BHAWANI SHANKAR LAL SRIVASTAVA Vs. SAMIULLAH KHAN AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, respondent No. 1 was appointed as officiating principal on the retirement of the then principal Sri Masood Ahmad on March 1, 1968. A Selection Committee was appointed to select a Principal for the College. The Selection Committee selected a panel of names for the post of principal in the order of merit and the petitioner was placed at serial number one in the order of merit. On May 7, 1970 the Chairman of the Selection Committee forwarded the names to the Regional Deputy Director of Education along with a statement as required by Section 16-F (2) of the Intermediate Education Act, (hereinafter called the Act). This communication was received by the Regional Deputy Director of Education on May 10, 1970.

(2.) THEREAFTER the Deputy Director by his letter dated May 16, 1970 Annexure 12, informed the Manager that certain complaints had been received by him on which necessary investigation was being made, hence the recommendations made by the Selection Committee would be considered after the completion of the enquiry. He further stated that the period stipulated in Section 16-F (2) would commence from the date of the completion of the enquiry. To the same effect a telegram was sent by the Deputy Director to Manager, Annexure-10, the contents whereof were confirmed by him vide his letter of May 18, 1970, Annexure 11. Again, on May 28, 1970 the Deputy Director asked the Manager of the College to send the minute book and the character roll of Sami Ullah Khan. Finally by his letter dated August 11, 1970 Annexure-4 the Deputy Director disapproved the recommendation made by the Selection Committee.

(3.) FOR the appellant it was submitted that the learned Single Judge had erred in holding that the recommendation of Selection Committee recommending the appointment of petitioner No. 1 as Principal of the College shall be deemed to have been accepted inasmuch as the Regional Deputy Director of Education did not accord his approval to the same within two weeks from the receipt of the record. The submission was that this period of two weeks, as contemplated by Section 16-F (2), would commence to run from the date of the receipt of all the relevant papers and not from the date of the receipt of some papers which were sent originally by the Chairman of the Selection Committee. It was argued that the Regional Deputy Director of Education had received some complaints the information of which he had also given to the Manager of the College. He had to make enquiries and it was only the completion of the enquiries that a decision could be taken with regard to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee. For making an effective enquiry the Regional Deputy Director needed some papers, which according to the learned counsel for the appellant, would be relevant for ultimately approving or disapproving the recommendation made by the Selection Committee. Since those papers were not received by the Regional Deputy Director within two weeks of the receipt of the letter of May 7, 1970 the period would not commence to run from May 10, 1970 when the letter of May 7, 1970 was received by the Regional Deputy Director. In order to appreciate this argument it would be necessary to refer to Section 16-F (2) of the Act which reads asunder: -