P.D. KUDAL, J.—This writ petition initially directed against the appointment of respondent No. 2 Dr. S.N. Mishra as Principal of the Medical College and Controller of Associated Group of Hospitals Later on, the petitioner also moved an application for amendment and pleaded that Dr. B.D. Maitray, Dr. K.P. Singh and Dr. J.P. Sethi be also arrayed as respondents and their appointment as Principal of Medical College and Controller of Associated Group of Hospitals be also quashed. 2. The brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner entered into the service of the Government of Rajasthan in the year 1956 as Demonstrator in Anatomy. He was confirmed as Demonstrator in 1959 and as Lecturer on 26.4.1964. He was promoted as Reader on 29.1.1965 and was substantively promoted on 19.8.1968 as Reader and was confirmed on the same post with effect from 26.3.1965. He was then appointed as officiating Professor of Anatomy with effect from 12 2.1965. The petitioner was then substantively appointed as Professor on 13 5.1973 and was treated as confirmed Professor of Anatomy with effect from 17.1.1973. It has been further contended that the petitioner has worked on various posts and in various capacities in different medical colleges. The petitioner was sent for training of a WHO Fellowship in the year 1964 for a period of one year. Then he was sent on deputation for Common Wealth Senior Fellowship by the Government order dated 10.9.1979. 3. Some posts of Principals of Medical Colleges & Controller of Associated Group of Hospitals fell vecant somewhere in the year 1979. Applications were invited from eligible candidates. The eligibility was 10 years or more of service as Professor as on 31.5.1979. The petitioner applied for the same on 5.6.1979. By an order of the Government dated 10.9.1979, the petitioner was sent on deputation for Common Wealth Senior Fellowship. While the petitioner was on deputation the selection to the post of Principals of Medical Colleges & Controller of Associated Group of Hospitals was held on 5.10.1979. As the petitioner was abroad, he was not informed and could not appear in the interview. The petitioner came back to India on 29.11.1979. He then learnt that selection had taken place for the posts of Principals of Medical Colleges and Controller of Association Group of Hospitals. As the petitioner was abroad, he was not informed and could not appear in the interview. The petitioner came back to India on 29.11.1979. He then learnt that selection had taken place for the posts of Principals of Medical Colleges and Controller of Association Group of Hospitals. The petitioner further learnt that his name was placed on the panel (selected list) with the remarks that his candidature will be finalised after the Committee had interviewed him The petitioner also learnt that the names of Sarva Shri B.D. Maitray, Dr. K.P. Singh and Dr. J.P. Sethi were also placed on the panel. The petitioner also met a number of officers of the State Government and impressed upon them that he may be interviewed so that his candidature may be finalised. He was not interviewed and an order dated 19.2.1980 was passed, by which four persons were appointed as Principals & Controllers of Associated Group of Hospitals and the names of Dr. B.D. Maitray, Dr. K.P. Singh Dr. J.P. Sethi were there; but the petitioners name was dropped and in has place the name of respondent No. 2 Dr. S.N. Mishra was inserted. The contention of the petitioner is that the name of respondent No. 2 was not included in the panel prepared by the Selection Committee which met on 5.10.1979. The candidature of respondent No. 2 as considered and he had also been interviewed; but as he was not found meritorious enough his name was not included in the panel. However, to the utter surprise of the petitioner the name of respondent No 2 figured in the order issued on 19.2.1980. The petitioner has not been able to locate as to how respondent No 2 was included in the order when he was not meritorious enough when the interview was held on 5 10.1979. The petitioner submitted a representation to this affect on 29.2.1980 to the Medical Secretary. A copy of the representation was also sent to the Advisor to the Governor on 14.3.1980. On 29.2.1980, a copy of the representation was also given to the Governor. 4. The petitioner made demand of justice; but all these proved futile. 5. The petitioner has contended that the selection of the respondents on the post of the basis are per se unconstitutional being in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. On 29.2.1980, a copy of the representation was also given to the Governor. 4. The petitioner made demand of justice; but all these proved futile. 5. The petitioner has contended that the selection of the respondents on the post of the basis are per se unconstitutional being in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has been further contended by the petitioner that he and other candidates constitute a one class. It interviewed all the candidates who were available and prepared a panel. The panel of four persons included the petitioner. The selection of the petitioner was treated as provisional and subject to interview for the reason that the petitioner could not attend the interview on account of unavoidable circumstances that he had gone abroad. The only condition for the final inclusion of the name of the petitioner was his interview. Without calling the petitioner for interview the order of appointment of the four persons including respondent No. 2 was issued, which was arbitrary and capricious in nature. The petitioner has been discriminated without any rational justification. The selection of respondent No. 2 without calling the petitioner for interview constitutes a serious violation of the rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution. It