Prabha Sharma v. District Judge, Meerut — 1982 DIGILAW 765 (ALL)

ORDER H.N. Seth, J. - This petition under Article 22 of the constitution by Km. Prabha Sharma is directed against the order dated 20th Jan. 1982 passed by district Judge, Meerut allowing an appeal of Smt. Chandra Goel directed against the order dated 7th Jan., 1982 passed by City Munsif, Meerut dismissing Smt. Chadra Goel's application for an ad interim injunction during the pendency of Suit No. 638 of 1981 filed by her. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are that there is a recognised educational institution in Meerut known as Raghunath Girls Inter College. According to the Scheme of administration governing the said Institution there is a Committee of Management which menages the affairs of the college. THis Committee of Management is also constituted the appointing authority in respect of teachers and Principal of the College. One Km. V.M. Singh, Principal of the College, retired on 30th June, 1980 and the vacancy created by her retirement was in due course, advertised on 1st July, 1980. The Selection committee, to fill the said post met on 8th Feb. 1981 and it prepared a list showing names of Smt. Deo Bala Jain Smt. Chandra Goel and Smt. Shanti Bhatnagar as candidates selected by it in order of preference for filling in the vacancy in the post of Principal of the College. While forwarding the said list the selection Committee clearly specified that in case Smt. Deo Bala Jain did not join her duties. Smt. Chandra Goel should be appointed as Principal of the College. The recommendations made y the Selection committee were considered by the Committee of Management on 16th Feb. 1981 which resolved to accept the same and authorised the Secretary to take appropriate legal steps in that regard (vide Annexure CA 3) on 21-2-1981 a letter of appointment was sent to Smt. Deo Bala Jain calling upon he to join as Principal of the College within ten days. Smt. Jain, however, continued to seek extension fro time to item and eventually on 30th April, 1981 refused to join the said post. It appears that in the meantime a radiogram from the State Government was received by the Inspector of Schools, Meerut on 7th Aprl., 1981. The Radoigram (Annexure 2 to the writ Petition) ran thus :- "Stop all fresh selections and appointments of Principals, Headmasters and teachers including recruitment by promotions in all non-Govt. It appears that in the meantime a radiogram from the State Government was received by the Inspector of Schools, Meerut on 7th Aprl., 1981. The Radoigram (Annexure 2 to the writ Petition) ran thus :- "Stop all fresh selections and appointments of Principals, Headmasters and teachers including recruitment by promotions in all non-Govt. aided secondary schools except in minority institution, pending these orders,. District Inspectors to ensure non-drawal of pay to teachers appointed after this day. Detailed instructions follow :" During all this period petitioner Km. Prabha Sharma had been officiating as Principal of the College, vide resolution oo the committee of Management dated 30th June, 1981 (Annexure C.A. 1 to the counter affidavit filed by Sri Ved Pradash). However, after Smt. Deo Bala Jain refused to accept the appointment as Principal of the College, the Manager of the Institution did not immediately issue any appointment letter to Smt. Chandra Goel whose name appeared at serial No. 2 in the list of candidates drawn up by the Selection Committee. The Committee of Management accordingly met on 17th June, 1981 and passed a resolution directing the Manager to issue appointment letter to Smt. Chandra Goel in compliance with its earlier resolution dated 16th Feb., 1981. The then Manager of the Institution did not as desired by the Committee of Management issue any appointment letter to Smt. Chandra Goel. 3. Fresh elections took place in the Institution and on 29th Aug. 1981 the then Manager was replaced by a new manager who on 16th Sept., 1981 issued a letter of appointment to Smt. Chandra Goel. It may be mentioned at this stage that in the meantime the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) had also been promulgated on 10th July, 1981 and on 31st July, 1981 an order entitled "U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order" (hereinafter referred to as the Removal of Difficulties Order) was enforced. Whereas the case of Km. Prabha Sharma, the petitioner, was that Smt. Chandra Goel was appointed as Principal of the college illegally in contravention of the directions issued by the State Government in the Radiogram dated 7th Apr., 1981 as also in contravention of the provisions contained in the Ordinance read along with the Removal of Difficulties. Whereas the case of Km. Prabha Sharma, the petitioner, was that Smt. Chandra Goel was appointed as Principal of the college illegally in contravention of the directions issued by the State Government in the Radiogram dated 7th Apr., 1981 as also in contravention of the provisions contained in the Ordinance read along with the Removal of Difficulties. Order; the case of Smt. Chandra Goel was that she already stood appointed as Principal under