Suspended Principal Can't Take Part In Recruitment Process, Selection Committee Comprising Officiating Principal Competent: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that a suspended principal of a college cannot take part in any selection or recruitment process. The Court held that in absence of any challenge to the appointment of Officiating Principal, the appointments made in his presence in the selection committee cannot deemed to be invalid.The bench comprising of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar...
The Allahabad High Court has held that a suspended principal of a college cannot take part in any selection or recruitment process. The Court held that in absence of any challenge to the appointment of Officiating Principal, the appointments made in his presence in the selection committee cannot deemed to be invalid.
The bench comprising of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held,
“A suspended Principal cannot take part in the recruitment proceedings, nor can he be expected to form part of the selection committee.”
The Court held that the selection committee cannot be declared incompetent merely because the Officiating Principal was a part of the selection committee as the regular Principal was placed under suspension. The Court held that cancellation of appointment of such employees recruited during the tenure of the Officiating Principal as a part of the selection committee without any inquiry or opportunity of hearing to the employee vitiates the cancellation orders. The setting aside of the cancellation orders by the Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench.
Factual Background
An advertisement was issued by the then Officiating Principal of appellant-institution for appointments on 3 posts of Lab Assistant, one of which was reserved for Scheduled Castes candidate: 1 post of Routine Clerk and 3 posts of Class-IV employees. The Officiating Principal was also a part of the selection committee.
Certain appointments were made in 2004 and the selected candidates started working after their appointments were approved by the Regional Higher Education Officer. Later, doubts were raised on the appointments made on grounds that the Officiating Principal is not the regular Principal and had no right to take part in recruitment proceedings.
In 2009, Director, Higher Education directed cancellation of such appointments made in the presence of the Officiating Principal in the selection committee. In 2010, the then Principal passed orders suspending the payment of salary of the concerned employees and subsequently, their appointments were cancelled by the Authorized Controller. The cancellation of appointments was challenged before the High Court in its writ jurisdiction.
The Single Judge directed reinstatement of the employees with continuity in service on grounds that there was no proper inquiry, and the employees were not granted any opportunity of hearing.
High Court Verdict
The main issue before the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction was “whether a valid person had participated in the selection proceedings as Principal or not?”
The Court observed that after multiple rounds of litigation, the Court had refused to interfere with the suspension of the regular Principal of the institution. Since the order refusing to interfere with the suspension had attained finality, the Court held that the regular Principal could not have participated in an any selection process. The Court held that the suspended principal cannot be a part of any selection or appointment process.
The Court held that in absence of a regular Principal, the Officiating Principal was to discharge duties of Principal. Accordingly, the participation by the Officiating Principal in the selection proceedings could not be said to be invalid in absence of any challenge to his appointment as Officiating Principal.
“The educational authorities as well as Authorized Controller clearly fell in error in doubting the correctness of the recruitment proceeding culminating in appointment of Class-III employees, who were duly approved by the Regional Higher Education Officer.”
The Court upheld the finding of the Single Judge that no opportunity of hearing was given to the employees before cancelling their appointments.
“No disciplinary enquiry was otherwise held. The services of Class-III employees, who were duly appointed and approved by the educational authorities, could not have been set aside, merely on a misconceived apprehension that selection committee was incompetent. We, therefore, fully endorse the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the cancellation of appointment of Class-III employees was impermissible.”
Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Committee of Management were dismissed.
Case Title: C/M Sri Durga Ji (P.G) College And Another v. Ambrish Kumar Gond And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 103 [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 791 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 103