was also contended that Articles 14, 15, & 16 of the Constitution constitute the code of equality. This constitutional code enjoins upon the Government and the public functionaries to gives similar treatment to all persons who are similarly situated. It forbids the executive from acting in a manner which result indiscrimination. The contention of the petitioner is that this prohibitive mandate has been violated in the present case, 6. It was further contended that the State Government had no jurisdiction to select respondent No. 2. The Selection Committee had prepared the panel and unless that panel can be declared illegal or set aside the State Government had no jurisdiction to make any alteration in the panel. It was further contended that no significant development had taken place between 5.10.1979, when the interview was held and opt the order dated 19.2.1980. The State Government had no jurisdiction to alter the select-list on its whims and fancie. The action of the Government in doing so is per se capricious and arbitrary in nature and makes of ill will. It was further contended that no significant development had taken place between 5.10.1979, when the interview was held and opt the order dated 19.2.1980. The State Government had no jurisdiction to alter the select-list on its whims and fancie. The action of the Government in doing so is per se capricious and arbitrary in nature and makes of ill will. A person who was not adjudged meritorious on 5.10.1979, could not find berth in the select list by interpolation or otherwise. It was also contended that the Government had no jurisdiction to review the select list. Once the selection has been made, the Government does not have the jurisdiction to alter the select-list because it amounts to reviewing the recommendations of the Selection Committee and unless its review is permissible under the rules, the Government cannot do so. 7. It was also contended that the post of Principal of Medical Colleges and Controller of Associated Group of Hospitals carries a special pay of Rs 350/- and the post is to be filled in by selection. Once the candidature of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 has been considered and comparative assessment of the merits has been made, it does not lie within the jurisdiction of the Selection Committee or the Government to change the merit suo-moto without any fresh development. A public functionary cannot be allowed to exercise its powers or jurisdiction for ulterior purposes or for the purposes which are not germinated to the exercise of powers or for the object to be achieved. 8. Under these circumstances, it is contended that respondent No. 2 is a usurper of the high public office. His illegal induction on the post of Principal of Medical Colleges and Controller of Associated Group of Hospital is clearly an act of usurpation of public office. He was not found meritorious enough, but still he has been given appointment. 9. A reply to the writ petition was filed by respondent No. 2. it was contended on his behalf that a reference to training of WHO and deputation for Common Wealth Senior Fellowship has not relevancy to the controversy involved in this case and that there has been nothing special or particular about the petitioner only because such type of fellowships have been availed of by almost the persons including the answering respondent. it was contended on his behalf that a reference to training of WHO and deputation for Common Wealth Senior Fellowship has not relevancy to the controversy involved in this case and that there has been nothing special or particular about the petitioner only because such type of fellowships have been availed of by almost the persons including the answering respondent. It has been contended by him that in 1962, he was sent to undergo training in Cardiology at All India Institute of Medical Sciences and had also been selected for Colombo Plan in the year 1976. It was also contended that the petitioner had, of course, applied for being considered for Principalship, but it appears that the petitioner could not be taken up eligible to be considered for this job as he had not acquired the requisite 10 years experience of being Professor on 31.5.1979. It was contended that the petitioner was appointed as Professor on regular basis from 17 1.1973, while the answering respondent was appointed as Professor of Anatomy at a much earlier time. It was further contended by respondent No. 2 that the interview had, of course, taken place on 6.10.1979 and since the petitioner was abroad he could not have appeared in the interview. Nevertheless, the fact remains that his candidature had been duly considered. It is for the Government as to whether the petitioners name was included in the panel or not, or as to who were the three persons included in the said panel. In the alternative, it was urged that in any case the mere inclusion of any bodys name in the panel does not confer any rights upon the persons included in the panel and the making of appointment as per such recommendations is also not binding on the Government. The selections earlier held had not been considered to have been made on a just uniform and proper basis and it was realised that if the selections are made on the basis of interviews it may not be in conformity with the object sought to be achieved and, therefore, the Government was within its rights to have made the selections on the basis of the seniority and the record. It was contended that the petitioner has made a patently false and inseminating averment that any instructions had been issued for inclusion of the name of the answering respondent in the appointment order as if the answering respondent had not been selected and yet his name was directed to be included in the order of appointment. It was further contended that there