( 1 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Public Administration and politics, in VMC Mahila Vidyapeeth Degree college for Women, the second respondent herein, ever since its inception. The college is admitted to grant-in-aid. The petitioner pleads that she has been working as In-charge Principal, from 10-1-1997 onwards. ( 2 ) THE management of the college submitted proposals to the first respondent, seeking permission to fill the post of Principal, on regular basis. The permission was accorded, and a Selection Committee was constituted, in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 127, dated 7-6-1993. The petitioner and two other Lecturers, by name B. Sujanamathi and N. Gayatri Devi, were considered by the Selection Committee, and the petitioner was selected. ( 3 ) THE second respondent appointed the petitioner as Principal and submitted proposals on 18-5-1998 to the first respondent, for according approval. At about that time, the Commissioner considered the representation of Smt. Sujanamathi, one of the candidates considered for the post of Principal; in relation to her seniority, and issued proceedings dated 16-7-1998, declaring her to be senior. The first respondent did not accord approval for the appointment of the petitioner as Principal, on the ground that one of the candidates was declared senior to the petitioner. ( 4 ) PETITIONER filed W. P. No. 23649 of 1998 in this Court, assailing the proceedings dated 16-7-1998, as well as the action of the first respondent in refusing to accord approval for her appointment, as Principal. The writ petition was disposed of on 16-6-2005. It was held that the action of the first respondent, in declaring the lecturer, by name Sujanamathi, as senior to the petitioner, does not have any impact on the selection to the post of the Principal, since both of them were considered by the selection Committee. It was in this context that a direction was issued to the first respondent, to consider the recommendations of the Selection Committee made in the year 1998, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three months. ( 5 ) IN pursuance of the direction in the writ petition, the first respondent passed an order, dated 28-9-2005, refusing to approve the appointment of the petitioner, on the ground that the panel prepared on 18-5-1998 was valid only for one year. He required the second respondent to place the matter before the Departmental promotion Committee, once again. ( 5 ) IN pursuance of the direction in the writ petition, the first respondent passed an order, dated 28-9-2005, refusing to approve the appointment of the petitioner, on the ground that the panel prepared on 18-5-1998 was valid only for one year. He required the second respondent to place the matter before the Departmental promotion Committee, once again. He has also directed the second respondent to submit the proposals for approval, once again. ( 6 ) THE petitioner contends that the action of the first respondent is contrary to the letter and spirit, and, in a way, has the effect of nullifying; the judgment in w. P. No. 23649 of 1998. She pleads that the post of Principal is filled on the basis of selection, by considering the cases of the three senior most Lecturers, and the fact that one of them was declared senior to the other, would have no bearing at all. It is also her case that the other two candidates in the panel have since retired and there was no justification for the first respondent in refusing to accord the approval. ( 7 ) A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the first respondent. After narrating the circumstances that led to the selection of the Principal, submission of proposals, denial of approval, and filing of writ petition by the petitioner; it is contended that the order dated 16-7-1998 passed by the first respondent was not set aside. The plea taken in the impugned order that the panel was valid for only one year, is reiterated. A plea is taken to the affect that but for the interim directions issued by this Court in w. P. No. 23649 of 1998, the fresh selection would have taken place in the year 1998 itself. It is urged that the impugned proceedings are issued, with a view to implement the directions issued by this Court. It is further contended that the petitioner was unfit to be promoted as Principal, as she was not senior most Lecturer in the year 1998. ( 8 ) SRI Nooti Ram Mohan Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the appointment to the post of Principal of an Aided Degree College is made through a process of selection, and the zone of consideration is the senior most three lecturers in the college. ( 8 ) SRI Nooti Ram Mohan Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the appointment to the post of Principal of an Aided Degree College is made through a process of selection, and the zone of consideration is the senior most three lecturers in the college. He contends that though the petitioner was treated as senior most, at the time of selection, and another Lecturer by name Dr. Sujanamathi was declared as senior to the petitioner after the selection, the same did not have any impact on the selection, since both were considered by the Selection Committee. He contends that it is not at all open to the first respondent, to plead that the life of the panel was one year, particularly when the issue was pending before this court, for the last several years. He contends that it is impermissible for the first respondent to plead such a ground, when it was not raised in W. P. No. 23649 of 1998. ( 9 ) LEARNED Government Pleader for higher Education, on the other hand, submits that this Court did not set aside the earlier order dated 16-7-1998, through which the first respondent refused to accord approval for the selection of the petitioner as Principal. She pleads that no specific direction was issued for according approval of the candidature of the petitioner and the direction that the case of the petitioner be considered was implemented, by way of passing the impugned order. It is urged that the action of the first respondent cannot be said to be in contravention of the orders of this Court. ( 10 ) THE first respondent submitted proposals seeking permission to fill the vacancy of Principal, on regular basis, very long back. The permission was accorded on 20-10-1997. A Selection Committee was constituted in accordance with the relevant rules. The petitioner and two others, viz. B. Sujanamati and Smt. Gayathri Devi were considered by the Selection Committee. The other two candidates have submitted representations claiming seniority. After considering the cases of the three candidates, the Selection Committee recommended the name of the petitioner for the post of the principal, through its Minutes dated 18-5-1998. Soon thereafter, the second respondent forwarded the recommendations to the first respondent for approval. ( 11 ) AFTER the selections were concluded, one Lecturer, by name Sujanamathi, filed a representation to the first respondent. Soon thereafter, the second respondent