the resolutions of the committee of Management dated 8th Feb., 1981 and 16th Feb. 1981 and that her appointment was not affected by anything contained either in the Radiogram or in the Ordinance of the Removal of Difficulties Order indicated above. There was thus nothing objectionable in the Manager of the Institution issuing the appointment letter to her on 16th Sept., 1981. Smt. Chandra Goel further claimed that she in pursuance of the appointment letter dated 16th Feb., 1981 took over as Principal of the Institution on 17th Sept., 1981 and was peacefully functioning as Principal; Km. Prabha Sharma, however, interfered with her working and the committee of Management suspended her on 27th Nov., 1981. The Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, however, revoked the order of Km. Prabha Sharma's suspension on 19th Dec., 1981 and also gave directions to the effect that she should be allowed to function as the Principal. Smt. Chandra Goel then filed suit No. 638 of 1981 in the court of City Munsif, Meerut on 21-12-1981 and claimed a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants (Committee of Management, Raghunath Girls Inter College, Meerut, 2. Km. Prabha Sharma, 3 Km. Ashima Chatterji and 4. Regional Inspectress of Girls School, Meerut) from interfering in the discharge of her duties as Principal of Raghunath Girls Inter College, Meerut till she resigns, retires or is removed from the office in due course of law. She also moved an application for ad interim inunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her functioning and discharging the duties of Principal of Raghunath Girls Inter College during the pendency of the suit. The Munsif trying the suit granted the ex parte injunction as prayed for on 21st Dec., 1981. She also moved an application for ad interim inunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her functioning and discharging the duties of Principal of Raghunath Girls Inter College during the pendency of the suit. The Munsif trying the suit granted the ex parte injunction as prayed for on 21st Dec., 1981. However, he on contest being made by the defendants vacated the injunction order vide his order dated 7th Jan., 1982 holding that plaintiff Smt. Chandra Goel had no prima facie case in as much as her appointment subsequent to the issue of the Radiogram dated 7th April, 1981 and the Ordinance was not legal. He was not satisfied that the plaintiff would suffer any irreparable loss in case the injunction order prayed for was not issued. The trial Court also expressed the view that the suit for injunction was barred by provisions of O. 39, R. 2 (d) of the Civil P.C. which disentitled the Civil Court from issuing injunction touching on the internal management of educational institutions. In the result, the learned Munsif, vide his order dated 7th Jan., 1982, vacated the interim injunction order and rejected Smt. Chandra Goel's application for an injunction during pendency of the suit. 4. Aggrieved, Smt. Chandra Goel went up in appeal before the District Judge. The appellate Court took the view that Smt. Chandra Goel had actually been appointed by the committee of Management prior to 7th April, 1981 when the State Government issued a radiogram placing an embargo upon the selection, appointment etc., of Principals and teachers in various educational institutions of the State. In its opinion the appointment letter had been issued by the Manager to Smt. Chandra Goel only in pursuance of the appointment which had already been made. In a case where the Committee of Management had appointed a teacher prior to the issue of the radiogram dated 7th April, 1981 nothing contained either in the radiogram or in Ordinance precluded the Manager from issuing a formal appointment letter by hum. Smt. Chandra Goel thus had a prima facie case and the balance of convenience also lay in favour of her working as Principal of the College in an uninterrupted manner. Smt. Chandra Goel thus had a prima facie case and the balance of convenience also lay in favour of her working as Principal of the College in an uninterrupted manner. The learned District Judge also took the view that the suit for injunction was not barred by the provisions contained in O. 39, R. 2 (d) of the Civil P.C. In the result, he allowed the appeal and granted Smt. Chandra Goel's prayer for an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her functioning as Principal of the College during the pendency of the suit. 5. Aggrieved, Km. Prabha Sharma has approached this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution,. Learned counsel appearing for her has contended that the view of the learned District Judge that on admitted facts appointment of Smt. Chandra Goel as Principal of the College had taken place prior to the issue of the Radiogram dated 7th April, 1981 and the Ordinance and that the balance of convenience laying granting the injunction prayed for by her is erroneous on the face of it . He also contended that in view of the provisions contained in O. 39, R. 2 (d) of the Civil P.C. as it stands amended in this State, Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to grant an injunction which in substance had the effect of interfering with internal management of educational institutions. The contrary view taken by the District Judge in this regards is also manifestly erroneous. 