Bhavsar Dilip Suklal vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6636 Bom

                                     1                                wp 3917.16




                                                                         
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                 
                         WRIT PETITION NO. 3917 OF 2016

              Bhavsar Dilip S/o Suklal,




                                                
              Age : 56 Years, Occu. : Service,
              R/o Plot No. 7, Anand Colony,
              Near Court, Amalner,
              Dist. Jalgaon.                              ..    Petitioner




                                        
                       Versus
     1.       The State of Maharashtra,
                            
              Through it's Secretary,
              Ministry of Higher and Technical
              Education, Mantralaya,
              Mumbai.
      


     2.       Director of Higher Education,
   



              Pune.

     3.       North-Maharashtra University,





              Jalgaon.

     4.       Pratap College, Amalner.

     5.       Khandesh Education Society,





              Amalner.

     6.       L. A. Patil,
              Age : 62 Years, Occu. : Service,
              R/o Behind Hotel Samrat, 
              L.I.C. Colony, Dhule Road,
              Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon.                     ..    Respondents




    ::: Uploaded on - 25/11/2016                 ::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2016 00:51:30 :::
                                        2                                  wp 3917.16




                                                                             
     Shri S. B. Talekar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
     Shri M. B. Bharaswadkar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.




                                                     
     Shri Y. B.  Bolkar, Advocate h/f Shri A. B. Girase, Advocate for 
     the Respondent No. 3.
     Shri V. D. Hon, Senior Advocate i/by Shri A. V. Hon, Advocate for 
     Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.




                                                    
     Shri S. P. Brahme, Advocate for the Respondent No. 6.


                               CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA
                                        K. L. WADANE, JJ.

Close for Judgment on

Judgment pronounced on ig :

:

26.10.2016

23.11.2016

JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of

learned counsel for respective parties taken up for final hearing.

2. The decision giving extension to the respondent No. 6 as a

principal of the respondent No. 4/college is assailed in the present petition.

3. The respondent No. 6 at the relevant time was working as a Principal of the respondent No. 4/college run by the respondent No. 5/society. The respondent No. 6 was to complete age of 62 years on 31.05.2015. The respondent No. 5 passed resolution on or about 22nd April, 2015 thereby resolving to extend the age of retirement of the respondent No. 6 to 65 years. The said

3 wp 3917.16

resolution was forwarded to the respondent No. 3/university. The respondent No. 3/university on or about 15.05.2015 forwarded the

said proposal to the State Government suggesting that, the respondent No. 6 fulfills all the conditions and except non

publication of advertisement all other conditions are satisfied. On or about 04th June, 2015, the Director of Higher Education, Maharashtra State, Pune also forwarded the said proposal to the

State Government stating that barring the condition of

advertisement, all other conditions are complied. The State Government under its order dated 09th February, 2016 granted

approval to the proposal of extension for the post of principal to the respondent No. 6 till 31.05.2018. The same is subject matter in the present petition.

4. Mr. Talekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the management of the respondent No. 5/society was bent upon giving extension to the respondent No. 6 as a principal as is

evident from the letter dated 18.09.2012. By the said letter, the respondent No. 6 was appointed as a principal and was directed to take charge of the post, which had not become vacant and

which was to become vacant after eight months that is on 31.05.2013. In the said order itself, it was stated that, the appointment of the respondent No. 6 is for a period of five years or till he completes the age of 65 years whichever is earlier from the date of joining. The respondent No. 5 had made its intention clear in the year 2012 itself to continue the respondent No. 6 till

4 wp 3917.16

he attains age of 65 years. The learned counsel further submits that, the service record of the respondent No. 6 is not clean.

Even disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the respondent No. 6, however, one group of the management took side with the

respondent No. 6. A person who was demoted from the post of principal is continued as a principal till the age of 65 years by the respondent No. 5.

5.

