Shivaji University, Kolhapur & Anr. Vs. Sangameshwar Edu. Society & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3241/2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18458/1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18458/1999)
Petitioner: Shivaji University, Kolhapur & Anr.
Respondent: Sangameshwar Edu. Society & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3241/2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18458/1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18458/1999)
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 05, 2000
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Constitution
Article 136 – Appeal against interim order – Interference – High Court directing appointment of Principal – In – Charge on provisional basis – Some controversy in process of selection – Matter pending in Writ – Competent authority having not approved the selection – If any right accrues. Held that interference is called for as no rights accrue to selected person unless selection is approved. Orders set aside. Senior most person in college to work as Principal-in-Charge.
(Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Though, this appeal is directed against an interim order of Bombay High Court directing appointment of S.M. Chattarji as the Principal – in-Charge on a provisional basis, but having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we think it appro-priate to interfere with the said order. As in our view, no rights can be said to have accrued on the selected personnel until and unless the selection made by the Selection Committee is approved by the competent authority, and on the basis of such approval order is communicated to the person concerned. It is no doubt true that not having a Principal in an institution would not be in the interest of institution itself , but the Vice-Chancellor, who is the competent authority having come to the conclusion that there has been some controversy in the process of selection, and having interfered with the same, and the matter being pending before the High Court in a writ petition while we do not think it proper to express any opinion on the merits of the matter, but we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that by way of interim direction, the impugned order could not have been passed. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and direct that the senior most man in the college would continue as Principal-in-Charge, and request the Bombay High Court to dispose of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible. The appeal is disposed of.
1. Leave granted.
2. Though, this appeal is directed against an interim order of Bombay High Court directing appointment of S.M. Chattarji as the Principal – in-Charge on a provisional basis, but having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we think it appro-priate to interfere with the said order. As in our view, no rights can be said to have accrued on the selected personnel until and unless the selection made by the Selection Committee is approved by the competent authority, and on the basis of such approval order is communicated to the person concerned. It is no doubt true that not having a Principal in an institution would not be in the interest of institution itself , but the Vice-Chancellor, who is the competent authority having come to the conclusion that there has been some controversy in the process of selection, and having interfered with the same, and the matter being pending before the High Court in a writ petition while we do not think it proper to express any opinion on the merits of the matter, but we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that by way of interim direction, the impugned order could not have been passed. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and direct that the senior most man in the college would continue as Principal-in-Charge, and request the Bombay High Court to dispose of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible. The appeal is disposed of.