6. In the instant case, cause of action for Smt. Chandra Goel to file the suit for injunction arose because the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools refused to recognise her as Principal of the College as, in her view her appointment was invalid inasmuch as she had been so appointed in contravention of the instructions placing an embargo on selection appointment of Principals and teachers etc. continued in the radiogram dated 7th Apr., 1981 as also that of the Ordinance laying down that all appointments of Principals etc., except those made in accordance with the procedure laid down therein were to be void. Learned counsel appearing for Smt. Chandra Goel did not dispute that in case she was appointed as Principal of the College after coming into force of the Ordinance, her appointment would be invalid. Learned counsel appearing for Smt. Chandra Goel did not dispute that in case she was appointed as Principal of the College after coming into force of the Ordinance, her appointment would be invalid. We, however, vehemently contended that in fact she had been appointed as a Principal of Raghunath girls Inter College prior to 7th Apr., 1981 the date on which the Radiogram message prohibiting appointments of teachers etc. was issued by the State Government. Even if it is found that she was appointed after 7th Apr., 1981, her appointment would to be vitiated as the embargo placed by the Radiogram, being without jurisdiction, did not affect the right of the Management to make appointment in accordance with the provisions contained in S. 16-E of the Intermediate education Act. According to him, there is nothing either in the Radiogram dated 7th April, 1981 or in the Ordinance, which renders her appointment invalid. 7. So far as the submission with regard to competence of the State Government to issue the Radiogram dated 7th April, 1981 and its effect on the appointment made in derogation thereof, is concerned, the controversy in my opinion stands concluded by a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Ramji Dwivedi v. State of U.P., 1981 U.P.L.B.E.C. 137 : 1982 Lab IC 1130. In that case the validity of an order dated 1st May, 1981 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Ballia, informing the Manager of the Committee of Management of an Intermediate College that its action in appointing a Principal after the issue of Government Order dated 7th Apr., 1981 was invalid, was questioned before this Court. This Court repelled various submission made on behalf of the petitioner and ruled that the State Government's order squarely fell within the ambit of its powers under Article 162 of the Constitution and S. 9 (2) of the Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and it eventually repelled the challenge to the order of the District Inspector of Schools informing the Management that appointment made by it in contravention of instructions contained in the Government order dated 7th April, 1981 was invalid. Accordingly, in the instant case also the appointment of Smt. Chandra Goel would be invalid in case it is found that it was made after 7th April, 1981 in contravention of the Government Order contained in the Radiogram dated 7th April, 1981. 8. At the relevant time selection, appointment etc. of heads and teachers of educational institutions in the State were being governed by the provisions contained in the a Ct and the regulations framed therein. In my opinion, it cannot be denied that the scope and ambit of the embargo placed by the radiogram dated 7th April, 1981 on selection, app ointment etc., of heads of various education institutions in the State ha necessarily to be determined in the light of the statutory provisions contained in the a Ct and the Regulations framed thereunder. It would, therefore, be appropriate to notice at this Stage relevant provisions contained in the aCt and the Regulations framed thereunder. S. 16-E of the aCt lays down the procedure for selection of teachers and heads of institutions. According to sub-sec. (2) as soon as a vacancy in the post o Head of the institution or a teacher of an institution occurs, the Committee of Management has to intimate the same to the Inspector of SScholls as also to advertise the same in two newspapers having adequate circulatio in the Sate Sub-sec. (4f) then provides that every application for appointment as head of the institution or teacher of an institution in pursuance of the advertisement shall be made to the Inspector who after complying with the provision of sub-sec. (5), has to forward the same to the Committee of Management. The matter is then placed before a Selection committee constituted under Section 16-F of the Act which, after interviewing various candidates, under sub-sec. (6) is required to prepare a list containing in order of preference names, as far as possible, of three candidates for the post found by it to be suitable for appointment and to along with that communicate