which read as under :- "3a. Appointment of Permanent Vice Principal ( 7 ) THE GB authorised the chairman to initiate the process for appointment of a permanent Vice-Principal of the College (M) as per the rules of Delhi University. 3b. Civil writ Petition No. 701/91 filed by Dr. Ratnakar Pandey ( 8 ) THE Governing Body authorised the chairman to request the Vice-Chancellor or Delhi University that the standing counsel of the University may represent the GB also since the stand of the University and the GB is identical in the matter. " ( 9 ) THE said Selection Committee had called 25 persons for interview, but actually only 12 including the petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee. The said Selection Committee, after interview, selected a panel of following 3 persons in order of their respective merit. 1. Dr. Suresh C. Sharma 2. Mr. Ramendra K. Mithal 3. Dr. Lalit Shulda ( 10 ) RULE nisi was issued in this case on 23. 07. 1975. The respondents appeared and duly filed their counter-affidavit wherein they had taken preliminary objections challenging various allegations. They have pointed out that the petitioner was one of the applicants for the said post and participated in the selection process and appeared for interview without any demur or protest or reservation. Until the selection was completed and for a considerable time thereafter he did not raise any objection to the constitution of the said selection committee and has challenged such selection only after he failed to be selected. They have further pointed out that another Selection Committee whereof the same Dr. Until the selection was completed and for a considerable time thereafter he did not raise any objection to the constitution of the said selection committee and has challenged such selection only after he failed to be selected. They have further pointed out that another Selection Committee whereof the same Dr. Ratnakar Pandey was one of the members though be had already been nominated as a Member of Parliament, had on 23. 3. 1991, among others selected the petitioner for designating him in Reader s grade as Reader in the Department of Economics. But the petitioner, who had benefitted from the said action of the said Selection Committee, never impugned the constitution of such committee on the ground of ineligibility of Dr. Ratnakar Pandey. They have further pointed out that the said petitioner had a long history of litigations that he has been initiating against the college or fellow teachers or other members of the staff from time to time and a list of such litigations nu mbering 15 has also been annexed to the counter-affidavit. It is further pointed out that the Governing Body wanted to implement the recommendations of UGC and required the Principal to proceed on leave when Dr. Ratnakar Pandey approached this Court vide Civil Writ Petition No. 701 of 1991 and obtained a stay to the following effect:- "in the meantime, no effect will be given to any resolution or decision taken by-a meeting scheduled to be held today at the residence of respondent No. 4. " (Respondent No. 4 in that case was Air Martial (Retired) M. L. Sethi, hairman of the Governing Body ). ( 11 ) IT was in the light of this order of the Court that Resolution 3b quoted hereinabove, was passed and that the college authorities did not want to violate in any manner or commit any breach of the said order even remotely and it was in that light that Dr. Ratnakar Pandey continued to be Member of the Selection Committee. Furthermore, it is pointed out that the Selection Committee was appointed by the Governing Body and both Dr. Abhishek Singhvi and Ms. Shovana Narayan were members of the Governing Body and were unanimously appointed members of the Selection Committee by the Governing Body. Others were the. nominees of the University and the Academic Council. Furthermore, it is pointed out that the Selection Committee was appointed by the Governing Body and both Dr. Abhishek Singhvi and Ms. Shovana Narayan were members of the Governing Body and were unanimously appointed members of the Selection Committee by the Governing Body. Others were the. nominees of the University and the Academic Council. Another fact, which has been brought to my notice is that the petitioner instituted this action only after being served with a show cause notice for his alleged misconduct inasmuch as he being a teacher (Reader) in the evening college had taken unauthorisedly admission in the evening law college, which means that his attending at the law centre would directly interfere with the discharge of his duties as a teacher. The present action, according to the respondents, has been instituted primarily as a counter blast to the said show cause and to divert the attention of the authorities from the said disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. It is further pointed out that the petitioner had earlier taken advantage of his appointment/designation as Reader by a Selection Committee of which Dr. Ratnakar Pandey was a member and even at that lime, he was a Member of Parliament. Mr. Luthra submitted that having participated without any demur or protest or reservation in the selection process for the Vice-Principal and Incharge, evening college before the Selection Committee of which Dr. Ratnakar Pandey was a member, it was not open to him to challenge the constitution of such Selection Committee on the sole ground of Dr. Ratnakar Pandey being a Member of Parliament and as such, he should not have participated in any administrative matter. It is contended that the petitioner, in the circumstances, is estopped from challenging Dr. Pandey s appointment at such a late stage and the objection, if any, should be deemed to have been waived. ( 12 ) THE petitioner has referred to a number of authorities in support of his contention that if a thing is required by law to be done in a particular way, then it has to be done in that way only and no amount of inconvenience or serious consequences resulting therefrom should stand in the way of the Court by such action. The rulings relied upon by the petitioner are a Division Bench judgement delivered in the case of R. P. Sharma Vs. Vice-Chairman, DDA and Anr. The rulings relied upon by the petitioner are a Division Bench judgement delivered in the case of R. P. Sharma Vs. Vice-Chairman, DDA and Anr. and in C. W. P. No. 2402/91 decided on 23. 9. 