- (1.) G. P. Mathur, J. The post of principal of Maharaj Singh Post Graduate College, Saharanpur fell vacant and the vacancy was notified to the Higher Education Service Commission (for short the Commission ). The Commission issued an advertisement being advertisement No. 25 of 1998 for making selection on the aforesaid post and also several other posts in various colleges in the State. Dr. K. K. Sharma-respondent No. 4 was selected for the post by the Commission and a list of the selected candidates was sent to the Director Higher Education in accordance with Section 13 (1) of U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The Director then intimated the name of Dr. K. K. Sharma in accordance with Section 13 (3) of the Act to the management of petitioner No. 1 Committee of Management Maharaj Singh Post Graduate College, Saharanpur on 30-4-2001 for being appointed as the principal of the college. The management, however, did not issue him any appointment order. Thereafter, the Director issued an order under Selection 15 (2) of the Act on 16-5-2002 requiring the petitioner No. 1 to appoint respondent No. 4 as principal of the College and to pay him salary from the date specified in the order. The management still did not comply with the aforesaid direction and did not allow respondent No. 4 to join the institution. Thereafter the Director, Higher Education passed an order on 15-7-2002 to the effect that as the petitioner No. 1 had not issued any appointment order in favour of respondent No. 4 it had thereby committed breach of the provisions of the Act. The petitioner No. 1 was directed to issue an appointment order to respondent No. 4 by 25-7-2002, failing which proceedings for recovery of the salary shall be initiated under sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Act. It is this order, which has been challenged by means of the present writ petition.
(2.) SRI S. P. Gupta learned senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no order under sub- section (2) of Section 15 of the Act can be passed by the Director with regard to a principal of the college and the provisions of the aforesaid sub-section can have application only to a teacher and not to a principal. Learned Counsel has next submitted that the word "teacher" occurring in sub-section (2) (a) of Section 15 of the Act has to be given a different meaning than what may be assigned to it in other provisions of the Act in view of the principle laid down in Printers (Mysore) v. Assistant Commissioner, 1994 (2) SCC 435. SRI Gupta has urged that clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act lays down that if the management of the college had failed to appoint a selected person as a teacher, the Director after holding an enquiry may by order require the principal of the college concerned to take work from him as a teacher. It is urged that this provision cannot be strictly complied with in the case of a principal of the college and therefore for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act, the word "teacher" would not embrace within its fold a principal of the college. We are unable to accept the contentions raised. The word "teacher" has not been defined in the Act. Section 2 (g) lays down that other word used and not defined in the Act but defined in U. P. State Universities Act, 1973, shall have the meaning respectively assigned to them in that Act. Section 2 (18) of U. P. State Universities Act reads as follows: "2 (18) "teacher" means a person employed for imparting instruction or guiding or conducting research in the University or in an institute or in a constituent, affiliated or associated college and includes a principal or director. " Therefore, for the purpose of the Act "teacher" would include a "principal" of an affiliated or associated college. Section 11 (a) provides that the Commission shall have the power to prepare guidelines of matters relating to method of recruitment of teachers in college. Section 12 (1) lays down that every appointment as teacher of any college shall be made by the management in accordance with provisions of the Act and every appointment made in contravention thereof shall be void. If the word "teacher" is interpreted in a manner so as to exclude a principal, as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, it would mean that the Commission will have no role to play in the appointment of a principal and the management would be at liberty to appoint a principal of the college in complete disregard to the provisions of the Act. Such and interpretation cannot be given which makes the Act unworkable. It is a recognised rule of interpretation of Statutes that expressions used therein should ordinarily be understood in a sense in which they best harmonise with the object of the Statute and which effectuate the object of the legislature. (See New India Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 1207 ). The record shows that Sri Yogesh Kumar Gupta officiating principal of the college had challenged the advertisement issued by the Commission for making selection on the post of principal and the writ petition filed by him was dismissed by this Court on 13-4-2002. Thereafter, he filed Special Leave Petition No. CC 6309 of 2001 in which an interim order was passed on 21-9-2001 for maintaining status quo. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 got himself impleaded and the interim order was modified by the Supreme Court on 25-2-2002. Now the order is that any action taken will be subject to the outcome of the appeal. In these circumstances, there is no impediment in the appointment of respondent No. 4 as principal of the college. The petitioner No. 1 has deliberately contravened the provisions of the Act by not issuing any appointment order in his favour. The Director, Higher Education was therefore, perfectly justified in passing the impugned order dated 15-7-2002.
(3.) THE writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed summarily at the admission stage. Petition dismissed. .;