- (1.) ORDER
(2.) . Respondent 4 applied for the post of Principal pursuant to an advertisement issued on 29/10/1995/2/11/1995 by Appellant 1. The Selection Committee constituted in terms of Rule 7 of the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Rules, 1993 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the rules) selected Respondent 4, The Managing Committee, however, did not issue any letter of appointment to Respondent 4 and at that stage he approached the High Court for appropriate directions in regard to the selection made. The High court, on examination of the matter, came to the conclusion that the selection had been done in accordance with the relevant 48 rules applicable to such selection and the reasons assigned by the appellants as to why Respondent 4 could not be appointed now are arbitrary and not germane to the appointment. On that basis it allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to appoint Respondent 4 as the Principal of the College. This order is in challenge before us in this appeal. . Mr Pankaj Kaira, learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no indefeasible right in any selected candidate to get appointed to a post for which he was selected and relied upon five decisions of this court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, Jai Singh Dalal v. State of Haryana and H. Makherjee (Dr) v. Union of India. He submitted that the Managing Committee for good reasons did not appoint Respondent 4, though selected, and if those reasons are brushed aside, the functional autonomy of the private educational institution will be lost. An employee if imposed upon an unwilling employer would result in friction in the administration of the college creating an anomalous situation. The effect of the mandamus issued by the High court is of that a nature (sic) and calls for interference in our hands. He further pointed out that there was no jurisdiction vested in the High court to issue a mandamus in respect of mere selection that had taken place. He, therefore, strongly contended that the order made by the High court needs to be set aside. . Learned counsel for Respondent 4 fully supported the view taken by the High court and submitted that when an independent Selection Body as constituted under the rules had selected Respondent 4 such action could not be faulted with. The reasons assigned by the appellant for not appointing Respondent 4 are arbitrary and therefore, the High court had rightly issued appropriate directions. He submitted that the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant have no bearing on the issue raised in this case.
(3.) . The High court had made a thorough examination of facts and proceeded to consider firstly the scope of the relevant rules and came to the conclusion that the rules have been scrupulously followed in the matter of selection of Respondent 4 by the Committee consisting of a nominee of the Director, Higher Education, a nominee of the Vice-Chancellor, an outside expert, a representative of the Managing Committee and Principal of a government College for selecting the persons available. The members of the Governing Body gave reasons in Resolution No. 26 dated 18/2/1996 for not appointing Respondent 4. For the purpose of convenience, we extract the resolution: JUDGEMENT_46_6_1999Html1.htm 49 . The four reasons set out in the said resolution had been critically considered by the High court and each of them was rejected for cogent reasons. There is no material to come to the conclusion that there was any pressure exerted by the Kurukshetra University. The appointment made by the Selection Committee had to be accepted inasmuch as the relevant rules did not permit the Managing Committee to sit in judgment over such a selection made and, therefore, the view taken by the Managing Committee in this regard is wholly arbitrary.;