PAUL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have approached this Court through the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of mandamus by directing the respondents to comply with the communication dated September 10, 1993 issued by the Director, Public Instruction(s), Punjab (respondent No. 2). Further challenge has been made to the selection of respondent No. 4 - Gurnam Singh as Principal of Lyallpur Khasla Senior Secondary School, Jalandhar City by the Managing Committee of the aforesaid school (respondent No. 3). The petitioner has also consequentially prayed that the official respondents be directed to constitute a Committee in terms of Rule 7 of the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised School Employees (Security of Service Rules, 1981 (for short 'the Rules'). The petitioner has averred that Lyallpur Khasla Senior Secondary School, Jalandhar City (for short, 'the School') is an aided institution getting 95 per cent of the grant-in-aid from the State Government of Punjab. On October 31, 2002, the Managing Committee of the aforesaid school published a public notice in the newspaper inviting applications for the post of Principal which is an aided post. In pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement, to carry out the necessary selection, the Managing Committee convened its meeting on November 23, 2002 to interview the candidates for the post of Principal. The petitioner also applied for the aforesaid post and he was called for interview. The petitioner has claimed that the selection of respondent No. 4 as Principal of the School in the aforesaid selection is in violation of the Rules as well as the memorandum dated September 10, 1993 issued by the Director, Public Instruction(s), Punjab. The petitioner has further, averred that the aforesaid selection is vitiated as the government representative had not participated in the selection process and no information in that regard was given in time to the ex-officio member who was the District Education Officer. The petitioner has appended a copy of the circular dated September 10, 1993 as Annexure P-10 with the present petition.

(2.) Upon a notice of the writ petition, the respondents have put in appearance. Separate written statements has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively.

(3.) Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in their written statement have adopted a stand that the selection was carried out in terms of the Rules and there was no violation of any of the provisions and as such selection of respondent No. 4 was absolutely in accordance with the Rules.