The learned counsel further submits that, in the meeting of the managing committee of the respondent No. 5, the person who

had opposed extension of the respondent No. 6, now comes before the Court and files affidavit in favour of the respondent No. 6. The same is unethical and does not stand to reason. The learned

counsel submits that, the extension granted to the respondent

No. 6 to continue as a principal till he attains 65 years of age is arbitrary and not in consonance with the Government Resolution dated 05th March, 2011, more particularly clause 11(5) of the

said Government Resolution. The respondent No. 6 had challenged the said clause by filing independent writ petition alleging that the same is directory and not mandatory, however,

subsequently withdrew the writ petition. The learned counsel submits that, language of clause 11 of the Government Resolution dated 05.03.2011 is clear and unambiguous. Sub clauses (1) to (5) of clause 11 are mandatory. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court delivered at the Principal seat at Bombay in Writ

5 wp 3917.16

Petition No. 3481 of 2015 with other connected writ petitions

on 19th January, 2016. The Division Bench of this Court in

said writ petitions have categorically held that, Clause 11(5) of the said G. R. dated 05.03.2011 is mandatory.

6. The learned counsel further submits that, the grounds raised by respondents of extraordinary circumstances are also

erroneous. The respondents had issued publication inviting

applications for filling in the post of principal on 20.05.2015. Even six applications were received by the respondent No. 5. The

last date for inviting applications was 03.06.2015, however, the said process was not continued and before the last date for filling in applications, the respondent No. 5 passed a resolution

granting extension to the respondent No. 6 for the post of

principal. This shows that issuance of advertisement, inviting applications for filling in the post of principal of the respondent

No. 4 was just an empty formality.

7. Mr. Bharaswadkar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that, the

Government has taken decision to enhance the age of superannuation of the principals of affiliated colleges from 62 to 65 years subject to recommendation of the Performance Review Committee and the sanction of Government. According to the learned A. G. P. because of the pendency of change report before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, the management of

6 wp 3917.16

respondent No. 5 had not published the advertisement for the post of principal as required in the G. R. dated 05.03.2011. As

per Clause (2) of the G. R. dated 05.03.2011, the proposal of the respondent No. 6 was placed before the performance review

committee. The said committee assessed performance of the respondent No. 6 and the committee recommended the proposal of the respondent No. 6 to the Government for consideration and

sanction. On the basis of the said recommendation, the

Government of Maharashtra has granted extension to the petitioner by its order dated 09.02.2016 with effect from

01.06.2015 to 31.05.2018.

8. Mr. Hon, the learned senior advocate for respondent Nos. 4

and 5 submits that, clause 11(5) of the G. R. dated 05.03.2011 is

directory and not mandatory. The use of word shall is not always suggestive of the provision being mandatory. The word shall can also be read as may. The said clause 11(5) of the G. R. dated

05.03.2011 does not lay down consequences or penalty for non compliance of the said clause 11. If the provision does not prescribe consequences, then the said provision has to be read as

directory. The learned senior advocate relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Bachahan Devi and another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur and another reported in (2008) 12

SCC 372. The respondent No. 5/management made sincere

efforts to advertise the post of principal for two times. The respondent No. 6 would have crossed the age of 62 years on

7 wp 3917.16

31.05.2015. The college was managed by the care taker body from 03.10.2013 to 17.04.2015. The Court orders were operating

thereby prohibiting the management from taking policy decisions. On 20th August, 2014, the Assistant Charity

Commissioner, Jalgaon had passed an order directing to hold elections and not to take any policy decision. After the elections were held, the election results were declared on 18.04.2015.

9.

The learned senior advocate further submits that, on 31.08.2014 care taker body passed a resolution to advertise the

post of principal. On 13.11.2014 no objection certificate was given by the Joint Director of Higher Education to advertise the post of principal. On 15.11.2014 care taker body submitted the draft of

advertisement for approval to the North Maharashtra University,

Jalgaon and also deposited Rs. 15,000/- by challan dated 11.12.2014 as a fee for publication of advertisement. The said draft was not approved. On 22.04.2015 newly elected body came

into existence and passed a resolution on 30th April, 2015 to advertise the post of principal and on the same day sent the draft of the advertisement to the university. As per the draft approved

by the university, the advertisement was issued inviting applications for the post of principal on 20th May, 2015. This was the second attempt of the management to advertise the post. Considering the academic and administrative experience of the respondent No. 6, the respondent No. 5 passed a resolution on 30th May, 2015 to continue the service of the respondent No. 6 as

8 wp 3917.16

a principal. The performance review committee has also recommended the extension to the respondent No. 6 for the post

of principal till he attains age of 65 years. It is because of the extraordinary circumstances existing prior to one year of the

respondent No. 6 completing 62 years of age, the advertisement could not be issued twice.