its recommendation to the Committee of Management. Sub-sec. (7) then provides that in case the Committee of Management agrees with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, it should first offer appointment to the candidate given the first preference by the Selection Committee and on his failure to join the post, the candidate next to him in the list. Sub-sec. (7) then provides that in case the Committee of Management agrees with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, it should first offer appointment to the candidate given the first preference by the Selection Committee and on his failure to join the post, the candidate next to him in the list. On failure even so such a candidate as well, the appointment has to be offered to the last candidate specified in the list. Regulation 18 contained in Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Act reads thus :- "18 (1). Within fifteen days of the receipt of the recommendation of the Selection Committee..... the Manager shall, on authorisation under resolution of the Committee of Management issue an order of appointment by registered post to the candidate in the form given in Appendix 'E' requiring the candidate to join duty within ten days of the receipt of such order failing which the appointment of the candidate will be liable to cancellation. (2) .......... (3) A copy of every order referred to in clause (1) ........ shall be sent to the Inspector and in case of appointment of the Head of institution a copy thereof shall also be sent to the Regional Deputy Director of Education." The Form prescribed in Appendix 'E' runs thus :- "APPENDIX 'E' (Under Regd. Cover) No.............. Dated............ Name of the Institution............. Place............... District............. Subject - Appointment of Teacher/Head of Institution. Sir/Madam, I take pleasure in informing you that you have been selected for the post of ........... by the Selection Committee. The Committee of Management of the institution, vide their resolution No. ....... dated......... has appointed you as a ........ in the scale of Rs. ....... with a starting salary of Rs. ...... plus D.A. as admissible under rules on one year's probation/temporarily up to ........ You are called upon to report to the Head of the Institution/Manager within 10 (ten) days of the receipt of this letter and join duty. In case you fail to join within the time specified above, this appointment will be liable to be cancelled. Yours faithfully, Manager Copy forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools/Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools.......... Regional Deputy Director of Education......... for information." 9. In case you fail to join within the time specified above, this appointment will be liable to be cancelled. Yours faithfully, Manager Copy forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools/Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools.......... Regional Deputy Director of Education......... for information." 9. It appears that in the year 1981 the State Government decided to change the procedure for appointment of teachers and heads of educational institutions in the State and wanted to replace the Selection Committees contemplated by S. 16-F of the Act by a regular Educational Service Commission. It accordingly issued the Radiogram dated 7th April, 1981 placing an embargo on selection, app ointment etc. of teachers and heads of the institutions and subsequently followed it by the Ordinance providing inter alia for the constitution of a Commission for selecting teachers and heads of the institutions and declaring that any appointment made after 7th April, 1981 in contravention of the provisions contained in the Ordinance would be void. 10. A perusal of the statutory provisions as they stood prior to the enforcement of the Ordinance, shows that it was for the Selection Committee constituted under S. 16-F of the Act to prepare in order of preference, a list of three candidates for filing the post of a teacher/head of the institution. In case the Committee of Management agreed with the recommendations made by the Selection Committee it had to, first of all, offer appointment to the candidate given the first preference by the Selection Committee and on his failure to join the post to the candidate next to him in the list prepared by the Selection Committee and on the failure of even such a candidate to the last candidate specified in the list. As and when the committee of Management became entitled to offer appointment to a particular candidate mentioned in the list prepared by the Selection Committee, Regulation 18 contained in Chap. II of the Regulations framed under the Act, enabled the Manger of the institution to, if so authorised under the resolution of the committee of Management, issue the order of appointment in the form specified in Appendix 'E' to the Regulations. II of the Regulations framed under the Act, enabled the Manger of the institution to, if so authorised under the resolution of the committee of Management, issue the order of appointment in the form specified in Appendix 'E' to the Regulations. The form indicates that the concerned candidate has to only to be informed that he has been selected by the Selection Committee but also that the Committee of Management had appointed him as teacher/head of the institution by a particular resolution and that he should report and join his duties within ten days of receipt of the said information. The concerned teacher/head of the institution is also to be informed that in case he fails to join within ten days this appointment is liable to be cancelled. 