S K MANGAL Vs. MAHARISHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who are working as lecturers in C.R. College of Education, Rohtak, respondent No. 1, have jointly filed this writ petition seeking a direction to respondent No. 2 to observe minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Principal in the College, respondent No. 3. They have further sought for quashing Annexure P -2, vide which respondent No. 4 was appointed as Principal, Annexure P -4, whereby the approval to his appointment was accorded by the University and Annexure P -5 vide which the academic qualification for the post of Principal was changed.

(2.) THE brief resume of the writ petition is that the Governing Body of the C.R. College Education, Rohtak, (hereinafter referred to as the 'College') issued an advertisement which appeared in the Tribune dated 30.6.1986 inviting applications for the post of Principal. In pursuance to the said advertisement, desirous persons submitted applications for consideration to the said post. The .....candidates including petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 4 were asked to appear before the Selection Committee on 22.7.1986 for the purpose of determining their suitability on the basis of their academic record. The academic qualifications of all the candidates were scrutinised by the Selection Committee duly constituted as per Rules and Regulations framed by the Maharishi Dayanand University, which consisted of the following : - a) Chairman or Vice Chairman, or Secretary, Governing Body of the College, b) One member of the Governing Body. c) Two nominees of the Vice Chancellor d) One person to be appointed by the Chairman of the Governing Body out of a panel of 10 persons prepared by the Director of Higher Education of State Government. e) Director of Higher Education or his nominee. The Selection Committee took the interview on 22.7.1986 and Dr. R.K. Nagi, Head of Chemistry Department, Maharishi Dayanand University was an expert on behalf of the University and Dr. Vishnu Bhagwan was the nominee of Director, Higher Education. Finally, respondent No. 4 was selected for the post of Principal, and letter dated 22.7.1986, copy Annexure P2 to the writ petition appointing respondent No. 4 as such was issued. As per the University Regulations, the appointment was required to be approved by the Vice Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor vide his letter No. CBA/87/6230 dated 24.8.1987 declined to approve the appointment of respondent No. 4 on the ground that he was not fulfilling the requisite qualification for the post. A copy of the said communication is Annexure P -3 to the writ petition. The said communication declining approval to the appointment or respondent No. 4 as Principal was duly sent to the Managing Committee of the College.

(3.) TO great dismay of the petitioners and others, the Vide Chancellor subsequently approved the appointment of respondent No. 4 w.e.f. 16.10.1987 vide order dated 13.11.1987, a copy of which is Annexure P -4 to the writ petition.