is no question of infringement of any of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. The post of Principal is not included in the cadre of Rajasthan Medical and Health Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules and it has no post created by any rules, nor there are any rules under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India for recruitment and appointment to the post of Principal. The appointments are made amongst the senior-most Professors on the basis of consideration of their service record and performance and. holding of interview, as such is not a mandatory requirement and, this view of the matter, the grievance of the petitioner is wholly misconceived It was open for the Government to adopt any mode of selection and it is further submitted that the petitioner has failed to make out any case as to how the mode of selection adopted in this case was wrong, or improper or illegal. It was also contended that as a matter of fact, the petitioner has not even cared to challenge the mode of selection on the basis of which appointment order Ex. 4 was issued. Since the post of Principal is not a cadred post, there is no infringement of any rule or any other provision of law or the Constitution. The entire grievance of the petitioner is illusory in nature and the entire edifice, on which the writ petition is based, is wholly non-existent. It was also contended that the answering respondent had jointed and assumed as Principal of the Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College, Ajmer on 29.2.1980 and has been working as such since then. It was contended that the answering respondent was appointed as Professor in Medicine on the basis of the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee as far as back in the year 1969, whereas the petitioner was so appointed in 1973. 10. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. It was contended that the answering respondent was appointed as Professor in Medicine on the basis of the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee as far as back in the year 1969, whereas the petitioner was so appointed in 1973. 10. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. It has been contended by the petitioner that he is fully eligible to be considered for the post of Principal. It has been further contended that the petitioner has been holding the post of Professor from the year 1965 continuously. The Departmental Promotion Committee did not meet for making regular selection of Professor in Anatomy after 1967 and, therefore, the petitioner continued on officiating basis on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability. Since the DPC met in 1973, he was selected for regular appointment. It was also contended that under the existing rules experience on urgent temporary ad hoc basis is counted as teaching experience. It is just unconceivable that experience of a person is not to be counted merely because he is temporary. In fact, non-holding of the DPC for the post of Professor in Anatomy was a for fortuitous act on the part of the Government and that cannot be a ground for saying that the petitioner is not available for the post of Principal. 11. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that his name was on the panel of the Selection Committee which met on 5th October, 1979 and that confers a vested right on the petitioner The Government does not have any absolute right to over ride the recommendations of the Selection Committee. It was also contended that these are the days of public and corporate employment and the theory of lessie faire has no place in a country governed by the Rules of Law. It is not a case of pure master and servant but relationship is governed by the theory of status. It was further contended that an arbitrary action like this is antithesis of the system governed by rule of law and it is opposed to the basics of democracy in this country. Till this day Articles 14 and 16 have not been obliterated from the Constitution and therefore, the Government cannot be allowed to let loose its executive fiat to effect the constitutional and legally vested rights of the persons like the petitioner. Till this day Articles 14 and 16 have not been obliterated from the Constitution and therefore, the Government cannot be allowed to let loose its executive fiat to effect the constitutional and legally vested rights of the persons like the petitioner. 12. It is further contended that the names of respondent No. 2 was not included in the panel prepared on 5.10.1979. It is only an imagination of respondent No. 2 that the previous selection was not made on the uniform and proper basis. It was further contended that it is a clear cause of manipulation because when it become clear that respondent No. 2 has not been found suitable and the Government was to demit its office a sudden decision was taken to give a goby to the selections made on 5.10.1979. It was further contended that the petitioner under the present set of circumstances has a constitutional and legal right to be appointed on the post of Principal on the basis of his selection and the Government has no right to change it over night and deny the right of promotion to the petitioner on the post of Principal on the basis of his selection by the duly constituted Selection Committee. It was further contended that the process of interview is well recognised method of selection and the Selection Committee was within its right to adopt a rational criteria for making selections. In the very nature of the things the directions of the Government to make selections on the basis of more record was a clear dictation to the Selection Committee. The Government was not vested with any jurisdiction to act in a most arbitrary and capricious manner depending on the sweet-will and whims of the person in power The Government was not left wit and option sut to make oppo-intments in accordance with the recommendations of the Selection Committee. 