Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1689 (ALL)

PRAMOD PAL SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-05-21

JAYASHREE TIWARI, R.K.AGRAWAL

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present special appeal has been against the order of learned Single Judge disposing of the writ petition of the petitioner appellant directing him to make a representation ventilating all his grievances before the Joint Director of Education within two weeks and Joint Director of Education was directed to dispose of the representation after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and perusing the record of the office of the District Inspectors of Schools and to decide the representation by means of reasoned and speaking order according to law within a period of six weeks from the date the representation is made. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellant petitioner has preferred the present special appeal. 3. In short, the brief facts giving rise to the matter in controversy are that the petitioner was initially selected on the post of Lecturer (History) by the Commission and was appointed in Government Inter College, Shree Nagar, Garwal. By that time, the State of Uttarakhand had not come in existence and the same was in the territorial jurisdiction of the U.P. The advertisement for selection and appointment on the post of Principal in different inter colleges of the State of U.P. was made prior to the separation of Uttarakhand State out of U.P. The petitioner consequently submitted his application form and after due procedure, was selected by the Commission. The placement of the petitioner after due selection process was shown in Baraili Inter College Barauli Rao, District Aligarh alongwith respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 5 with a view to take advantage was taking extension of time before the Management/ Principal for was submission of joining. The matter relating to selection was challenged in 2003 before Hon’ble Court by means of filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition and by connecting several matters in a bunch of several cases. Which was allowed by the order of Hon’ble Court. The matter went up to the Hon’ble Apex Court and order maintaining status quo was passed in 2008. The Apex Court passed a decision holding that process in pursuance to the advertisement of Commission is valid one and departmental authorities had initiated the process of selection of placement of the selected candidates. On 17.8.2008 the management of the institution asked respondent No. 5 for submitting joining, failing which candidate No. 2 was offered appointment. The Apex Court passed a decision holding that process in pursuance to the advertisement of Commission is valid one and departmental authorities had initiated the process of selection of placement of the selected candidates. On 17.8.2008 the management of the institution asked respondent No. 5 for submitting joining, failing which candidate No. 2 was offered appointment. On 16.10.2008 respondent No. 3 District Inspector of Schools wrote a letter to respondent No. 5 extending ten days’ time for joining on the post of Principal clearly mentioning that in case of default the candidate at serial No. 2 be offered appointment and joining but no response was given by respondent No. 5 on the said letter. The District Inspector of Schools further extended time for five days to respondent No. 5 with the same condition that in case of default, the candidate at serial No. 2 will be offered appointment and joining but respondent No. 5 did not respond to letter dated 3.11.2008. Hence the District Inspector of Schools directed the Management of the institution for issuing appointment letter in favour of the petition immediately. On 20.12.2008 respondent No. 5 further granted for extension of time for joining on the said post before the Management of the institution. The Manager allowed her six months’ time for joining but the said correspondence between the respondent no 5 and the management was neither communicated to the departmental authorities nor to the petitioner. Hence the District Inspector of Schools sent a letter to the petitioner mentioning therein that despite order the petitioner did not submit his joining and the petitioner appellant was again directed to appear before the institution for his joining vide letter dated 19.2.2009. On 16.12.2009 the Manager of the institution with a view to provide benefit to the Officiating Principal, did not permit the petitioner to join on the post of Principal. On being aware of the fact the Manager submitted application before the District Inspector of Schools on 16.12.2009. On the said application the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 17.12.2009 directed the petitioner to submit joining for the post in question. In compliance of the order dated 17.12.2009 the petitioner appellant on 22.12.2009 submitted his application before the management seeking permission to submit his joining on the post in question but no heed was paid to his application and necessary action required was not taken. In compliance of the order dated 17.12.2009 the petitioner appellant on 22.12.2009 submitted his application before the management seeking permission to submit his joining on the post in question but no heed was paid to his application and necessary action required was not taken. On 29.12.2009 again the District Inspector of Schools issued an order directing the petitioner to submit his joining before the institution immediately. The petitioner appellant aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the management for joining on the post in question moved a representation before the Joint Director of Schools, Aligarh Division on 11.1.2010 