J. C. GUPTA, J. Heard Sri Ashok Khare Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel ap pearing for respondents No. 1 to 4. Respondent No. 5 has also filed counter-affidavit which supports the case of the petitioner. 2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 13-11- 1981 passed by respondent No. 1 cancelling the petitioners appointment on the post of Principal in S. N. Sen Balika Vidyalaya Inter College, Kahpur. 3. It may be relevant to mention a few facts. The Institution in question is undisputedly governed by the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, (here in after referred as to Act) and the Regulations framed there under. The post of Principal was lying vacant in the Institu tion. In the year 1977 selection proceedings were initiated for filling the said vacancy. Vacancy was advertised and in response to the said advertisement the petitioner applied for the post of Prin cipal. The petitioner was called for inter view and she appeared before the Selectpetitioner was appointed and the show-cause, section Committee on 28-5-78. The Selection notice was issued only after when Commitfee Was constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Act, which inter viewed all the candidates who appeared before it and on the basis of total quality point marks and the marks awarded in the interview, the Committee unanimously selected the petitioner for the post of Prin cipal of the Institution by placing her at number one in order of priority. In pur suance of the recommendation of Selec tion Committee, appointment letter dated 6-6-1978 was issued to the petitioner and she joined as Principal of the Institution on 16-6- 1978. The initial appointment was petitioner had been confirmed on the post of Principal by the order dated 16-6-1979. It has already been pointed out above that so far as the other objection that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for being appointed as Principal has been decided in favour of the petitioner and the said objection has been dropped. The petitioner admittedly has been working as Principal on the aforesaid post since the year 1978 and after a gap of more than 19 years it would be most unjust and unequitable to cancel the on probation for a period of one year. The petitioner admittedly has been working as Principal on the aforesaid post since the year 1978 and after a gap of more than 19 years it would be most unjust and unequitable to cancel the on probation for a period of one year. On successful completion of the said period, the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Principal by the order dated 16-6-1979 (vide Annexure-5 ). 4. After when the petitioner had been confirmed on the post of Principal, a show cause notice dated 24- 11-1980 was issued by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner where in two objections were raised with regard to the selection of the petitioner. Copy of the said show-cause notice is An-nexare-6. Respondent No. 1 required the petitioner to show cause why her selection be not cancelled. The objections were two folds: (a) That the petitioner did not possess the requisite experience and so was not eligible to be appointed as Principal and (b) That out of 15 applicants, 7 were not called by the Selection Committee and their application forms were rejected on untenable ground viz their applications were not for warded by R. I. G. S. or the head of the Institu tions. 5. The petitioner filed a reply stating there in that she did possess the education qualification as well as had experience re quired for appointment on the post of Principal. The reply to other objection was that all the received applications were scrutinized by Regional Inspector of Girls School and only those applications were rejected which were not inconformity with the provisions of Section 16 (e) and Regulation 10 (b) in as much as they were not forwarded by the Deputy Director of Education. 6. Respondent No. 1 considered the reply of the petitioner and dropped the objection raised in respect of the qualifica tion and experience of the petitioner to hold the post of Principal. However, by the impugned order, the appointment of the petitioner as Principal has been quashed solely on the ground that the applications of seven candidates were wrongly rejected. Aggrieved by this order the present writ petition has been filed. 7. However, by the impugned order, the appointment of the petitioner as Principal has been quashed solely on the ground that the applications of seven candidates were wrongly rejected. Aggrieved by this order the present writ petition has been filed. 7. Respondent No. 1 in their counter-affidavit have supported the impugned order and the stand taken is that the selec tion of the petitioner has been cancelled since it was not fair because of wrong rejection of applications of some other candidates, who had better quality point marks. 8. By an interim order of this court, the operation of the impugned order was stayed and it is not disputed that the petitioner has been working as Principal of the said Institution till now. 9. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the appointment of the petitioner as Principal has been cancelled solely on the ground of some irregularity alleged to have been committed during the selection process, i. e. that applications of some of the candidates were wrongly rejected and they were deprived frorn the interview which was held before the Selec tion Committee. Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to Annexure-11 which contains the instructions which were to be followed while submitting application forms. In-struction-1 was to the effect that if any candidate failed to follow any of the in structions his application form could be rejected. Instruction No. 7 given in the form laid down that every candidate serv ing else where could apply only with the permission of his or her appointing authority and with a care that the applica tion duly forwarded should reach before the last date prescribed. The candidature of seven applicants were rejected on the ground that their application forms were not in conformity with the aforesaid in structions. It is pertinent to note here that none of those candidates challenged the selection process before any court of law. No attempt was made to get the selection cancelled even after the petitioner was ap pointed and the show-cause notice was issued only after when the petitioner had been confirmed on the post of Principal by the order dated 16-6-1979. It is pertinent to note here that none of those candidates challenged the selection process before any court of law. No attempt was made to get the selection cancelled even after the petitioner was ap pointed and the show-cause notice was issued only after when the petitioner had been confirmed on the post of Principal by the order dated 16-6-1979. It has already been pointed out above that so far as the other objection that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for being appointed as Principal has been decided in favour of the petitioner and the said objection has been dropped. The petitioner admittedly has been working as Principal on the aforesaid post since the year 1978 and after a gap of more than 19 years it would be most unjust and unequi table to cancel the petitioners appoint ment on the post of Principal at the fag end of her career, just on the ground of some alleged irregularities, though in fact it could not be said that the Selection Com mittee was unjustified in rejecting applica tion forms of those candidates who have not followed the instructions strictly. 10. For the above reasons, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The im pugned order dated 13-11- 1981 passed by respondent No. 1 contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition is quashed. In the circumstances, no order as to cost is made. Petition allowed. .