13. It was further contended that though respondent No 2 was found suitable by the Selection Committee which met on 5 10 1979, yet it is surprising that in February 1980, just after 3| months, he becomes meritorious. So far as the selection of respondent No. 2 in the year 1969 in DPC is concerned that hardly carries away significance, firstly because the DPC for the post of Professor in Anatomy did not rest inspite of availability of post. So far as the selection of respondent No. 2 in the year 1969 in DPC is concerned that hardly carries away significance, firstly because the DPC for the post of Professor in Anatomy did not rest inspite of availability of post. As soon as it met in 1973, the petitioner was selected. Secondly, there is no question of determination of seniority in the matters of such selection which are purely based on the merits of the candidates. At any rate, fortuitious circumstance of non-holding of DPC after 1967 by the Government cannot operate to the prejudice of the petitioner and in favour of respondent No. 2. 14. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the mere fact that the post of Principal is not a cadre post does not make any difference. It is nonetheless a civil post in the service of the State and the rigour of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is equally applicable to such post as are applicable to the cadre posts. Infringement of fundamental rights of the petitioner clearly gives him an unquestionable right to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. Reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the State Government also. It has been contended that a decision was taken to select candidates for the post of Principal by interviewing them and necessary information was sent to the petitioner also. The State Government thereafter constituted a special Committee for selection of suitable candidates for the post of Principal in Medical Colleges in Rajasthan. The candidates were interviewed by the said Committee. Since the petitioner was not in India, therefore, he could not be interviewed. The Special Committee mentioned in the report that recommendation should be made for the post of Principal after interviewing Dr. Patni. For the remaining three posts the Committee made its recommendations. Its recommendations were, however, not accepted by the Government and a fresh decision was taken in regard to the selection of Principal is a senior appointment and many senior Professors would not like to put their applications for interview. It was, therefore, considered that it would be better to finalise the names for the post of Principals on the basis of service record of having 1015 years as Professors. It was, therefore, considered that it would be better to finalise the names for the post of Principals on the basis of service record of having 1015 years as Professors. Consequently, the Committee met to consider the cases of senior most Professors of clinical and non-clinical wing for making recommendations for the post of Principal in the Medical Colleges in Rajasthan. The said Committee considered the cases of all the eligible candidates on the basis of the criteria The case of the petitioner was also considered by the said Committee and thereafter it made its recommendations after considering the records for the said post. Dr. B.D. Maitray, Dr. K.P. Singh and Dr. J.P. Sethi and Dr. S.N. Mishra were selected for the post of Principal, whereas the petitioner was not, although his case was considered It was further contended that the recommendations of the Selection Committee which met on 5.10.1979 were neither accepted, nor implemented and, therefore, the petition has no grievance. But, on the contrary, the rights of the petitioner were safe-guarded. It was further contended on behalf of the State Government that it is incorrect to allege that the petitioner was selected provisionally subject to interview. The said contention is without any basis. The Committee has the service record of all the candidates, and, as stated earlier a decision was to taken to select a candidate on the basis of their service records. There was no necessity to call the petitioner for interview in view of the facts stated above. There has been no discrimination in this case and there is no violation of the provisions of the Constitution. The post of Principal is not encadred in the schedule and, therefore, the appointments are made on the basis of the recommendations of the Selection Committee as constituted by the Government. The petitioner was not found suitable by the said Committee. 16. On behalf of the petitioner a rejoinder was filed to the reply filed by the State Government. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the State Government has deliberately suppressed the fact that the petitioner was selected by the Selection Committee which met on 5.10.1979 and recommendations to this effect were sent to the Government with only rider that the petitioners recommendation was subject to interview. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the State Government has deliberately suppressed the fact that the petitioner was selected by the Selection Committee which met on 5.10.1979 and recommendations to this effect were sent to the Government with only rider that the petitioners recommendation was subject to interview. The respondent Government was directed to produce the proceedings of the Selection Committee which met on 5.10.1979, the recommendations sent to the Government and also the recommendations of the subsequent Selection Committee. The respondent Government was also directed to produce the criteria adopted by the first and second Selection Committees for the purpose of making recommendations. It is further contended by the State Government that it was felt that the appointment of Principal is a senior appointment and many senior officers would not like to put up applications for interview, is absolutely false and concocted. This all is sheer concoction and now even representation would be procured. It is only a figment of imagination that some persons would not like to put up their applications. As a matter of fact, every body had been informed of the impending selection and whosoever was interested and was eligible was entitled to make an application. It was further contended that the Committee also did not prepare any seniority list; no such seniority has been published and the petitioner does not know as to what position was assigned to him, nor it is clear as to what criteria was adopted. It is submitted that the Committee did not adopt any criteria or method for making its recommendations. There seems to be unhidden formula provided by the politics of the Government for the purpose of selection of the candidates and that is why the name of respondent No. 2 was inducted in the list of selected candidates in the recommendations of the Committee which met a few days before the Government led by Shri Bhairon Singh Shekhawat committed the office. It was a case of selection made for political considerations and considerations which are absolutely extraneous to the field of selection. The Committee did not apply any rational method or objective criteria for making selection. It was a case of selection made for political considerations and considerations which are absolutely extraneous to the field of selection. The Committee did not apply any rational method or objective criteria for making selection. It was also contended that unless the list of seniority was in existence, bow did the Committee considered the seniority of the candidates and what was the basis of preparing inter se seniority of the Professors in various specialities, is all a matter of mystery and everything has been kept in darkness. The recommendations made by the Selection Committee were absolutely arbitrary and mala fide. They were so cryptic and capricious that nothing could be understood from the same. Now the Selection Committee has considered their candidature and how they have not been found suitable are all questions which are unanswered. It was further contended that the recommendations of the Selection Committee were not allowed to be implemented by political considerations and for reasons which are absolutely extra eous and unjustified. On the one hand, the petitioner was assured that he would be interviewed for the purpose of finalisation of his selection and on the other hand the Govern-ment for irrelevant and extraneous considerations proceeded to ignore the recommendations made by the Selection Committee altogether. 17. It was further contended that the eligible candidates who desired to be appointed had applied and, therefore, there could be no question of anything wrong with the process of selection adopted by the Government. The Government has arbitrary and capriciously changed everything and ignored the recommendations of the Selection Committee without any reason, without any justification and without any basis. This all was done for extraneous considerations by the outgoing government in order to put in respondent No. 2, who was otherwise not found fit by the Selection Committee. The second Selection Committee did not adopt any criteria for making its recommendations, nor it had have basis or material before it for making its recommendations. It is surprising that recommendations made earlier were kept by the Government for three months and no action was taken. But when it became clear that the Government was no longer going to survive, everything was done in hot-haste and appointments were made on 19.2 1980. Without adopting rational and just criteria the Government could not arbitrarily sit over and above the recommendations of the Selection Committee and ignore its recommendations. But when it became clear that the Government was no longer going to survive, everything was done in hot-haste and appointments were made on 19.2 1980. Without adopting rational and just criteria the Government could not arbitrarily sit over and above the recommendations of the Selection Committee and ignore its recommendations. The action of the Government is, thus, clearly malafide in law as well as in fact. 18. The petitioner filed an application for amendment of the writ petition on 5.12.1980. Through this amendment the petitioner prayed that Dr. B.D. Maitray, Dr. K.P. Singh and Dr. J. P. Sethi he added as respondents No. 4 and 6 respectively. Through this amendment application it was also contended that the post against which the petitioner had been appointed was a clear vacant post and only an account of administrative reasons the DPC was not convened, for the post of Professor in Anatomy. If the DPC had been convened the petitioner would have been substantively appointed. No DPC was held for the post of Professor in Anatomy after 1967. It was also prayed that since 1977 the post of Principal of the Medical Colleges and Controller of Associated Group of Hospitals are filled in by inviting applications from eligible candidates. The Selection Committee used to meat for interview of the candidates and out of the interviewed candidates, the candidates selection was made on the basis of the performance at the interview and the service record. It was also contended that the Selection Committee which met on 5.10.1979 was headed by the Chief Secretary including the Medical & Health Commissioner. Respondent No. 2 had not been found suitable by the Selection Committee which met on 5.10.1979. The second Selection Committee for extraneous and