11. A scrutiny of the scheme underlying aforementioned statutory provisions shows that whereas the task of selecting the candidates to fill a particular post of a teacher or head of the institution had been entrusted to a Selection Committee constituted under S. 16-F of the act; the duty of offering appointment on the said post to candidates indicated by the Selection Committee in order of preference rested with the committee of Management. If so authorised by the Committee of Management, the Manager could then issued the appointment letter to the concerned candidate informing him abut his being selected by the Selection committee, resolution of the committee of Management offering him the appointment (mentioned in the letter as appointment made by the Committee of Management), calling upon him to join the duties within ten days of the receipt of the letter and warning him that in case he did not join the duties within the item specified his appointment (the offer made by the committee of Management) shall be liable to be cancelled. It has appears that the aCt contemplates a teacher/head of the institution as having been appointed when in pursuance of the commendations made by the Selection Committee an occasion arises for the Committee of Management to offer appointment to a particular candidate and it resolves to make such an offer. So far as the second candidate in order of preference mentioned in the list prepared by the Selection Committee is concerned, the occasion to offer the appointment to him can arise only when the first candidate on being offered the post fails to join the same. So far as the second candidate in order of preference mentioned in the list prepared by the Selection Committee is concerned, the occasion to offer the appointment to him can arise only when the first candidate on being offered the post fails to join the same. It is only on such failure by the first candidate that the appointment made in his favour (in the sense explained above) is either cancelled or treated to be cancelled and it is thereafter that the Committee of Management is required to make an offer to the second candidate. Normally what is expected under the rule is that after the recommendations made by the Selection committee are received by the Committee of Management, it should first of all offer the appointment to the candidate whose name is on the top of the list. If such a candidate fails to avail the offer, the Committee of Management should again meet, withdraw its offer and thereafter offer the post to the second candidate mentioned in the list prepared by the Selection Committee. The statute does not contemplate appointment being offered to two candidates simultaneously. Accordingly the second candidate can be said to have been appointed only on the date on which the committee of Management, after lapsing of the offer made to the first candidate, proceeds to pass a resolution offering appointment to him. For the sake of convenience, the committee of Management, may while offering appointment to the first candidate, also resolve and authorise the Manager of the institution to in case that candidate either refuses or fails to avail the offer, issue appointment letter in form Appendix 'E' to the second candidate. Even if such a procedure may appear not to be in literal compliance with the provisions of S. 16-F, it still can be justified as being in substantial compliance with the provisions of the section provided it is tame that in such cases the offer of appointment to the second candidate, though contained in a resolution passed earlier, becomes effective and operative only after the first candidate either refused or fails to join the duties in pursuance of the offer made to him. 12. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents invited my attention to "Biswas Encyclopaedic Law Dictionary" where in expression "appointment" has been explained thus :- "Appointment mean s an act of appointing; designation, specifically the designation by virtue of a vested power of a person to enjoy an estate, office or right. Appointment means direction, designation, the selection of a person for an office...." He also referred me to "Black Law Dictionary" fifth Edition according to which the expressions "appoint" and "appointment" carry the following respective implications :- "to designate, ordain, prescribe, constitute, or nominate. To allot or set apart...." "The designation of a person, by the person or persons having authority therefor, to discharge the duties of some office or trust. .................... The selection or designation of a person by the person or persons having authority