UDAI SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks the quashing of the appointment of the 4th respondent as Principal, Delhi Public School (DPS) R.K.Puram. The petitioner also seeks the quashing of an advertisement whereby applications were invited for the post of the Principal of the school at Vasant Kunj. There is another prayer to quash the mandate of the Working Committee dated 28.5.1993 which did not agree with the order of the Chairman of the committee to appoint a person as principal on officiating basis. There were other decisions also in the impugned proceedings of the working committee. Petitioner also seeks a mandamus to constitute a proper selection committee.

(2.) According to the petitioner he was appointed as a teacher in the DPS, R.K.Puram on 15.10.1982 and at the time of filing the writ petition he was working as officiating principal of DPS, Vasant Kunj. He questions the appointment of the 4th respondent as Principal of the School at R.K.Puram on the ground that the selection committee was not properly constituted and the petitioner's case was not considered and that his case for being appointed as the principal of the school at Vasant Kunj stood diluted by the advertisement inviting applications from other eligible candidates. During the pendency of this writ petition the school at Vasant Kunj was recognised by the Administration (Education Department) and consequently it became an independent school, for which steps are being taken to appoint a Principal. The petitioner contends that outside candidates should not be considered and that he should be appointed as Principal having regard to the assurances held out to him. C.M.6591/1994 was filed under Order 1 Rule 10 to implead 14 persons who are the other candidates as well as the members of the selection committee constituted to select a principal for the school at Vasant Kunj.

(3.) Since I do not find a formal order allowing this application, I consider it most appropriate to allow the said application because the person who was actually selected for the said post of Principal will be a necessary party and he was duly represented in these proceedings. The pleadings have become bulky with several applications and annexures running into several pages. I find that the issue involved ultimately is a simple issue and the relevant facts could be conveniently referred while considering the respective contentions of the parties. However, one aspect shall have to be noticed. The respondents do not admit that the petitioner has ever worked as the officiating principal of the school at Vasant Kunj.