illegal considerations included the name of respondent No. 2 in its recommendations along with the three candidates who had already been selected. It was further contended that no inter laced seniority of Professors working in different specialities-clinical and non-clinical has been prepared. Even within the clinical and non-clinical wings no inter laced list of different specialities have been prepared. Preparation such an interlaced seniority list is a must, because if seniority is to be given any consideration in the matter of appointment on the post of Principals, only after interlaced list is prepared, person could claim seniority on that basis. Even within the clinical and non-clinical wings no inter laced list of different specialities have been prepared. Preparation such an interlaced seniority list is a must, because if seniority is to be given any consideration in the matter of appointment on the post of Principals, only after interlaced list is prepared, person could claim seniority on that basis. It was also contended that the Government did not assign any reason for violating the recommendations of the Selection Committee which met on 5.10.1979. The Selection Committee which met on 5.10.1979 has considered the ACRS desires and service record of the petitioner as well as other respondents and did not find respondent No. 2 to be fit for selection. It was also contended that the petitioner had worked on the post of Professor for about 14 years on the last date of application and was just to complete 14 years when the Selection Committee met on 5.10.1979. Petitioners service record throughout his service is absolutely clean and meritorious. His work as Professor has been outstanding It was further contended that the respondent Government did not have any jurisdiction to make any abrupt change in the mode and criteria for selection. Once the selection had already taken place, the Government was bound by the recommendations of the Selection Committee. The action of the Government in refusing to implement the recommendations of the Selection Committee is highly arbitrary, and capricious. It was also contended that even for amenant it be assumed without admitting it to be correct that the Government has got power to change the criteria and make a selection in such an arbitrary manner, the same could only be done after giving notice to the petitioner and other concerned persons. The action of the Government has clearly resulted in violation of the principles of audi alteram portem. 19. On behalf of the State Government reply to the rejoinder to the reply of the writ petition on behalf of respondent No 1 has been filed. It has been contended on behalf of the State Government that the petitioner was never selected by the Selection Committee which met on 5.10.1979, nor he was assured that he would be interviewed at the time of finalisation of his selection. It has been contended on behalf of the State Government that the petitioner was never selected by the Selection Committee which met on 5.10.1979, nor he was assured that he would be interviewed at the time of finalisation of his selection. He himself has asserted that he was out of India on the day of interview and he did not attend the interview It is further submitted that the recommendations made by the Selection Committee which met on 5 10 1979 were not accepted by the State Government. It was feld at the government level that the senior officers were feeling humiliated because of the fear of their rejection and were not applying for the post and as such persons who were junior were being posted over and above their heads. It was under these circumstances that the Government laid down two criterion for the selection of Principals of the Medical Colleges and Controller of Associated Group of Hospitals as follows : (a)-Seniority and having experience of 10 years as Professor to judge merits. (b)-Should have not been posted abroad or should be available immediately for appointment. No condition for interview or inviting applications were laid down. 20. The State Government asked the Selection Committee to meet again to consider the candidature of suitable candidates having an experience of 10 years as Professor to adjudge their merit and to see that they are not posted abroad and with these two criteria the Selection Committee considered the candidature of 20 persons-10 from clinical side and 10 from non-clinical side and recommended the cases of four persons who were found suitable for the appointment as Principal. The persons whose record was not found meritorious were not found suitable and were not selected. 21. It was further contended that it is wrong to allege that the Government arbitrarily decided to ignore the recommendations of the Selection Committee which met on 5.10.1979. No publication of seniority list was needed in this case. The post for which appointments were being made, were not cadred posts nor they were governed by any service rules, nor they were promotional posts. The senior most Professors 10 from each side were taken into consideration and were within the zone of consideration before the second Selection Committee. The name of the petitioner was also included in that list and after considering the record he was rejected on merits. The senior most Professors 10 from each side were taken into consideration and were within the zone of consideration before the second Selection Committee. The name of the petitioner was also included in that list and after considering the record he was rejected on merits. The post of Principal is an administrative post for which immediate availability of the persons for posting as Principal is essential. The Government did not accept the recommendations of the first Selection Committee which was within its discretion but the discretion has been judicially