ASHOK KUMAR Vs. MAHARISHI DAYA NAND COLLEGE, ROHTAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while working as a Lecturer in History in D.A.V. Centenary College, Faridabad on part time basis in response to the advertisement issued by respondent No. 2 (for short 'D.A.V. Managing Committee') applied for the post of Lecturer in History at D.A.V. Centrary College, Faridabad, in June 1989. The petitioner had also served the respondent-College on whole time basis from 11.1.1988 to 31.3.1988, 12.8.1988 to 30.11.1988 and 12.1.1989 to 31.3.1989. In response to the advertisement, thirty nine candidates were called for interview. However, only nineteen candidates turned up for interview. The petitioner was placed t No. 1 in the selection list and S/Sh. Babu Ram and Gajinder Singh Chauhan were placed on waiting list in order of their merit. The Principal of the College forwarded the proceedings of the meetings of the Selection Committee to the Vice- Chancellor of the M.D. University (hereinafter referred to as 'University) vide his letter dated 12.7.1989. The petitioner was issued appointment letter which contained the terms and conditions of service. The petitioner on receipt of the appointment letter joined the college with effect from 1.8.1989 and submitted the joining report, copy of which is-Annexure P-4 to the writ petition.

(2.) The Deputy Superintendent (Colleges) for Dean Development Council of the University, wrote to the college to send the comments on the note sent by Dr. S.P. Shukla, who was nominee of the Vice Chancellor in the Selection Committee and had given a dissenting note. The Principal of the College sent a detailed reply, copy of which is annexure P-7 to the writ petition. The respondent College also supplied information to the University. To petitioner's great dismay, the Vice Chancellor of the University did not approve the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in History. The Principal of the college had made a request to the University on 21.8.1989 that necessary approval to the University on 21.8.1989 that necessary approval to the selection or the petitioner be granted. However, the respondent- University vide letter dated 18.10.1989 informed the Principal of the College that the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer has not been approved. Thereafter, a meeting between the petitioner and the Vice Chancellor was also held in which the Principal had explained the whole position. The petitioner continued to writ letters for approval of his appointment but all in vain. The petitioner was left with no other option but to file the writ petition seeking direction for quashing of the orders Annexures P-9, P-11 and P- 15 vide which the respondent-University had declined to accord approval to his appointment as Lecturer.

(3.) The challenge to the action of the respondents is that the petitioner was selected by a duly constituted committee and the nominee of Vice-Chancellor was like the other members of the Selection Committee and he had no veto power to nullity the selection of the petitioner as Lecturer.