10. According to the learned senior advocate, the respondent

No. 6 was satisfying all the 29 points mechanism as per Government Resolution dated 23.11.2011 and after considering

that the respondent No. 6 qualifies and complies with all the conditions required for grant of extension as a principal, the State Government has granted the approval to the extension.

The learned senior advocate further submits that, even the

respondent No. 6 has made a request for voluntary retirement by his letter dated 13.04.2016, however, the management has not accepted the request of the respondent No. 6. The respondent

No. 6 has contributed a lot in the field of nano science and has raised name of the respondent No. 5/institution at international level. His research articles are published in journals of high

repute. No illegality has been committed in grant of extension to the respondent No. 6 as a principal till he attends 65 years of age. The writ petition be dismissed.

11. Mr. Brahme, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 submits that, to grant the extension as a principal to respondent

9 wp 3917.16

No. 6 is an administrative decision of the management and the State. This Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India would not sit in appeal over the decision of the administrative bodies. The said discretionary order cannot

be interfered in the exercise of powers of judicial review. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Johri Mal reported in

(2004) 4 SCC 714. According to the learned counsel, the

decision and actions which do not have adjudicative disposition may not strictly fall for consideration before a judicial review

Court.

12. The learned counsel further relies on the judgment of the

Division Bench of this Court in a case of Satish Kundanlal

Agarwal Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others

reported in 2011(6) All M. R. 689 to contend that, the Government of Maharashtra while framing the scheme for

implementation of the directives of the Government of India has set out conditions in Clause 11 of the G. R. dated 05.03.2011 and unless such policy decision suffers from arbitrariness, this Court

under a power of judicial review may not cause interference in such decisions. The learned counsel further submits that, the Courts would not normally interfere with the decision of academic bodies. To substantiate said submissions, the learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of J. P. Kulshrestha Vs. Chancellor, Allahabad University

10 wp 3917.16

reported in (1980) 3 SCC 418. The learned counsel further submits that, while taking administrative decisions, if the

relevant considerations have been taken note of and no relevant aspect has been ignored, the same cannot be attacked on merits.

The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Surinder Shukla Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 649.

13.

The learned counsel submits that, performance review committee has found that the respondent No. 6 complies with

each and every requirement as laid down under the said Government Resolution and has found the respondent No. 6 to be suitable for grant of extension and this Court could not sit in

appeal over the said decision. In relation to academic matters,

the Court shall be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of All India Council for Technical

Education Vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and others reported

in (2009) 11 SCC 726. The learned counsel further submits that, the respondent No. 6 being qualified has been granted

extension. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have detailed the extraordinary circumstances prevailing because of which twice the advertisement could not be given inviting applications for the post of principal of the respondent No. 4/college. Considering the said exceptional circumstance, the decision has been rightly taken by the performance review committee and the Government

11 wp 3917.16

and the same needs no interference at the hands of this Court.

14. Mr. Bolkar, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/university submits that, as per the Government Resolution

dated 05.03.2011 the procedure for extension and publishing an advertisement should be completed before one year of the date of superannuation of the person holding the post. The date of

superannuation of the respondent No. 6 was 31.05.2015, as such

the college was required to take steps from 30th April, 2014. On 15.11.2014, the respondent/college has submitted the proposal

seeking permission to publish an advertisement on 15.11.2014. In one of the writ petition, this Court on 14.11.2014 directed the management not to take policy decision. On 16.01.2015

considering the dispute in the management the university

requested the trust to inform the status of the continuing management. The respondent/college on 30th April, 2015 again submitted the request to accord sanction to the advertisement for

filling up the post of principal giving reference of the letter dated 15.11.2014. The university accorded sanction to the same vide letter dated 14.05.2015 and on 20.05.2015 the advertisement was

published. The respondent No. 4/college under letter dated 05.01.2016 that is after lapse of seven months of advertisement prayed for appointment of selection committee. In the proposal submitted to the Government, the university had categorically stated that, the college has not complied with the condition of the Government Resolution dated 05.03.2011 in respect of

12 wp 3917.16

publication of advertisement for two times.

15. We have considered the submissions canvassed by learned counsel for respective parties and also perused documents filed

on record.

16. We would not enter into the discussion about credentials of

the respondent No. 6, as the performance review committee has

found the respondent No. 6 satisfying all the parameters as required under Government Resolution dated 05.03.2011 and

possessing the academic and administrative excellence. We would not tread upon the same. We are not sitting in appeal over the decision of the performance review committee accepting that

respondent No. 6 possesses the required qualification and fulfills

the requirements of educational and administrative aspect. We would not substitute our views over the views of performance review committee as observed by the Apex Court in a case of All

India Council for Technical Education Vs. Surinder

Kumar Dhawan and others referred to supra.

