Decided on March 13,2012

Kailash Chandra Harbola Appellant
State of Uttarakhand and others Respondents


Barin Ghosh, C.J. - (1.) THE post of Principal fell vacant in Shri Vishwanath Sanskrit Mahavidyalya, represented by the respondent no. 4. Respondent no. 5 was working as a Teacher in the said Institution. In as much as, the post of Principal fell vacant and in as much as, administrative functions of the Principal were required to be performed by someone, respondent no. 5 was asked by the respondent no. 4 to discharge the duties of Principal in his capacity as officiating Principal of the Institution. To fill up the vacancy in the said post, in accordance with the Rules then in vogue, an advertisement was published inviting applications from persons eligible. The said advertisement was responded by the petitioner as well as by respondent no. 5. The selection committee constituted in accordance with the Rules for selecting Principal to be appointed in aided institutions, found the petitioner suitable for being appointed to the post of Principal of the said Institution. Thereafter, the selection committee forwarded its recommendation to the respondent no. 2, Director, Sanskrit Education Directorate, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. The respondent no. 2 did not take any action on the said recommendation. In consequence thereof, the appointment letter appointing the petitioner as Principal of the said Institution was not issued. That compelled the petitioner to approach this Court, when this Court directed the Director, Sanskrit Education Directorate to take a decision on the said recommendation. Director, Sanskrit Education Directorate then rejected the said recommendation holding out that the petitioner does not have qualification for being appointed as Principal of the said Institution. While, however, rejecting the said recommendation, no indication was given as to what the petitioner lacks. Challenging the said action on the part of the Director, Sanskrit Education Directorate, the present writ petition was filed. The Director, Sanskrit Education Directorate, through the counsel engaged by the State, obtained opportunities to file counter affidavit, but did not file any counter affidavit and, accordingly, has not brought on record anything from where any prudent person can come to a reasonable conclusion that the petitioner, in fact, did not have qualification or suitability or any other requirement for being appointed as Principal of the said Institution. In the circumstances, as the matter stands, the order of the Director, Sanskrit Education Directorate impugned in the writ petition rejecting the recommendation of the selection committee is liable to be quashed on the admitted grounds. However, it appears that after acting in the manner, as above, and keeping the selection of the petitioner in abeyance, a decision was taken to alter the Rules to ensure that, without being selected through a proper selection committee, a teacher, who has been selected as competent to teach and not selected as competent to become a Principal, automatically becomes a Principal for he had been asked to discharge for some time the duties of the Principal in his acting capacity. In the circumstances, the writ petition has been amended, whereby alteration of the said Rules has also been challenged. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as mentioned above, we do not think it is necessary for us to go into the question of legality of the said altered Rules. We make it clear that we have not gone into the legality of the said altered Rules and, accordingly, as and when an occasion will arise, any person aggrieved by the said altered Rules may approach the Court challenging the validity of the said Rules. In the instant case, the fact remains that much before the altered Rules came into force, an advertisement was published and thereby it was held out to the world at large that the post in question is available to a person who will be found suitable for being appointed. People responded to the advertisement and they went through the selection process and, the selection committee recommended the petitioner for being appointed to the post in question. Though, the Director, as stated above, held out that the petitioner is not otherwise eligible for being appointed, but, as aforesaid, he did not indicate in the order impugned what the petitioner lacked and despite opportunities obtained, deliberately failed to disclose anything in the present writ petition what the petitioner lacked? That being the situation, the writ petition is disposed of by quashing the decision of the respondent no. 2 dated 08.12.2010, and by issuing a mandamus upon the respondents to forthwith appoint the petitioner to the post of Principal of the said Institution.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.