M. Katju and Prakash Krishna, JJ. - (1.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Admittedly the petitioner has been selected by the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission for the post of Principal and the placement order of the Director, Higher Education dated 6.8.2002 is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The respondent No. 6 is only an ad hoc Principal and hence he has no right to the post. It prima facie, seems to us that the Committee of Management and the respondent No. 6 are hands in glove and they are not permitting the petitioner, who is a regularly selected candidate, to join.
(3.) Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 states that the petitioner's selection is illegal because the post in question is of the reserved category. In our opinion, this argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 is not available to him as the respondent No. 6 is only an ad hoc Principal and hence, he has no right to the post.;