with a prayer to issue necessary directions. On 18.2.2010 the District Inspector of Schools getting aware of the illegal hindrances on the part of the management in joining of the petitioner, wrote a letter to the Regional Joint Director of Schools mentioning all the facts with request for appointing authorised controller in the institution. On 22.2.2010 the petitioner appellant appeared for joining before the Manager but simple assurance was given and nothing material was done and the petitioner was not allowed to join which fact was informed by the petitioner to the District Inspector of Schools. The petitioner appellant informed that Manager in collusion with the Officiating Principal is not permitting him to join on the said post. The Officiating Principal Sri Suraj Pal Singh colluded with the Manager was not willing to leave the post of Principal at any cost. With this thought in mind he approached before the Hon’ble Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2608 of 2010 claiming continuance on the post in question on the ground that candidate at serial No. 1 and 5 had lost their lien for the post. The said writ petition was dismissed on 9.2.2010. On 23.2.2010 the petitioner further sent a representation to the District Inspector of Schools narrating the illegal hindrance caused by the management in collusion with the Officiating Principal. On 23.2.2010 on the aforesaid representation of the petitioner the District Inspector of Schools passed an order directing the Manager to accept the joining of the petitioner failing which action will be taken in accordance with the Provisions of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and stating that for taking such action the Manager shall be solely responsible. Again on 24.2.2010 the petitioner appeared before the Manager for submission of joining but nothing was heard. Again on 24.2.2010 the petitioner appeared before the Manager for submission of joining but nothing was heard. Again the petitioner informed the District Inspector of Schools about the illegal hindrance of the Manager. On 26.2.2010 the District Inspector of Schools issued an order appointing the petitioner as Principal by exercising powers conferred under Section 17(2) (3) of the U.P. Secondary Education (Service Selection Board) Act, 1982 directing the management to accept the joining till 3.3.2010 over the post of Principal, failing which the payment of salary for the said post will be recovered from the Manager as arrears of land revenue. This order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools on the representation of the petitioner appellant. But despite this order the management failed to accept the joining of the petitioner and respondent No. 5 submitted her representation before the District Inspector of Schools seeking permission for her joining over the post in question. On 4.3.2010 the District Inspector of Schools issued an order to respondent No. 5 on her representation directing her to submit a reply as to why her lien is existing over the post in question. The explanation was directed to be submitted till 11.3.2010. The District Inspector of Schools further, for the reasons best known to him, referred the matter to the Commission/ respondent No. 2 vide a detailed order dated 5.3.2010 seeking information as to how the lien of respondent No. 5 is existing over the post in question. On 6.3.2010 without waiting explanation from respondent No. No. 5 or opinion of the Commission the District Inspector of Schools has passed the order cancelling the appointment of the petitioner vide its earlier order dated 26.2.2010 without any rhyme or reason saying that first claim of respondent No. 5 will be considered. On 11.3.2010 the petitioner preferred a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13153 of 2010 before this Court challenging the order dated 6.3.2010 in which the order was passed by the learned Single Judge. 4. Respondent No. 4 appeared before the Court and filed counter-affidavit. While denying the contention made in the writ petition it is submitted that college in question is a Government aided college and the salary of the employees and teachers is paid by the U.P. Government under U.P. Payment of Salary Act. The college is run by the Committee of Management. Respondent No. 4 appeared before the Court and filed counter-affidavit. While denying the contention made in the writ petition it is submitted that college in question is a Government aided college and the salary of the employees and teachers is paid by the U.P. Government under U.P. Payment of Salary Act. The college is run by the Committee of Management. The selection to the post of Principal was made under the provisions of U.P. Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 and U.P. Secondary Education Board Rules, 1998. Respondent No. 5 Dr. Kamlesh Kumari Verma was selected for the post of Principal by the Commission. She stood at serial No. 1 in the panel list. On 3rd September, 2003 the District Inspector of Schools issued a letter to respondent No. 4 for issuance of appointment letter to respondent No. 5 and to make arrangement for her joining on the said post which is annexed as CA-1 to the counter-affidavit. In pursuance thereof respondent No. 4 issued a letter of appointment to respondent No. 5 for joining on the post of Principal which is annexed as CA-2 to the counter-affidavit. That respondent No. 5 preferred an application before respondent No. 4 for extension of time upto 25.11.2003, a copy of which is Annexure CA-3 on record. That after the decision of Special Leave Petition and Civil Appeals by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 16.5.2008 in the case of Balbir Kaur and another v. U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allahabad and