forwarded the recommendations to the first respondent for approval. ( 11 ) AFTER the selections were concluded, one Lecturer, by name Sujanamathi, filed a representation to the first respondent. On a consideration of the same, the first respondent declared her to be senior to the petitioner, and in that view of the matter, refused to accord approval for the appointment of the petitioner as Principal. Therefore, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 23649 of 1998, duly impleading Smt. Sujanamathi. ( 12 ) THE writ petition came up for hearing in the year 2005. All through, the petitioner was continuing as In-charge principal. Dealing with the situations, wherein smt. Sujanamathi was declared as senior, this Court observed, in its judgment dated 16-6-2005, as under :"the third respondent (B. Sujanamathi) was declared as senior to the petitioner in the cadre of Lecturers in the respondent degree college. That itself does not automatically confer entitlement on the third respondent for being appointed to the post of Principal of the college. In fact the third respondent never made any challenge to the proceedings of the Selection Committee as recommended by the management for the approval of the Competent Authority. The respondents while considering the inter se seniority of the petitioner simply stated that in view of the fact that the third respondent is declared as senior to the petitioner the feasibility of granting approval is not possible. There is no dispute as to the fact that the third respondent also participated in the selection process for the post of principal on 18-5-1998 along with others. It is stated that the Selection Committee considered the names of three persons and the petitioner was selected and recommended for being appointed as Principal of the college. May be the third respondent was entitled for being declared as senior to the petitioner, but that does not mean that the third respondent is entitled for seniority over and above the petitioner itself was a factor to consider the rejection of the approval of the petitioner for being appointed to the post of Principal even after the third respondent participated in the selection proceedings along with the petitioner and others on 18-5-1998. "by that time, it has already emerged that sujanamathi herself and the other candidates did not remain in the fray. "by that time, it has already emerged that sujanamathi herself and the other candidates did not remain in the fray. This court did record a finding to the following effect :"it was not open for the respondents to refuse the approval of the recommendation of the Selection Committee and the management for the post of regular Principal as was done on 18-5-1998 only on the ground that the third respondent was found to be senior in the cadre of Lecturer in the college over and above the petitioner. "it was in this context that the first respondent was directed to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders. ( 13 ) IT is rather surprising that a senior officer holding the post of Director of School education, either has failed or refused to understand the purport of the order of this court, and for him, the entire order passed in the writ petition was, as good as nothing. He has set at naught the purport of the judgment, by stating that the life of the panel was only one year. The approach of the first respondent is totally objectionable and reprehensible. In a way, he is trying to overreach the orders of the Court by taking a plea, which, he is not entitled to. But for the fact that the petitioner did not initiate contempt proceedings, this Court would certainly have examined the matter from that angle. ( 14 ) IF, in fact, the first respondent was of the view that the panel lapses within one year from the date of its preparation, he ought to have pleaded the same before this court, when the writ petition was heard, as recently as in June 2005. At any rate, he is presumed to have taken that ground, and equally it is deemed to have been rejected by operation of the principle of constructive res judicata. The whole effort appears to be to somehow or the other, deny the benefit of promotion to the petitioner. ( 15 ) IN the counter-affidavit, it is pleaded that this Court did not quash the proceedings dated 16-7-1998. The observation, which was extracted in the preceding paragraphs, was either deliberately ignored or misinterpreted. A new ground was pleaded to the effect that the petitioner was unfit and she was not the senior most Lecturer. ( 15 ) IN the counter-affidavit, it is pleaded that this Court did not quash the proceedings dated 16-7-1998. The observation, which was extracted in the preceding paragraphs, was either deliberately ignored or misinterpreted. A new ground was pleaded to the effect that the petitioner was unfit and she was not the senior most Lecturer. This was never the case either before the court, nor was it indicated in the impugned orders, passed in the year 1998, or in 2005. The Joint Director of School Education, who sworn to the affidavit, has wantonly stated wrong facts either on his own accord, or under the instructions of the first respondent. It is a said reflection on the nature of administration being undertaken by the first respondent. ( 16 ) IF at all anybody, it could have been Smt. Sujanamathi, who may have any grievance, at the stage of consideration of the matter, consequent upon the directions issued by this Court. As observed earlier, out of the three candidates, the petitioner alone is continuing in the college. Of remaining two, one has retired and the other is said to have left for another college. This Court does not approve of the action of the first respondent in passing the impugned order, and in fact, holds it to be seriously objectionable, illegal, arbitrary and vindictive. ( 17 ) IN the ordinary course of things, this Court could have set aside the impugned order and left the matter to be considered by the first respondent, once again. Two factors warrant that a slight departure needs to be made. The first is that except the petitioner, there is none other in the panel, whose cases deserve to be considered. The second is that the first respondent made himself very clear as to what he is upto, given, even the slightest scope for using discretion. ( 18 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The first respondent is directed to pass orders, as regards the approval, on the basis of the panel submitted to him on 18-5-1998, within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( 19 ) THIS Court finds that the first respondent has deliberately and wantonly placed distorted interpretation on the orders of this Court and made the petitioner to suffer. ( 19 ) THIS Court finds that the first respondent has deliberately and wantonly placed distorted interpretation on the orders of this Court and made the petitioner to suffer. Hence, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) is awarded as costs to the petitioner to be paid by the first respondent, from his own funds.