therefore, to fill an office or public function and discharge the duties of the same........." In this connection they also invited my attention to a decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Keshavsing v. Indian Engineering Co., AIR 1969 Bom 227 wherein while dealing with the question as to when an arbitrator under the Arbitration Act can be said to be appointed, it was observed that acceptance of the appointment is not necessary ingredient for the appointment; the plain meaning of the word 'appoint' is to ordain or nominate to an office; and there was no reason to import the idea of consent into the plain meaning of the word 'appoint' : and urged that as in the instant case the Committee of Management had, vide its resolution dated 16th Feb., 1981 accepted the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 8th Feb., 1981 which after mentioning the names of three candidates in order of preference specifically stated that in case Smt. Deo Bala Jain whose name appeared at serial No. 1 did not join, Smt. Chandra Goel whose name appeared at serial No. 2 should be required to join the post; it meant that Smt. Chandra Goel stood designated, ordained or nominated for the post, that is appointed to the post on 16th Feb., 1981 itself. As this appointment was made prior to 7th Apr. As this appointment was made prior to 7th Apr. 1981, no question of its being affected by any thing contained either in the Radiogram dated 7th April, 1981 or the Ordinance which was subsequently passed arose and that there was nothing wrong in Smt. Chandra Goel Joining her duties after 7th Apr., 1981 or the coming into force of the ordinance in the month of July 1981. 13. I am unable to accept the aforesaid submission. As already explained, in such cases having regard to the provisions contained in S. 16-F of the Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder the resolution of the committee of Management offering appointment to Smt. Chandra Gel can be justified only on the basis that it becomes aperative and effective of the date on which first candidate mentioned in the list prepared by the Selection Committee either failed or refused to join the post in my opinion Smt. Chandra Goel cannot be said to have been designated ordained or nominated for the post and in that sense appointed to it till such time as the resolution for the purpose passed by Committee of Management did not become operative or effective. 14. It is not disputed that after the appointment was offered to Smt. Dev Bala Jain she obtained extension of time and it was only on 30th Apr., 1981 that she finally expressed her inability to join the post. Accordingly the order of appointment contained in the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 16th Feb., 1981 became effective only on 30th Apr., 1981 and it was thereafter that the Manager became authorised to issue the appointment letter to her in Form Appendix 'E' to the Regulation. Smt. Chandra Goel, therefore, became designated, ordained or nominated by the committee of Management for the purpose and in the sense appointed at the earliest on 30-4-1981. This offer of appointment to Smt. Chandra Goel having become effective after f7th April, amounts to her being appointed in derogation of the instructions contained in the Radiogram issued by the state Government and cannot as such be countenanced. 15. Learned counsel appearing for Smt. Chandra Goel and the management of the Institution next contended that the form of appointment letter issued to Smt. Dev Bala Jain in form appendix 'E' of Chap. 15. Learned counsel appearing for Smt. Chandra Goel and the management of the Institution next contended that the form of appointment letter issued to Smt. Dev Bala Jain in form appendix 'E' of Chap. II of the Regulations clearly specified that in case she failed to report for duties within ten days of the receipt of that letter, her appointment was liable to be cancelled. Smt. Dev Bala Jain in fact did not join the duties within the said period which expired long before 7th April, 1981 Her appointment thus came to an end before 7th April, 1981 and as such the resolution dated 16th Feb. 1981 passed by the Committee of Management offering appointment to Smt. Chandra Goel also became effective prior to 7th April, 1981. The Appointment of Smt. Chandra Goel was this not affected by any thing contained in the Radiogram dated 7th April 1981 or the Ordinance which was passed in the month of July 1981. I am unable to accept this submission. Sub-sec. (7) of S. 16-E of the act merely provides that on receipt of recommendation made y the Selection Committee, the Committee of Management should offer appointment to the candidate given the first preference by the Selection Committee and on his failure to join the post, to the candidate next to him in the list prepared by the Selection committee. It nowhere lays down any period after which an offer made by the Selection Committee, if not availed of, is to automatically lapse. It is true that Regulation No. 18 contained in Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the act provides that the Manage shall on authorisation under the resolution