ARVIND KHANNA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for issue of a writ to quash orders, Annexures P-5 and P-12 and further issue of a direction to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary and interest at the rate of l8%P.A.

(2.) The petitioner possesses the following qualifications:-

(3.) In response to an advertisement issued by the Secretary of Montgomery Guru Nanak Educational Trust for recruitment to the posts of principal and Lecturer, the petitioner submitted an application. She was interviewed along with other eligible applicants. On the recommendations of the Selection Committee, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the service of respondent No. 3 vide order (Annexure P-4) dated 4.3.1991 issued by the Honorary Secretary, Montgomery Guru Nanak Educational Trust. Her appointment was on probation of one year and was subject to the approval of the Guru Nanak Dev University and the Direction of Public Instruction (Colleges) Punjab. The petitioner joined her duty in the College with effect from 4.3.1991 itself. After about 8 months, the petitioner was relieved from her duty on the ground that no approval had been received from the Director of Public Instructions (College) and Guru Nanak Dev University had not approved the appointment of the petitioner. Later on, the Director Public Instruction (Colleges) granted approval to her appointment, but respondent No. 2 wrote a letter dated 17.6.1991 to respondent No. 4 stating therein that the petitioner did not fulfil the qualifications prescribed by the University. The petitioner made representations to the respondents and ultimately filed C.W.P. No. 1829 of 1992. By order dated 6.2.1992, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent-University to consider the representation of the petitioner within a period of one month with a further direction that in case her representation is accepted, the petitioner shall be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. Thereafter the impugned order, Annexure P-12 came to be issued by the respondent-University conveying the decision of the Vice-Chancellor that approval cannot be given by the University.