others, respondent No. 3 issued a letter to respondent No. 4 to issue appointment letter in favour of respondent No. 5 for the post of Principal. In pursuance of the aforesaid letter on 14.11.2008. Manager/respondent No. 4 issued a letter of appointment to respondent No. 5 to take charge of the Principal. Respondent No. 5 preferred an application before respondent No. 4 for extension of time to join on 20.12.2008, whereupon respondent No. 4 granted six months’ time to receive the appointment and for joining on the post of Principal. A copy of which is Annexure CA-4. On 19.3.2010 the District Inspector of Schools passed an order directing respondent No. 5 to obtain appointment letter and join on the post of Principal in the college and respondent No. 5 in pursuance thereof obtained an appointment letter by respondent No. 4. A copy of which is Annexure CA-4. On 19.3.2010 the District Inspector of Schools passed an order directing respondent No. 5 to obtain appointment letter and join on the post of Principal in the college and respondent No. 5 in pursuance thereof obtained an appointment letter by respondent No. 4. On 31.3.2010 the respondent No. 5 joined on the post of Principal in the institution and took charge from the Officiating Principal Suraj Pal Singh. Photocopy of the order dated 19.3.2010 and appointment letter are annexed as CA-5 to the counter-affidavit. The contents of Para 22 and 23 of the affidavits are vehemently denied stating that Committee of Management through its Manager/respondent No. 4 wrote a letter to respondent No. 5 to join the post of Principal. The petitioner appellant did not appear before the Manager/ respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 5 the selected candidate at serial No. 1 was always ready to join on the post and due to pendency of Special Appeal in this Hon’ble Court as well as SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court she could not join. Respondent No. 3 District Inspector of Schools passed an order dated 26.2.2010 considering the fact that respondent No. 5 who was selected on the post of Principal and was inclined to join the post and obtained appointment letter. On 31.3.2010 respondent No. 5 joined and took charge from the Officiating Principal Suraj Pal Singh. That the learned Single Judge fairly passed the order directing Joint Director of Education/respondent No. 6 to decide the controversy after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Special Appeal is liable to be dismissed with cost. After the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Balbir Kaur and another v. U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allahabad and others, 2008(3) ESC 409 SC, in compliance of the order dated 30.6.008 passed by respondent No. 3. Dr. Kamlesh Kumari has got appointed and joined on the post of Principal. It is contended that the petitioner appellant was never given an appointment to the post of Principal in the institution/college. The Committee of Management did not issue the appointment letter in favour of petitioner appellant. Respondent No. 4 has offered respondent No. 5 to obtain appointment letter and join the post of Principal in pursuance of several letters issued by respondent No. 2 in this regard. The Committee of Management did not issue the appointment letter in favour of petitioner appellant. Respondent No. 4 has offered respondent No. 5 to obtain appointment letter and join the post of Principal in pursuance of several letters issued by respondent No. 2 in this regard. Therefore, there is no question of cancellation of appointment letter of the petitioner appellant. 5. Against the averments made in the counter-affidavit a rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner appellant denying the contentions raised in the counter-affidavit. It is contended in the rejoinder affidavit that respondent No. 5 since the very beginning was avoiding her joining and she was working as Principal in Dr. Anoop Lal Bansal Balika Inter College Jahangirabad Bulandshahar. Infact she was waiting a period as per her own choice for submitting the joining over the post in question in the institution of respondent No. 4. Despite several orders of District Inspector of Schools as well as the management she did not submit her joining and in 2009 when her lien on the post in question was lost and the appellant petitioner has been given appointment by the District Inspector of Schools on exercise of powers under Section 17((2) (3) of U.P. Secondary Education (Service Selection Board) Act, 1982. Moreover, the appellant came to know that integrity of respondent No. 5 in her earlier service is doubtful as such under the provisions of Right to Information Act the appellant has sought certain information about respondent No. 5 from District Inspector of Schools as to whether she is working as Principal in Dr. Anoop Lal Bansal Balika Inter College Jahangirabad Bulandshahar. A reply was given to the appellant vide letter dated 1.4.2010 mentioning therein that Dr, Kalesh Kumari is a suspended Principal and she has not been given any charge. True copy of the letter dated 1.4.2010 is filed as Annexure RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit. It is further submitted that interim order dated 16.3.2010 passed in the petitioner’s writ petition is still in existence. Even respondent No. 3 passed an order on 19.3.2010 directing respondent No. 4 to issue an appointment letter to respondent No. 5 is absolutely against the spirit of the order dated 16.3.2010. It is further submitted that interim order dated 16.3.2010 passed in the petitioner’s writ petition is still in existence. Even respondent No. 3 passed an order on 19.3.2010 directing respondent No. 4 to issue an appointment letter to respondent No. 5 is absolutely against the