- (1.) S. Rafat Alam, J. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,1950, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 4-Committee of Management Jagat Taran Girls Degree College, Allahabad to issue a letter of appointment to her as Principal of the institution in question and permit her to join on the said post forthwith.
(2.) HEARD Sri T. P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Counsel has appeared for respondent No. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has appeared on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. It appears that the post of Principal of the institution in question was advertised through the University Services Commission vide advertisement No. 25 of 1998 dated 13-8-1998. A copy of the advertisement is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement applied for the same. Thereafter, the Commission prepared a list of the successful candidates and sent it to the Director of Education wherein the name of the petitioner finds place at Serial No. 2 of general list. Consequently, the Director of Education vide its letter dated 4-3-2002 intimated the Committee of Management and asked it to issue letter of appointment to the petitioner within a period of 30 days. It is contended that in spite of the aforesaid order of the Director of Education, letter of appointment was not issued to the petitioner. The Director of Education again twice vide letters dated 18-4-2002 and 24-9-2002, asked the Committee of Management to issue letter of appointment, inspite of that the petitioner has not been given appointment without there being any reason for denying such appointment. It is vehemently contended that the petitioner having been found suitable and her name being recommended by the Commission, the Committee of Management has no option but to appoint her. It is also argued that Dr. (Smt.) Ratna Chatterji who is working as ad hoc Principal of the institution also applied in terms of advertisement No. 25/98 and also appeared before the Commission, but she was not found suitable, hence her name was not recommended by the Commission, but she is still continuing as ad hoc Principal of the institution which is improper and contrary to law.
(3.) ON the other hand, Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4, Committee of Management, submitted that since the matter regarding appointment on the post of Principal was sub-judice before this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 9295 of 1995 and 8137 of 1995, the recommendation of the Commission in favour of the petitioner could not be acted upon and this fact was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 18-4-2002. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's name has been recommended by the Commission for appointment as Principal of the institution in question. It is also not in dispute that the select list dated 18-4-2001 prepared by the Commission is still valid and till date no fresh recommendation has been made by the Commission. The respondents have not filed counter-affidavit disclosing any justifiable reason for not issuing the letter of appointment pursuant to the recommendation made by the Commission. The only submission as noted above, made on behalf of the Committee of Management, is the pendency of the aforesaid two writ petitions wherein the challenge was in respect of appointment to the post of Principal. The aforesaid two writ petitions have already been dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 11-2-2003 and, therefore, now there appears to be no reason for denying the letter of appointment to the petitioner pursuant to the recommendation of the Commission.;