exercised looking to the circumstances and the exigencies of the case as suitable administrators were to be selected for the post of Principal, the Government laid down the criteria as mentioned above and the selection was made on that basis. It was further contended on behalf of the State Government that in the interest of the best administration of the colleges the decision was taken by the Government and on the basis of directions and guidelines given by the State, the Selection Committee considered 20 persons and made recommendations; which were accepted by the State Government. It was farther contended that the action of the Government was mala fide in law or in fact. It was further contended that the petitioner has deliberately not mentioned about the meeting of the second Selection Committee on 18 2.1980, nor has challenged the appointments made on the basis of the recommendations made by the Selection Committee. 22. Respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been considered and the record of the case carefully perused. 23. For the purpose of disposal of this writ petition it was considered that the amendment application be deemed to have been allowed. In fact, no orders on the amendment application have been passed. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the first Selection Committee which met on 5.10.79, his name was approved, but finalisation of his name was postponed only with a view to allow him an opportunity of being interviewed. The petitioner could not be interviewed on 5.10.1979, as then he was posted abroad The second Selection Committee met on 18.8.1980 and did not find the petitioner suitable to be appointed as Principal and Controller of Associated Group of Hospitals. The post of Principal is a selection post and is not an encadered post. This post is also not a promotional post. The post of Principal is a selection post and is not an encadered post. This post is also not a promotional post. The Principal is appointed from amongst the senior-most Professors on the basis of merits and record. The State Government had the jurisdiction to fix. criteria for making selection to these posts. The State Government Had down criteria for selecting the persons for the post of Principal. The first criteria was that he should be a Professor on 10-15 years standing and should be meritorious and could be adjudged as such. The second criteria was that he should not be posted abroad and should be immediately available for feeing posted as Principal. The Selection Committee screened 10 such senior most Professors from clinical side and 10 such senior most Professors from non-clinical side. After considering the record of such 20 persons, four respondents were appointed who were found suitable As stated earlier, the post of Principal is neither promotional post nor an encadered post. It is an administrative post which carries an additional remuneration of Rs. 350/- per month. The Selection Committee has also to see whether the person who is to be appointed as Principal possesses all the capability which an administrator should possess. Apart from the teaching job the Principal has to exhibit exceptional ability on the administrative side also. The petitioner would have been perfectly justified if the petitioners case had not been considered in the second Selection Committee. The petitioner was considered and was not found suitable. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by the second Selection Committee. The Government accepted the recommendations and the appointments followed. The basic claim of the petitioner is that as his name was included in the list prepared by the first Selection Committee, a vested right has accrued to him. The State Government in its reply has denied the varacity of this version. The petitioner has not produced any document to substantiates his submission that he was selected by the first Selection Committee and the finalisation of his name was only subject to interview. Even if it is assumed for arguments sake that the name of the petitioner did appear, as stated by him, in the list prepared by the first Selection Committee, then too, the recommendations of the Selection Committee were not necessary to be accepted by the State Government. Even if it is assumed for arguments sake that the name of the petitioner did appear, as stated by him, in the list prepared by the first Selection Committee, then too, the recommendations of the Selection Committee were not necessary to be accepted by the State Government. It is nowhere provided that the recommendations made by the Selection Committee would be binding on the State Government. The Selection Committees recommendations were not accepted by the Government and a fresh Selection Committee was constituted, which met on 18 2 1980 and made fresh selections. In the selection so made on 18.2.1980, the petitioner was not found suitable and, as such, his name was not included in the selection list. The selections so made on 18 2 1980 were found to be in order and the Government accepted the recommendations and issued orders of appointment on 19.2.1980. 24. Having given my most anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, I am unable to hold that any fundamental or legal right of the petitioner has been violated justifying an interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the post of the principal was encadered post or promotional post, than the petitioner would have been justified in asking this Court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; but that being not so, the petitioner cannot get redress by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 25. For the reasons stated above, there is no force in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. However looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.