spirit of the order dated 16.3.2010. On 26.3.2010 respondent No. 5 submitted an application before the manager respondent No. 4 seeking extension of time for her joining over the post in question on the ground that she has been given the charge as such she will be free from the said post till 15.4.2010. True copy of the application submitted by respondent No. 5 to respondent No. 4 dated 26.3.2010 is annexed as RA-2 to the rejoinder affidavit. It is further contended that subsequent to the knowledge of the order of this Court dated 16.3.2010 for maintaining status quo as on date over the post in question the respondent No. 4 has permitted the joining of respondent No. 5 on the post of Principal on 31.3.2010 which is wholly contemptuous on the part of respondents No. 4 and 5. The appellant has filed copy of the receipt of registered post of order dated 16.3.2010 and filing of Special Appeal against the same which is annexed as RA-3 to the rejoinder affidavit. The appointment of respondent No. 5 is totally barred by doctrine of “lis-pendence innovetor. The appellant has also filed information letter sent by the management /respondent No. 4 dated 1.4.2010 to the District Inspector of Schools informing about the joining of respondent No. 5 with effect from 31.3.2010 which is annexed as RA-4 to the rejoinder affidavit. That the appellant has immediately served the copy of the order of this Hon’ble Court which is challenged in the present Special Appeal through registered post which was served on 27.3.2010 on respondent No. 4 very well. Even after the knowledge of order of Hon’ble High Court dated 16.3.2010 for maintaining status quo, respondent No. 4 has permitted respondent No. 5 to join on the post of Principal on 31.3.2010 which is wholly contemptuous on the part of respondents No. 4 and 5. There are several orders and letters issued by the District Inspector of Schools offering appointment to respondent No. 5 but she always sought extension of time for joining on the said post for the simple reason that she was Woking as Principal in Dr. There are several orders and letters issued by the District Inspector of Schools offering appointment to respondent No. 5 but she always sought extension of time for joining on the said post for the simple reason that she was Woking as Principal in Dr. Anoop Lal Bansal Balika Inter College Jahangirabad Bulandshahar. Infact she was waiting for a period as per her own choice for submitting the joining. Hence she did not submit her joining and in 2009 when her lien was lost and the petitioner appellant was given appointment by the District Inspector of Schools in exercise of powers conferred under Section 17(2(3) of U.P. Secondary Education (Service Selection Board) Act, 1982 she joined on 31.3.2010. With regard to jurisdiction of the District Inspector of Schools regarding review of its own order in the concerned matter, it is settled decision of law that District Inspector of Schools has no jurisdiction to review its own order unless the order is obtained by fraud or misrepresentation as has been held in Rama Shanker Pandey and others v. District Inspector of Schools and others, 1981 UPLBEC 86 (DB), which is annexed as Annexure RA-5 to the rejoinder affidavit. After the order of Hon’ble Court dated 16.3.2010 for maintaining status quo on the post in question the joining of respondent No. 5 on 31.3.2010 is wholly contemptuous specially under the circumstances when the order was served by the appellant on management on 27.3.2010. The order dated 16.3.2010 passed in writ petition has been violated by the respondent No. 4 by permitting respondent No. 5 to join the post in question. It is settled principle of law that a person who has been selected in a competitive examination has no legal right for extension of time for joining on the selected post as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam and another v. Mukesh Kumar, 2004 (13) SCC 596 , which is annexed as RA-6 to the rejoinder affidavit. It is further submitted that the petitioner appeared before the Manager for his joining but nothing was heard. Consequently, on the same day the petitioner informed the illegal hindrance of Manager to the District Inspector of Schools. It is further submitted that the petitioner appeared before the Manager for his joining but nothing was heard. Consequently, on the same day the petitioner informed the illegal hindrance of Manager to the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools issued order dated 26.2.2010 appointing the petitioner as Principal by exercising it power under Section 17(2) (3) of the U.P. Secondary Education (Service Selection Board) Act, 1982 directing the management to accept the joining of petitioner till 3.3.2010 over the post in question, failing which the payment of salary for the said post will be recovered from the management as arrears of land revenue. Despite this clear order the management did not accept the joining of the petitioner and respondent No. 5 submitted her representation before the District Inspector of Schools on 2.3.2010 seeking permission for joining over the post in question. On the aforesaid representation of respondent No. 5 the District Inspector of Schools issued an order dated 4.3.2010 directing her to submit her reply as to how her lien is existing over the post in question. The explanation was directed to be submitted till 11.3.2010. On the very next day without waiting for the explanation from respondent No. 5 on the opinion of Commission, the District Inspector of Schools has passed the impugned order cancelling the appointment of the petitioner vide its earlier order dated 26.2.2010 without any rhyme or reason merely saying that firstly the claim of respondent No. 5 will be considered. 