1993 by a Division Bench of this Court comprising Justice D. P. Wadhwa and Justice Vijender Jam. But the said rulings do not support the case of the petitioner at all. because in the first place, the resolution of UGC was in the nature of recommendation. The resolution of the University adopting the recommendations reads as under:- "kindly refer to Commission s d. o. letter of even number dated September 10, 1974 (copy enclosed) regarding election/nomination of teachers to the Parliament/state Legislature. ( 13 ) THE Programme of Action on National Policy on Education under Para 7 (iv) on page 74 states as under: ". . . . . . TEACHERS who are elected/nominated to Parliament or State Legislature will be required to take leave of absence during their term as Member. However, in this process they will not be losing their seniority or increments". The above provision in the "programme of Action" (NEP) is brought to the notice of the University for appropriate action and guidance. We shall be grateful if the action taken in this regard is intimated to the UGC at an early date. With regards. " ( 14 ) THE aforesaid decision of the University of Delhi also does not mention that the teacher so nominated or elected would cease to be a teacher or member even before proceeding on leave, but it only provides that such teachers shall take leave of absence during their term as Members. In the present case, however, the resolution whereby the Governing Body was to ask Dr. Ratnakar Pandey to take leave of absence, could not be given effect to in the light of a stay order passed by this Court in Civil Writ No. 701 of 1991 filed by Dr. Ratnakar Pandey, on account whereof theauthorities did not call upon Dr. Pandey to take leave of absence until the stay was vacated. As such, the constitution of or the actions taken by various committees whereof Dr. Ratnakar Pandey was a member and-he continued to be a member in the light of such stay order, could not be faulted. I am also unable to understand as to how nomination of Dr. Pandey to take leave of absence until the stay was vacated. As such, the constitution of or the actions taken by various committees whereof Dr. Ratnakar Pandey was a member and-he continued to be a member in the light of such stay order, could not be faulted. I am also unable to understand as to how nomination of Dr. Abhishek Singhvi and Ms. Shovana Narayan, both of whom are stated to be public figures of eminence, to the Selection Committee could be faulted because such selection was made unanimously by the Governing Body which had 14 members present and voting at the relevant meeting. Although the petitioner argued against the appointment of Ms. Shovana Narayan and Dr. Abhishek Singhvi, he did not even whisper any kind of bias on the part of any of these two against or in favour of any. other candidate. The ruling of A. K. Kraipah Vs. Union of. India, reported as AIR 1970 SC ISO is also of no avail because the Hon ble Supreme Court has laid down that natural justice is the maid consideration and bias of Selection Committee or violation of rules of natural justice can lead to vitiation of such selection. In that case, one of the members of the Selection Board was himself a candidate for selection. That was held to be the main ground of attack. There is no such situation prevailing in the present case. No arguments showing any bias or enimus against the petitioner have been advanced before me. The petitioner has also not been able to point out any other patent material irregularity in the consititution of the Selection Committee or the procedure followed for such selection or proved malafides effecting the selection. In the absence of any of these grounds, decision of the Selection Committee which also included specialists cannot be interefered with by the Court and this is the principle, which is laid down in the case of Dalpat Abasaheb Sotunke Vs. B. S. Mahajan, reported as AIR 1990 SC 434. In the case of Ishwar Chandra Vs. Stayanarain Sinha and Ors. B. S. Mahajan, reported as AIR 1990 SC 434. In the case of Ishwar Chandra Vs. Stayanarain Sinha and Ors. , reported as AIR 1972 SC 1812 , Their Lordships while construing the provisions contained in Section 13 (2) of the University of Sangar Act, 1946 repelled the contention that the Constitution of the Selection Committee for the appointment of the Vicechancellor was invalid due to the absence of one of the members concerned. It was observed:- "it is also not denied that the meeting held by two of the three members on the 4th April 1970 was legal because sufficient notice was given to all the three members. If for one reason or the other one of them could not attend, that does not make the meeting of others illegal. In such circumstances, where there is no rule or regulation or any other provision for fixing the quorum, the presence of the majority of the members would constitute it a valid meeting and matters considered threat cannot be held to be invalid. " ( 15 ) THE ratio of the decision in Om Prakash Vs. Akhilesh Kumar, reported as AIR 1986 SC 1043 would be appropriately applicable to the facts of the present case. In para 23 thereof, the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:- "moreover, this is a case where the petitioner in the writ petition should not have been granted any relief. He had appeared for the examination without protest. He filed the petition only after he had perhaps realised that he would not succeed in the examination. The High Court itself has observed that the setting aside of the results of examinations held in the other districts would cause hardship to the candidates who had appeared there. The same yardstick should have been applied to the candidates in the District of Kanpur also. " ( 16 ) A Single Bench of this Court in K. S. Jawatkar Vs. Jawahar Lal Nehru University, C. W. P. No. 573 of 1975 had to deal with a situation where persons who were not members of the Selection Committee being present as observers and after examining law on the subject held that it did not vitiate the selection in the circumstances of that case. Jawahar Lal Nehru University, C. W. P. No. 573 of 1975 had to deal with a situation where persons who were not members of the Selection Committee being present as observers and after examining law on the subject held that it did not vitiate the selection in the circumstances of that case. ( 17 ) IN the light of the above discussion, I consider that the petitioner has failed to make out any case much less a strong case for this Court to interfere with the selection in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The costs in this case are assessed at Rs. 1,500. 00.