of the Committee of Management issue an order of appointment by registered post to the candidate in Form Appendix 'E' requiring the candidate to join the duties within 10 days to the receipt of such order, failing which the appointment of the candidates will be liable to cancellation,. But the the Regulation nowhere lays down that the offer of appointment if not availed of within ten days of the receipt of the appointment letter stands automatically cancelled. The regulation merely states that if the offer is not availed of, it will be liable to the cancelled. But the the Regulation nowhere lays down that the offer of appointment if not availed of within ten days of the receipt of the appointment letter stands automatically cancelled. The regulation merely states that if the offer is not availed of, it will be liable to the cancelled. The offer made by the committee of Management (appointment) therefore, would come to an end only when the Committee of Management after coming to know that the concerned candidate has not joined within the period of ten days either specifically or by necessary implication proceeds to withdraw the offer or the candidate himself specifically or by necessary imp spurns the same. It is nobody's case that as between the expiry of ten days after receipt of the offer by Smt. Dev Bala Jain and before 30th April, 1981 the Committee of Management took any step which could, either specifically or by necessary implication, be constued as with drawing the offer made to Smt. Dev Bala Jain. It was only on 30th April, 1981 when Smt. Dev Bala Jain expressed her inability to join the post that the offer made by the committee of Management to her came to an end and the Committee of Management became entitled to offer the post (to appoint) to Smt. Chandra Goel. I am, therefore clearly of opinion that the stand taken by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools that Smt. Chandera Goel had bee appointed as Principal of the Institution after and in contravention of the embargo imposed by the instructions contained in the Radiogram dated 7th April, 1981 appears to be correct and that the learned Munsif was justified in coming to the conclusion that Smt. Chandra Goel had failed to establish a prima facie case to support the relief claimed by her. The view taken by the appellate court in this regard, in my opinion, suffers from a manifest error. 16. During the course of their arguments learned counsel appearing for Smt. Chandra Goel and the Management of the Institution referred me to carious decisions of this court in the cases of Tej Ram George Coronation Hindu High School v. Deputy Director of Education III Region, Bareilly, Civil Misc. Writ No. 4016 of 1968 decided on 24th April, 1969; Janta Inter college Nagra, District Ballia v. District INspector of Schools, Civil Misc. Writ No 4497 of 1969 decided on 4th Jan. Writ No. 4016 of 1968 decided on 24th April, 1969; Janta Inter college Nagra, District Ballia v. District INspector of Schools, Civil Misc. Writ No 4497 of 1969 decided on 4th Jan. 1972)* reported in "A Handbook of Teacher's Defence Cases" issued by U.P. Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh (Vol. I to V) page 119 : ILR (1972) 1 All 113 - Ed; and Lal Sohan Prasad v. District Inspector of Schools Ballia, Civil Misc. Writ No 1232 of 1977 decided on 7th December, 1977 reported in "A Hand Book of Teacher's Defence Cases" issued by the U.P. Madhyamik Shikshak Shangh (Vol. II) page 37 : 1978 Lab IC NOC 31 (All) wherein according to them it has been held that once a selection is made by a duly constituted Selection Committee in accordance with the act and the Regulations framed thereunder, the candidates mentioned in the list prepared by the Selection Committee acquire a right for being appointed to fill the posts in accordance with the provision continued in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. In my opinion, learned counsel for the respondents cannot derive advantage from any observation made in these cases inasmuch as the question as to when an offer made to a particular candidate mentioned in the said list (appointment) becomes effective, was neither canvassed nor dealt with in the aforementioned cases. For the same reasons the decisions of this Court in the case of Ajab Singh v. Gochar Krishi Intermediate College, 1971 A.C.L.D. page 29 is also of no avail to the learned counsel for the respondents. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of opinion that Smt. Chandra Goel has failed to establish a prima facie case and is not entitled to the interim injunction prayed for by her and that it is not necessary for me to go either into the question of balance of convenience or as to whether the suit stood barred by the provisions of O. 39, R. (2) (d) of the Civil P.C. 18. The petition, therefore succeeds and is allowed. The Judgment of the learned District Judge, Meerut dated 20th Jan., 1982 (Annexure 16) to the writ petition is quashed and it is directed that plaintiff's application for interim injunction filed before the City Munsif, Meerut stands rejected. In the circumstances, I directed the parties to bear their own costs.