R.L. Anand, J. - (1.) SHRI M.S. Yadav is a lecturer in Physical Education in M.L.R. Saraswati College of Education, Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani and he has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the State of Haryana (respondent No. 1), the Director, Higher Education (respondent No. 2), M.D. University, Rohtak (respondent No. 3), M.L.R. Saraswati College of Education Charkhi Dadri, through its President (respondent No. 4) and Smt. Sushila Kumari Hooda, Principal of the said institution and the writ has been filed in the nature of quo warranto with a prayer that respondent No. 5 be asked under what authority of law she is holding the post of Principal and if the High Court comes to the conclusion that respondent No. 5 is lacking the qualification and experience, her appointment to the post of Principal be declared as null and void.
(2.) THE case set up by the petitioner is that on 22.4.1994 an advertisement was issued for the post of a Principal for B.Ed. College as per the qualification prescribed by the UGC/M.D. University and Haryana Government. Respondent No. 5 Smt. Sushila Kumari Hooda applied for the said post along with other candidates on 25.4.1994. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 5 completed her M.Ed. in between 1988 - 89 and more precisely on 20.9.1998 and she was also a student of M.Phil, from M.D. University w.e.f. July 1988 to June 1989. Respondent No. 5 was not fulfilling the requisite qualification for the post of the Principal because she was more than 35 years of age, whereas as per Rule 4 of Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Rules, 1993, the age should be between 18 and 35 years. Moreover, respondent No. 5 produced her experience certificate dated 8.1.1994. The interview was conducted on 15.12.1994. The other candidates, who appeared along with respondent No. 5, had the qualifications of M.Phil, and Ph.D. but the Selection Committee recommended the name of respondent No. 5 though the nominee of respondent No. 2 gave his dissent, but inspite of that respondent No. 5 was selected. On 15.12.1994 respondent No. 5 joined service in response to her appointment letter. A complaint was made to respondent No. 2 to the effect that in one time respondent No. 5 was serving as a Lecturer in a College of Sidhrawali and in Bhiwani and during the same period, she had joined the classes of M.Phil, at Rohtak. Under the University regulations, a person who is serving in college or University cannot join the classes of M.Phil, because the M.Phil, course is to be allowed as a regular student for the full time. As is evident from the regulation contained in Chapter XV of Volume III of the University Calendar which lays down that no whole time teacher shall be allowed to join as a regular student for a whole time course/programme leading to a degree except a Ph.D. Degree/D.Sc. Degree/D.Lit Degree, unless he/she proceeds on long leave for the duration of the course/programme." On the basis of the complaint, respondent No. 2 inquired into the matter and submitted a report and it was found that the selection of respondent No. 5 for M.Phil. Course under UGC fellowship scheme was not fair. Respondent No. 2 also wrote a letter to the Principal of R.L. Education, College, Sidhrawali for the recovery of the amount for the period during which respondent No. 5 appeared in the classes of the M.Phil. Thus, the short ground taken up by the petitioner for setting aside the appointment of respondent No. 5 is that she was over -age for the post on the date of her appointment and also on the date of her application and, secondly, she was not having the requisite experience on the day of her joining the service as Principal.
(3.) NOTICE of the writ petition was given to the respondents. The writ petition wasjnainly contested by respondent No. 5 but written statement was also filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. According to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respondent No. 5 was appointed as Principal by the Managing Committee of the College as per rules and she was given appointment vide letter dated 15.12.1994. The petitioner was not a candidate at the time of the selection. So, the writ petition filed by the petitioner Shri M.S. Yadav is not maintainable at all. No legal right/fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed. Not only this, petitioner is challenging the appointment of the Principal at such a belated stage, i.e. after a gap of more than 6 years. On this ground, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Respondent No. 5 was appointed as Principal by the Managing Committee on the recommendation of the duly constituted selection committee as per the provisions of Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Rules, 1993 and her appointment was also approved by the M.D. University, Rohtak. There was no irregularity in her appointment as Principal and, as such, no cause of action has arisen to the petitioner. It was also stated by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that respondent No. 5 earlier worked as Lecturer from 10.10.1988 to 14.12.1988 at K.M. College of Education, Bhiwani and from 15.12.1988 to June, 1989 at RLS College of Education, Sidhrawali. She was doing M.Phil, working as Lecturer in the above period. A complaint was received in this regard and on receipt of the complaint, an inquiry was conducted and she was found guilty of doing service while being a student of M.Phil. The University was requested to take further action as per rules. Moreover, the Director of Higher Education, Haryana asked the Principal to effect recovery from Smt. Sushila Kumari Hooda the then Lecturer for the period from 15.12.1988 to June, 1989. However, the matter was reconsidered and inquiry was conducted again in the matter by an officer of the answering respondent. Inquiry has already been completed and the case has been sent to the Government for taking a final decision in the matter. On the other hand, the defence/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.;