Delhi HC quashes selection process for principal’s post in Hindu College

On November 27, 2018, the Delhi High Court ruled on a petition filed by Dr Ratan Lal, challenging the selection process for the principal’s position in Hindu College, University of Delhi (DU). Dr Lal, who is an associate professor of history at the college, had filed a petition alleging that the selection process for the post of principal was carried out in an arbitrary and non-transparent manner.

In what turned out to be a year-long episode, online applications for the post of principal were opened on October 10, 2017, for which Dr Lal had also applied. According to the procedure prescribed by the university, applicants were to be awarded Academic Performance Indicator (API) scores based on their academic and research contributions, following which those who cleared a cut-off of 400 points were to be shortlisted for an interview. The Screening Committee, tasked with analysing the applications, then released two lists: one mentioning eligible candidates (without reflecting their API scores), and another mentioning the ineligible candidates along with their API scores and reasons for ineligibility. Dr Lal, who had applied for the post claiming a total of 496 points as per his self-assessment, was awarded only 95 points by the Screening Committee and hence not found eligible for the interview. Not satisfied with this, he raised an objection, following which his score was revised to 128.

Since his name was not mentioned in the list of eligible candidates, Dr Lal filed an RTI seeking information regarding the pre-screened data. In response to this, he was informed by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), DU, that his RTI application had been transferred to the PIO/principal, Hindu College. Dissatisfied with the reply that followed, he filed first appeals against the CPIO of DU and the PIO, Hindu College before the First Appellate Authority, DU (Joint Registrar) and the First Appellate Authority, Hindu College (Officiating Principal). Even after subsequent attempts at seeking information and being dissatisfied with the results, Dr Lal filed a petition in the Delhi High Court. He alleged that this was being done by the governing body of the college because of his Scheduled Caste background and due to the candidate being pre-decided.

The officiating principal, Dr Anju Srivastava, was also a candidate eligible for the interview for the post of the principal. Given this, according to the court judgement, the petitioner’s side held that the officiating principal, also being a candidate, should not have dealt with the matter in the capacity of the First Appellate Authority, Hindu College, as it caused a “conflict of interest”, hence reaffirming the petitioner’s belief that the authorities were “working hand in glove” to give “undue advantage to the pre-decided candidate”. The judgement also mentions that the petitioner’s side submitted that the officiating principal had been “misusing and manipulating the entire selection process”. Further, the counsel representing the petitioner submitted that “the petitioner has come to know” that the “Governing Body”, i.e. Hindu College, had “already taken a decision to appoint respondent No. 6” (i.e., Dr Srivastava) as the principal, alleging that the entire exercise was an “eyewash”.

According to University guidelines, the Screening Committee must include an academician representing SC, ST, OBC, Minority, Women or PWD if an applicant belongs to any of those categories. Despite Dr Lal belonging to the SC category, there was no representative from this category—which was against the guidelines.

Hence, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait held that “there was no transparency in the whole process”. The court directed that the process be started afresh by the Screening Committee. However, none of the previous members could be a part of the Committee. Moreover, since the petitioner belonged to the SC category, a representative from the same had to be ensured. The court also ruled that Dr Srivastava may continue as the officiating principal, however, she could “not interfere in any manner in the selection process”.