17. In the instant matter we are concerned with Clause 11 and more particularly Clause 11(5) of the Government Resolution dated 05.03.2011. The said Clause 11 of the G. R. dated 05.03.2011 in vernacular language reads thus ;

11- ojhy loZ laLFkkrhy v/;kid rFkk izkpk;kZaP;k lsokfuo`RrhlkBh eqnrok< nsrkuk lacaf/krkauh fuEu

13 wp 3917.16

ckchaph iqrZrk dj.ks vfuok;Z jkghy-&

1) lnj laLFkkae/khy v/;[email protected];Z ;kaP;k izFke fu;qDR;k fon;kihB vuqnku vk;ksx o jkT; 'kklukus foghr dsysY;k ik=rk] vVh o 'krhZ izek.ks >kysY;k vl.ks vko';d vkgs-

2) laca/khr v/;[email protected];Z ;kaph 'kkfjfjd o ekufld {kerk lqn`< vl.ks vko';d vlwu R;kckcr rK oSn;dh; lferhps (Govt. Medical

Committee) izek.ki= lacaf/kr O;Drhus lsokfuo`RrhiwohZ rhu efguk vxksnj lacaf/kr

laLFksdMs lknj dj.ks vko';d jkghy-

                      3) laca/khr          v/;[email protected];kZauh Ph.   D. 
                            
                      vFkok fon;kihB       vuqnku vk;ksx rFkk vf[ky

Hkkjrhp ra=f'k{k.k ifj"knsP;k fud"kkuqlkj Ph. D. 'kh led{k v'kh 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk /kkj.k dj.ks vko';d jkghy-

4) lacaf/kr v/;[email protected];Z ;kaP;k eqnrok<hP;k fnukadkiwohZps ekxhy ikp o"kkZrhy okf"kZd xksiuh; vgoky fopkjkr ?ksmqu] lnj xksiuh; vgokykph loZlk/kkj.k ewY;ekiukph

izrokjh fdeku rhu o"kZ mRd`"V (A) vkf.k nksu o"kZ fuf'pr pkaxyk (B+) vl.ks vko';d vkgs-

5) 'kkldh; laLFkk O;frjhDr moZjhr laLFkke/khy dk;Zjr vlysY;k izkpk;kZauk 62

o"kkZuarj lsokfuo`RrhlkBh eqnrok< ns.;kiwohZ laLFksus lnj fjDr in Hkj.;klkBh o`Rri=kr fdeku nksu osGk tkfgjkr nsmu in Hkj.kps iz;Ru dsysys vlkosr- izkpk;kZauk 62 o"kZ o#u 65 o"kkZi;Zar eqnrok< ns.;kps izLRko fdeku nksu o"kkZuarj mDr lferhP;k fu.kZ;kFkZ lknj gks.kkj vkgsr- R;keqGs 'kS{kf.kd laLFkke/khy izkpk;kZaps o;kseku 61 o"kZ iw.kZ >kY;kuarj lacaf/kr laLFksus iq<hy ,d o"kkZe/;s lnj fjDr gks.kkjs in

14 wp 3917.16

Hkj.;klkBh oj vknsf'kr dsY;kizek.ks dk;Zokgh iw.kZ dj.ks vfuok;Z jkghy-

18. The proposition put forth by the learned counsel for respondents No. 4 to 6 that the scope of judicial review in

administrative actions is in narrow compass need not be debated. The same is settled proposition of law. This Court while exercising its powers of judicial review would not sit as a

supervisory body, nor it would sit in appeal over the

administrative decisions and more particularly in academic matters as is held by the Apex Court in the cases referred to

supra. Nor an order passed by an administrative authority exercising discretion vested in it can be interfered with, in judicial review unless it is shown that exercise of discretion itself

is perverse or illegal. However, it is also well settled that, this

Court while exercising its powers of judicial review may be required to examine due adherence to the decision making

process as envisaged in the relevant rules or the Government Resolutions. The judicial review is fundamental mechanism for examining whether public authorities are within their domain

and thus keeping them within due bounds for upholding the rule of law.

