Dr. Sham Sunder Sharma vs State of Punjab and others

The petitioner herein seeks to challenge the orders dated

04.04.2014 and 10.10.2014 (Annexure P/15) whereby all the rights of the

post of Principal were ordered to be withdrawn from him.

In brief, the facts are that the petitioner applied for the post of

Principal in pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.12.2012. The Selection

Committee found him suitable and selected him Principal. The university

accorded approval for his appointment on 12.07.2013 and Director Public

Instructions (Colleges), Punjab also approved his appointment vide

communication dated 10.01.2014. The selection of the petitioner was also

confirmed by respondent No.3-college. Thereafter, the petitioner has been

functioning as Principal of respondent No.3-College. Vide the impugned

order dated 10.10.2014 (Annexure P/15), the Director Education

Department (Colleges) intimated the Secretary, Managing Committee of the

College that the approval granted for the appointment of the petitioner as

Principal has been withdrawn and all rights of the post in question be

withdrawn from him. Learned counsel contends that approval of

appointment of the petitioner once granted could not be withdrawn by a

totally non-speaking order.

Per contra, learned counsel for the Director, Public Instructions

(Colleges) (''DPI Colleges'' for short) argues that for the selection and

appointment of Principals and Lecturers, a nominee of respondent No.2 DPI

Colleges is mandatorily required under the terms and conditions of grant-in-

aid scheme. It is argued that for the appointment of the Principal, an

interview for selection was convened for 21.4.2013 by respondent No.3-

DAV College, but due to some communication gap, the nominee of

respondent--State could not join the Selection Committee at the time of the

interview. In the absence of the nominee of respondent No.2, the meeting of

the Selection Committee should have been postponed, rather than holding it

and the selection of the petitioner should not have been made. It is argued

that even though approval of the selection of the petitioner was made on

10.01.2014 (Annexure P-13), but the said approval was granted erroneously

and when it was found out on a complaint made by one of the candidates

that the selection of the petitioner was made in the absence of nominee of

respondent No.2, it was withdrawn by order dated 10.10.2014 (Annexure

P/15).

I have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance

have gone through the record of the case.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner appeared for the interview

which was held by the Committee for selection on the post of Principal. Due

information was sent by the College to the office of DPI Colleges

intimating about the fixing of the date for interview by the Selection

Committee and requesting them to send their nominee to attend the meeting.

However, for some reason no one put in an appearance from the office of the

DPI Colleges on the date fixed. The petitioner was selected and thereafter a

appointment letter was issued to him. The appointment letter had a condition

which specified that petitioner would be on probation for one year and the

appointment would be subject to the approval of Panjab University

Chandigarh and DPI Colleges Punjab. Intimation about the appointment of

the petitioner was given to both the Panjab University as well as to the

office of DPI Colleges. Punjab University gave its approval. The Deputy

Director Colleges sought an explanation regarding the appointment of the

petitioner as Principal in the absence of nominee of DPI Colleges. The

College responded to the said communication received and thereafter by

letter dated 10.01.2014 approval was given to the appointment made as

Principal on the terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment letter.

The Managing Committee of the College also confirmed the appointment

made. However, without any notice all the rights of post of Principal was

sought to be withdrawn from the petitioner.

It is argued that, as per terms and conditions of grant-in-aid

scheme, there is a stipulation that no selection shall be considered valid

unless at least one representative of the DPI Colleges is present and

recommendations of the Selection Committee shall be subject to the

approval of Director of Public Instructions (Colleges) Punjab. It is argued

that the selection is not valid on account of the fact that there was no

representative or nominee from the DPI Colleges present on that date and,

therefore, any selection made is not sustainable. This argument would not

have much relevance since the DPI Colleges ultimately approved of the

selection made. Due information had been given to the DPI Colleges about

fixing of the interview date, requesting for a nominee to be sent on the date

fixed. A week later but prior to the date of the interview a reminder was sent

by speed post on 16.4.2013 requesting the DPI Colleges to depute its

nominee/expert to be part of the Selection Board for the selection of

Principal DAV College. The Selection Committee also comprised of

members as nominated by the university itself and, therefore, it would not be

the case made out that the selection made was vitiated. In any case, all

recommendations of the Selection Committee were to be subject to the final

approval of the Director Public Instructions (Colleges) Punjab, even if the

nominee had attended, and was a dissenting vote, the matter would have to

be referred for final approval to the Director of Public Instructions

(Colleges) Punjab, who had the option of either confirming the selection or

setting it aside. The argument raised that the impugned order was issued

after discovering that approval had been given erroneously, is a ground that

does not stand to reason. In the instant case, after seeking due explanation as

to why selection had been made in the absence of the nominee of the

Director of Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, approval was given by

the DPI itself. Furthermore, the impugned order itself is silent as to why the

approval given has subsequently been withdrawn. It is a non speaking order

and thereby unsustainable.

Looked at it from another angle, the impugned order is liable to

be set-aside on the grounds of violation of the rules of natural justice. Once

the selection had been made of the petitioner to the post of the Principal of

the College, the same could not have been withdrawn unilaterally, especially

in view of the fact that the the petitioner was discharging the duties of

Principal after due approval had been given by the DPI Colleges itself.

Before withdrawal of the rights of the Principal, no show cause notice was

issued to the petitioner nor was any opportunity of hearing afforded to him.

The rule of ''Audi Alterm Partem'' in this regard is well-settled which casts

a duty not to issue any adverse orders without fair hearing being afforded to

the person likely to be affected, which admittedly has not been done in the

instant case.

Therefore, in view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and

the impugned order dated 10.10.2014 is set aside.