6. From the rival submissions of the parties as has come out in affidavits, counter-affidavits and rejoinder affidavits the main points for consideration in the present case are : 1. What is the normal period for joining of selected candidate to appointed post. 2. Whether extension of joining time can be given, if so to what extent. 3. Whether Committee of Management has right for extension of time beyond reasonable period and also for unlimited period. 4. Whether respondent No. 4 has shown any justified cause for accepting the prayer of respondent No. 5 for extension of joining time. 5. Whether respondent No. 5 by undue delay in joining has lost her right to be appointed as Principal. 6. 4. Whether respondent No. 4 has shown any justified cause for accepting the prayer of respondent No. 5 for extension of joining time. 5. Whether respondent No. 5 by undue delay in joining has lost her right to be appointed as Principal. 6. Whether adhoc officiating Principal or Committee of Management has right to resist the appointment of the appellant when the same has been directed by DIOS on the ground that first selected candidate has not reported his joining within the stipulated time. 7. Whether Committee of Management was justified in not issuing appointment letter to the petitioner appellant as per direction of DIOS. 8. Whether DIOS can review its earlier order without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner appellant. 9. Whether any fraud or mistake was shown by DIOS while reviewing its earlier order of directing appointment of petitioner appellant. 10. Whether order passed by DIOS is liable to be quashed. 11. Whether petitioner appellant has got right to be appointed in view of non-joining of respondent No. 5 within a reasonable time. 7. It has to be considered firstly what will be the normal period for joining of a selected candidate and in case when the selected candidate applied for extension of joining time to what extent the same can be extended. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioner appellant referred to a case law in Nagar Palika Inter College, Jaunpur v. Dr. Halvindar Singh and others, 1996 UPLBEC 271 , in the aforesaid appeal it was held that Sub-Section 4 of Section 11 of the Act provides that the management shall, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the intimation from the authorities, issue appointment letter to the candidate whose name has been intimated under sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Act. Rule 8 of U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules 1983 hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’ prescribes a time frame within which the authorities namely Deputy Director of Education and the District Inspector of Schools shall take steps for implementation of the panel notified by the Commission. Rule 8 of U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules 1983 hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’ prescribes a time frame within which the authorities namely Deputy Director of Education and the District Inspector of Schools shall take steps for implementation of the panel notified by the Commission. Clause (ii) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the Rules provides that the order of appointment shall be issued in proforma given in Appendix ‘B’ within one month of the receipt of the order and also intimating him that on his failure to join within the specified time his appointment will be liable to be cancelled. From perusal of Section 11 of the Act and Rule 8 the intention of the legislative authority is clear that after the panel of the selected candidate is notified the prompt action is required to be taken at each steps, the management has been required to give ten days time to the candidate, whose name is intimated by the District Inspector of Schools, to join as Principal. However, this period may be extended as is clear from sub-section (5) of Section 11 of the Act and sub-rule (5) of Rule 8 of the Rules. However, the authority conferred on the management to extend time to join post has to be interpreted in the context and reference this authority has been conferred. The extension can be granted by the committee of management only in such circumstances where the candidate had the real difficulty in joining the post within the period of ten days mentioned in the order of appointment. The extension granted can also not be for indefinite period. It can be only for a reasonable time which is considered necessary in the facts and circumstances of the given case. It may be remembered that the life of panel under Rule 7(2) of the Rules is only one year, from the date it is notified by the Commission. Keeping this period of one year in mind it can be inferred reasonably that the management cannot extend time for joining the post beyond a reasonable period, normally for more than four to six weeks as within this period of one year, other candidates shown in the panel also have to be given chance to join the post, In case the candidates mentioned within higher preference in order of merit failed to join or otherwise not available for appointment. 8. 8. This period of six weeks shall be normally taken to be the reasonable period, unless exceptional circumstances otherwise warrant to the extent to which the extension may be granted by the management. The Act and the Rules are silent on this aspect of the matter, it has been left to the discretion of the management, deposing a trust that it will grant extension for joining the post only for a reasonable time according to the facts of the case. However in most of the cases coming before the Courts it has been experienced that the managements of the private colleges do not generally feel comfortable in appointing candidates selected and intimated by the Commission, and particularly those coming from the different places of colleges. In the prevalent circumstances and in order to prevent the management this authority, we feel it expedient and necessary to hold that normally the management shall not have power to extend time after expiry of initial period of 10 days for joining in pursuance of the order of appointment issued by it, for more than six weeks. However, extra time may be granted only in very exceptional cases and for the very strong reasons placed on record, and after obtaining prior approval of Deputy Director of Education. 