19. Clause 11(5) of the Government Resolution dated 05.03.2011 is couched in mandatory form. Clause 11 itself states that, if an extension to the principal is to be granted, then the

15 wp 3917.16

conditions enumerated from Sub Clause (1) to (5) of Clause 11 of said G. R. dated 05.03.2011 are imperative and mandatory. Sub

Clause (5) of Clause 11 of the G. R. mandates that, before extension is granted to the existing principal to perform his

duties after the age of 62 years, then the institution is required to advertise the post of principal to fill in the same by inviting applications atleast twice. Attempts are required to be made to

fill in the post of principal atleast twice before considering grant

of extension to the existing principal. Sub Clause (5) of Clause 11 of the said G. R. further lays down that, after the existing

principal attains 61 years of age, it will be imperative and mandatory for the institution to follow requirements and satisfy conditions as contained in the Sub Clauses (1) to (5) of Clause 11

of the G. R. dated 05.03.2011.

20. The Government had formulated the policy of granting extension to the existing principals till they attain age of 65

years under G. R. dated 05.03.2011, as quite a large number of posts of principals were remaining vacant. In order to mitigate the situation, the policy was formulated increasing the age of

retirement of the existing principals. However, while doing so the institutions are required to comply with conditions stipulated in said Government Resolution.

21. In present case, respondent No. 5/institution has not followed requirement under Sub Clause (5) of Clause 11 of the G.

16 wp 3917.16

R. dated 05.03.2011. It has failed to advertise the post twice before granting extension to respondent No. 6. The reason put

forth by respondents is of existence of extraordinary circumstances that is dispute interse between the two groups in

the management. Reference is made to the orders passed by the Court prohibiting the management to take a policy decision. The said plea does not inspire confidence. This Court in Writ Petition

No. 8086 of 2014 with other connected writ petitions under order

dated 14th November, 2014 had refrained the management from taking policy decision. However, in para 11 of the said order, it

had further observed that, if any major policy decision becomes necessary, the trust can move appropriate application before the Assistant Charity Commissioner at Dhule and the authority

shall decide it independently on its own merits. As such, the

respondents were not prohibited from taking steps pursuant to the said order also.

22. The respondent No. 5 had applied to the university seeking permission to advertise the post as per its resolution dated 30th April, 2015. The university had also granted its approval to the

advertisement on 14.05.2015 and on 20th May 2015 the advertisement was published. As stated by the petitioner six applications were received by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for the post of principal of the respondent No. 4/college. The petitioner had also applied for the said post. However, without proceeding further with the recruitment process, on 22nd April, 2015

17 wp 3917.16

resolution came to be passed for grant of extension to respondent No. 6 as a principal till he attains 65 years of age. Said

resolution was certainly not in consonance with the G. R. dated 05.03.2011. No reasonable explanation is forth coming for not

proceeding further with the recruitment process, though advertisement was issued and applications are also received, except that respondent No. 6 was to complete 62 years of age on

31.05.2015. This reflects that, issuance of advertisement was

mere farcical and an eye wash. Respondents No. 4 and 5 were predetermined to grant extension to respondent No. 6. It is not a

case that, even after efforts were made for filling in the post of principal by recruitment, the respondents No. 4 and 5 did not get eligible candidate. On the contrary the whole conduct of

respondents No. 4 and 5 demonstrates their anxiety to continue

the respondent No. 6 as the principal and to avoid selecting principal by competitive recruitment process.

23. The Joint Director of Education and the University had forwarded proposal to the Government with a remark that, the respondent No. 6 qualifies for the post of principal. However, in

the process Sub Clause (5) of Clause 11 of the G. R. dated 05.03.2011 is not complied with. The Government while passing the impugned order has not taken into consideration said flaw viz non compliance of Sub clause (5) of Clause 11 of G. R. dated 05.03.2011.

18 wp 3917.16

24. The respondents have contended that, the Sub Clause (5) of Clause 11 of the said G. R. dated 05.03.2011 is directory and not

mandatory. It is not possible to comprehend the said argument. The policy conferring powers to be exercised to grant extension to

the existing principal till he attains 65 years is on compliance with certain conditions. The conditions prescribed are normally to be held to be mandatory and the powers exercised inconsistent

with those conditions will have to be negatived. If, a statute or a

policy directs a thing to be done in a certain way, that thing shall not, be done in any other way. Moreover, the language employed

in Sub Clause (5) of Clause 11 of the G. R. dated 05.03.2011 also states that, it is imperative and mandatory to observe the procedure as contemplated. Considering the intent of the G. R.

dated 05.03.2011 and the circumstances existing for formulating

the policy as laid down in said G. R., there cannot be any other view than to hold that, said provision is mandatory.

