USHA MEHRA ( 1 ) PETITIONER Sh. P. K. Sharma has been working as Reader in the Department of Economics, Moti Lal Nehru college (Evening), University of Delhi. By the accompanied petition he has challenged the constitution of the Selection Committee which selected the Vice Principal and Incharge of the Evening Classes of the college. It is his case that respondent No. 3 Dr. Ratnakar Pandey was the Principal of the college. He had been nominated or elected as Member Parliament. He remained Member Rajya Sabha till 4. 7. 92. Being Member Parliament, he could not during his tenure as Member participate in the selection process nor could have selected the respondent No. 2. The proceedings of the Selection Committee on account of participation of respondent No. 3 became illegal. Respondent No. 3 could have acted as the Principal of the College for giving education/ teaching, but after becoming Member Parliament could not discharge administrative functions. As per Resolution No. 636 respondent No. 3 could not hold administrative responsibilities/functions and thus could not have been participated in the Selection process. Thus the constitution of the Selection Committee and the selection process on account of participation of respondent No. 3 stood vitiated. Hence the selection of respondent No. 2 became illegal. Moreover, respondent No. 2 has been keeping lien as Lecturer in his institute i. e. Desh Bandhu Gupta College. Had the respondent No. 3 not participated in the selection, the petitioner being the senior most of this college would have been selected. But the respondent No. 3 with ulterior motive to serve his own purpose selected respondent No. 2. ( 2 ) BY this application, the petitioner wants the respondent No. 2 be stopped from holding the office and be removed from the college and that status quo ante be ordered. This application has been contested by the respondents. 1 to 4. It is their plea that respondent No. 2 was selected about two years back and since then has been working as Vice Principal and Incharge of the Evening Classes. Now if the interim relief as prayed for is granted, it would seriously deteriorate the functioning of the college. Moreover, without adjudicating the grounds raised in the writ petition, if the interim prayer of status quo ante is ordered, it would amount to accepting the writ petition itself. Now if the interim relief as prayed for is granted, it would seriously deteriorate the functioning of the college. Moreover, without adjudicating the grounds raised in the writ petition, if the interim prayer of status quo ante is ordered, it would amount to accepting the writ petition itself. Even otherwise the petitioner is estopped from challenging the constitution of the Selection Committee. It was this very Selection Committee consisting of respondent No. 3 which selected the petitioner as Reader. ( 3 ) I have heard the petitioner in person, Mr. S. K. Luthra for respondents 1 to 4 and Mr. B. K. Kaul for respondent No. 5. So far as the question of grant of status quo ante is concerned, the petitioner contended that even after two and a half years this Court can do so. Delay itself is no ground to reject the prayer. In this regard he has placed relaince on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Indian Cable JCo. Ltd. v. Sm. Sumitra Chakraborty REFERRED TO in 1989 CWN page 559, where the court observed that :- " Mere delay in filing the suit cannot obviously have the effect of putting a premium to wrongful acts so as to allow the wrongdoer to reap the benefit of his act till the suit is finally disposed of. If the status quo has been changed or altered by a wrongful act the court should not be hesitant to exercise its power to restore the status quo ante even at the interlocutory stage by an order of mandatory injunction simply because the status quo ante at the date of filing of the suit is different from what it was before," ( 4 ) RELYING heavily on these observations, the petitioner contended that since the Selection Committe consisting of respondent No. 3 as the Member was in violation to the Resolution No. 636 hence against the law, therefore, respondent No. 2 who was illegally appointed be restrained from functioning as such, hence the status quo ante order be passed with direction to respondent No. 4 to select the petitioner as the Principal. He is the seniormost Reader available for the said post. He is the seniormost Reader available for the said post. In order to strengthen his argument that selection made by an incompetent authority cannot be given effect and such selection is liable to be set aside, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of R. P. Sharma V. Vice Chairman, PDA and Ors in C. W. No. 2402/91 decided on 31. 9. 93. In that case this Court set aside the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Vice Chairman, D. D. A. holding he was not the competent authority under the rules to start the disciplinary proceedings or impose the penalty. This court further observed that when a law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner it cannot be done in any other manner. Relying on these observations, the petitioner contended that since the Selection Committee was not properly constituted, therefore, the Selection made by a incompetent committee is liable to be set aside being illegal. Therefore, this Court by exercising its judicial discretion to pass status quo ante order. ( 5 ) ON the other hand Mr. Luthra vehmently urged that if the status quo ante order is passed, it tentamount to allowing the writ petition. Moreover, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the selection. The petitioner had participated in the 365 selection process. Having not been successful he cannot challenge the constitution of the said Committee. He had appeared before the Selection Committee without protest. The present challenge is only after he had failed to succeed in the interview. Unless this court hears the parties status quo ante order should not be passed. ( 6 ) I find force in the submissions of Mr. Luthra In this interlocutory application, the relief as sought if granted it would amount to allowing the writ petition without affording opportunity to the respondents to address arguments on merits. Circumstnaces before the Calcutta Bench in the case of Indian Cable Co. Ltd. (Supra) were quite different. In that case appellant was a tenant in respect of the suit premises. He had filed a suit praying for injunction therein to prevent the landlord from interfering with his right. The trial court had passed ad-interim order directing status quo. The landlord in the appeal for the first time disclosed that she had already taken possession of the suit premises. He had filed a suit praying for injunction therein to prevent the landlord from interfering with his right. The trial court had passed ad-interim order directing status quo. The landlord in the appeal for the first time disclosed that she had already taken possession of the suit premises. Thereafter the tenant filed a suit for recovery of possession and injunction. It was in this background and circumstance that the court ordered status quo ante. But at the same time a note of caution was expressed by the court when it observed such relief can be granted only in rare and exceptional cases. What that rare and exceptional cases are must be left to the court to adjudge in the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case without deciding the question of competence of Selection Committee and the right of the petitioner, the interim relief as prayed cannot be granted. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I think it is a fit case where early hearing should be given. Pleadings are complete. I, therefore, direct that this writ petition be listed for final disposal at the end of "after Notice Misc. Matters" on 19th September, 1995.