9. From the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 4 it comes out that Dr. Kamlesh Kumari respondent No. 5 was selected at serial No. 1 by the Commission. Respondent No. 3 District Inspector of Schools issued a letter to the Committee of Management to issue appointment letter and make arrangement for her to join the post of Principal vide letter dated 3.9.2003 (Annexure CA-1 to the counter-affidavit). The letter issued by the District Inspector of Schools dated 3.9.2003 addressed to the Manager, Barauli Inter College, Barauli, Aligarh informing that the selected candidate Kamlesh Kumari be issued appointment letter after duly examining her educational particulars and be directed to join the post and to take necessary action in this regard. It was mentioned that the selection on the post of Principal shall be subject to the result of Special Appeal filed in the High Court. Thereafter, the Manager in compliance of the directions issued by the District Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 3.9.2003 issued a letter dated 10.9.2003 to respondent No. 5 Dr. It was mentioned that the selection on the post of Principal shall be subject to the result of Special Appeal filed in the High Court. Thereafter, the Manager in compliance of the directions issued by the District Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 3.9.2003 issued a letter dated 10.9.2003 to respondent No. 5 Dr. Kamlesh Kumari Verma mentioning therein that respondent No. 5 should appear within 15 days from the date of receipt of letter alongwith her original educational certificates in the office of the school and shall join on the post of Principal. It was also intimated that in case she does not report to her appointment within the prescribed time it will be treated that respondent No. 5 is not willing to join and respondent No. 5 will be solely responsible for this default. This letter is Annexure CA-2 to the counter-affidavit. Annexure CA-3 is the letter given by Dr. Kamlesh Kumari Verma dated 27.9.2003 in which she has mentioned that she has been appointed on the post of Principal in his college and she requested that time may be further extended to join her post till 25.11.2003. Subsequently after the disposal of writ in Balbir Kaur and another v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad and others, the matter remained in abeyance but subsequently after the decision in the Balbir Kaur’s case on 16.5.2008 a letter dated17.8.2008 was issued (Annexure 1 to the writ petition). The Manager has mentioned that as the writ in The Apex Court has been decided in favour of Dr. Kamlesh Kumari and it has been directed that she be allowed to take over charge. Hence she was informed that she may treat the appointment letter issued earlier to be the appointment letter and should take over charge immediately or in the alternative she should express her dissent so that necessary action be taken in connection with selected candidate at serial No. 2. After that The District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 16.10.2008 wrote a letter to Dr. Kamlesh Kumari that despite the letter of appointment being given by the Committee of Management and his letter being sent to her for taking over charge she has not taken charge till 16.10.2008 nor she made any correspondence. It was further stated that her disinterestedness shows that she is not interested to join the post. Kamlesh Kumari that despite the letter of appointment being given by the Committee of Management and his letter being sent to her for taking over charge she has not taken charge till 16.10.2008 nor she made any correspondence. It was further stated that her disinterestedness shows that she is not interested to join the post. The District Inspector of Schools vide Annexure 2 to the writ petition has further given ten days time directing that she may immediately take over charge otherwise it shall be deemed that she is not willing to take over charge and the Manager be directed to issue appointment letter and direct for joining in connection with candidate selected at serial No. 2. Again vide letter dated 3.11.2008 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) the District Inspector of Schools further directed Dr. Kamlesh Kumari to take over charge as appointed Principal of the college within five days from the date of receipt of the letter, in the alternative no further correspondence shall be made with her and the candidate selected at serial No. 2 will be accepted. Despite all these direction neither she took over charge of the post of Principal nor made any correspondence from the concerned authorities or the concerned Manager of the institution. Accordingly, on 14.11.2008 the District Inspector of Schools has made an order directing the Manager of the college that since candidate selected at serial No. 1 had not taken over charge despite several reminders, hence it was directed that candidate selected at serial No. 2 be appointed as Principal and process for taking over charge be done. Annexure 5 to the writ petition is the letter issued by the Manager of the Committee dated 20.12.2008 to Dr. Kamlesh Kumari informing her that on her letter dated 17.8.2008 in which due to