25. While construing a statutory provision or the clause, the Courts have to consider the subject matter, the purpose of the provision, the object intended to be secured by the statute, it's

prime importance, as also the actual word employed. In the present case, the clause itself employs words in mandatory form and adherence to the same imperative.

26. The purpose of formulating policy granting extension to the age of retirement to 65 years was that the large number of vacant

19 wp 3917.16

posts could not be filled in on account of non availability of the qualified and experienced professors and principals and inspite

of attempts being made, the posts could not be filled in. The State had made it imperative and compulsory, mandating the

institution to make attempts to fill in the post by direct recruitment. For said purpose condition is laid down to issue advertisement inviting applications for the post of principal and

in case qualified candidate is not available inspite of issuing

advertisement, then attempt is to be made for second time inviting applications by issuing advertisement and if on both

occasions qualified and experienced candidates are not available, then has to consider grant of extension to the existing principal.

27. Sub clause (5) of Clause 11 of the G. R. dated 05.03.2011

imposes a duty upon the institution. It does not authorize the institution to consider grant of extension to the existing principal unless and until at least twice the attempt is made to fill in the

post by direct recruitment and the said process has to commence immediately on existing principal completing 61 years of age, that is one year prior to the date of his retirement at the age of

62 years. This Court at its principal seat at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 3481 of 2015 with other connected writ petitions under its judgment dated 19.01.2016 has held Clause 11(5) of the G. R. dated 05.03.2011 to be mandatory. Even the arguments of the respondents of existence of extraordinary circumstances for not giving advertisement does not inspire confidence. In fact,

20 wp 3917.16

advertisement was also given, applications were invited, applications were received, however, the said process was not

continued and before the last date of receiving applications, resolution was passed to grant extension to the respondent No. 6

as principal till he attains 65 years of age. Such act of passing resolution, so also non adherence to Sub Clause (5) of Clause 11 of the G. R. dated 05.03.2011 is arbitrary.

28.

The reasons given by respondents No. 4 and 5 that, the respondent No. 6 was completing age of 62 years on 31.05.2015,

as such prior to the said date decision was required to be taken to grant extension to him as principal till he attains age of 65 years is not proper. The respondent No. 6 also could have competed in

the said selection process.

29. As observed above, we would be more concerned with the adherence to the decision making process and not with the merit

of the decision. From the factual matrix as discussed above, it is abundantly clear that, the respondents have failed to scrupulously follow the procedure as laid down for granting

extension to the respondent No. 6 as principal. In fact, the respondents have followed the procedure more in breach thereof.

30. The act of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in discontinuing the selection process in the midst and granting extension to respondent No. 6 smacks of arbitrariness. Arbitrariness has no

21 wp 3917.16

role in the society governed by rule of law. Arbitrariness is antithesis to the rule of law, fair play, justice, equity and good

conscience. On the touch stone of this principle, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is hereby quashed and set

aside.

31. The respondents No. 4 and 5 shall complete the process of

filling in the post of principal pursuant to the advertisement

dated 20th May, 2015 and/or may issue fresh advertisement within a period of one month from the date of this order for the

purpose of filling the post of principal of the respondent No. 4/college. The respondent No. 6 has worked as principal, as such, the respondent No. 6 would be entitled to salary for the period

the respondent No. 6 was the principal. The relief claimed in

prayer clause 'D' as such is negatived.

Rule accordingly is made absolute in above terms. No

costs.

              Sd/-                                               Sd/-





     [ K. L. WADANE, J. ]                        [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

32. At this state, Mr. Brahme, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6, seeks stay of this order for a period of four weeks. The learned counsel for the petitioner opposes the said request.

22 wp 3917.16

33. Considering the fact that the respondent No. 6 was working

as a principal and to give opportunity to the respondent No. 6 to avail further remedy, the present order is stayed for a period of four (04) weeks from today. Needless to state on lapse of four (04)

weeks, the present protection shall come to an end.

                 Sd/-                              Sd/-
     [ K. L. WADANE, J. ]        
                              ig            [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]


     bsb/Nov. 16