unavoidable circumstances she has requested that her period of joining time be extended for six months, it is informed that the committee of Management after consideration has permitted to extend the time and it was directed that thereafter immediately she shall take over charge but the letter dated 17.8.2008 sent by Dr. Kamlesh Kumari has not been annexed to show what were the reasons for asking for extension and the letter dated 20.12.2008 does not reflect as to what were those unavoidable circumstances on which ground Dr. Kamlesh Kumari has not been annexed to show what were the reasons for asking for extension and the letter dated 20.12.2008 does not reflect as to what were those unavoidable circumstances on which ground Dr. Kamlesh Kumari requested for extension of time for more than six months and what grounds were thought to be strong, just and genuine by the Committee of Management in affording permission for extension of time. CA-4 is the letter issued by the Manager to Dr. Kamlesh Kumari Verma dated 20.12.2008 whereby she was extended time for six months to join on her post. It is mentioned in the letter that this extension has been given after consideration by the Management Committee but it apparently does not disclose the reason for extending the time for joining period. This extension has been granted for a period of six months. The period covers a time gap from 17.8.2008 to 20.12.2008 which approximately covers a span of about four months. 10. Admittedly, after decision of Balbir Kaur came on 16.5.2008 the Manager issued a letter dated 17.8.2008 and admittedly she had not joined within the prescribed time. CA-4 is the letter dated 20.12.2008 by the Manager of the Committee referring to a letter given by respondent No. 5 dated 17.8.2008 for further extension of time for six months what transpired between the gap of period is not disclosed and the Manager has intimated respondent No. 5 that after consideration of Committee of Management the extension for further six months is granted for her to join only on 20.12.2008. It is worth considering that initially appointment letter was issued on 10.9.2003 and letter dated 17.8.2008 after decision of the matter in controversy in Balbir Kaur’s case for immediate joining and extension of time was sought vide letter 17.8.2008 which was not produced before the Court but the same is allegedly to have been disposed of by the Manager on 20.12.2008 after a lapse of about four months. 11. So, a perusal of the record shows that the Committee of Management has extended the joining time for unlimited period covering couple of about 22 months. In view of case law reported above the normal period for joining is ten days and it can be extended for six weeks and cannot be enhanced in usual circumstances. 11. So, a perusal of the record shows that the Committee of Management has extended the joining time for unlimited period covering couple of about 22 months. In view of case law reported above the normal period for joining is ten days and it can be extended for six weeks and cannot be enhanced in usual circumstances. It is only in very exceptional case and on strong reasons to be placed on record and also after obtaining prior approval of the Deputy Director of Education extra time may be granted. In the present case, vide letter dated 20.12.2008 CA-3 six months’ further time has been granted after a lapse of about four months by respondent No. 4 Committee of Management to respondent No. 5 without assigning and disclosing strong reasons or any unavoidable exceptional circumstances for such extension of time. Even it is also worth noting that such extraordinary time can be granted only after placing strong reasons on record and after obtaining the approval of the Deputy Director of Education but a perusal of CA-4 clearly shows that neither strong reasons have been placed on record while granting extraordinary time nor any prior approval of Deputy Director of Education has been obtained. So the Committee of Management has not followed the normal course of law in giving extension to the selected candidate to join on the said post. 12. Now it has to be seen that whether the Committee of Management is competent enough to grant such unlimited time for joining to a candidate who is selected at serial No. 1. In this connection it is clear as has been pointed out in the last para that while granting extraordinary time beyond the purview of six weeks strong reasons are required to be placed by the Committee of Management on record and not only this it is also required that prior approval of Deputy Director of Education is also to be obtained. In the case of Nagar Palika Inter College, Jaunpur v. Dr. Havildar Singh and others, (1996) 1 UPLBEC 271 , it has been held in para 12 that it may be noticed that Rule 7(2) of the rules provides that the panel prepared under sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 shall hold good for one year from the date of its notification by the Commission. Havildar Singh and others, (1996) 1 UPLBEC 271 , it has been held in para 12 that it may be noticed that Rule 7(2) of the rules provides that the panel prepared under sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 shall hold good for one year from the date of its notification by the Commission. Thereafter Rule 8 provides that within 15 days of the receipt of the panel by him, the Deputy Director of Education shall notify it on his notice board and send copies thereof to the District Inspector of Schools. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 then provides that within 10 days of the receipt of the panel by him, the District Inspector of Schools shall notify it on the notice board and intimate the name of selected candidates, standing first in order of merit to the manager of the concerned institution with the direction that the order of appointment in the proforma prescribed in Appendix ‘B’ be issued to the candidate by registered post within one month of the receipt of the intimation requiring him to join duty within 13 days of the receipt of the order. It has been further required that the District Inspector of Schools shall send intimation to the candidate, referred to in clause (ii) with directions to report to the Manager within ten days of the receipt of the order of appointment by him from the Manager. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 requires that the Manager shall comply with the directions given under sub-rule (3), and report compliance to the Commission through Inspector. Thus from perusal of sub-rules (1), (2), (3) and (4) of Rule 8 it is clear that the Deputy Director of Education, Inspector and the Manager are required under law only to issue the order of appointment in the prescribed form within the time fixed by law. Thus from perusal of sub-rules (1), (2), (3) and (4) of Rule 8 it is clear that the Deputy Director of Education, Inspector and the Manager are required under law only to issue the order of appointment in the prescribed form within the time fixed by law. From perusal of Sub-rule (1) to (4) of Rule 8 it is clear that once the order of appointment has been issued in favour of candidate intimated by the Inspector the compliance is done and if the compliance is done within one year the panel notified by the Commission cannot expire and it shall remain alive for the next candidate shown in the order of merit in case the candidate shown at serial No. 1 failed to join the post within the time allowed in the letter of appointment or within such extended time as the management may allow in this behalf. 13. Thus it is apparent that the compliance of the order of DIOS was done by the Committee of Management vide letter dated 10.9.2003. After the decision of Balbir Kaur’s case on 16.5.2008, she did not join nor enquired The extension of time without assigning any strong or exceptional reasons and without obtaining prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools is apparently not even within the ambit of power conferred on the Manager of the Committee of Management. It is stated in the counter-affidavit in para -9 that after the decision of Special Leave Petition and civil appeals on 16.5.2008 in case of Balbir Kaur and another v. U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allahabad and others, on 14.11.2008 respondent No. 3 issued a letter............ but there is no averment in the counter-affidavit that after 16.5.2009 i.e. decision of Balbir Kaur’s case the appointment of the Principal was ever stayed by any order in Special leave Petition or in Civil Appeals pending in the Apex Court Had there been any stay order, the same must have been filed through annexures in the counter-affidavit and must have found a specific assertion in the counter-affidavit. She again applied for extension of time vide her alleged application dated 17.8.2008 but the said application has not been annexed to show whether it was given infact or not as alleged. She again applied for extension of time vide her alleged application dated 17.8.2008 but the said application has not been annexed to show whether it was given infact or not as alleged. What was the reason for the Committee of Management to keep the application dated 17.8.2008 pending till 20.12.2008 and why it was not expeditiously disposed of. Even in Annexure CA-4 while extending the time on 20.12.2008 for a further period of six months this factum has not been disclosed as to whether on account of any stay order or on any other cogent ground the time is being so extended and the application is disposed of at a belated stage after a gap of four months. So apparently, it comes out that Committee of Management has exceeded his powers in granting the time beyond the normal prescribed period. 14. The next point to be considered in the same connection is as to whether an adhoc Principal or Committee of Management has any right to resist the appointment of the petitioner who was validly directed to join by the District Inspector of Schools. In case of Balbir Kaur and another v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad and others, (sic) (3) UPLBEC 2378 and onwards it has been dealt with and held in para 37..........The State is not obliged to regularise all adhoc appointments merely on the strength of their continuance on the post for a long period, particularly when their original appointments were not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged in the relevant rules. In Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others, 2006(2) ESC 192 (SC). 15. Thus, it comes out from the decision made in the case of Balbir Kaur that even if an adhoc Principal being the senior most teacher was officiating as Principal that was not sufficient and cogent reason for the Manager to resist the appointment of the petitioner in whose favour a proper direction in consonance with law was issued by the District Inspector of Schools specially in the circumstances when no plea of any stay in connection with Officiating Principal was operating as the said fact is nowhere pleaded in the entire counter-affidavit. 16. Annexure 2 to the writ petition is the letter issued by the District Inspector of Schools to Dr. Kamlesh Kumari Verma. 16. Annexure 2 to the writ petition is the letter issued by the District Inspector of Schools to Dr. Kamlesh Kumari Verma. Annexure 3 to the writ petition is the letter issued by the District Inspector of Schools to Dr. Kamlesh Kumari Verma dated 3.11.2008 directing her to join on the post of Principal within five days from the date of the receipt of the letter. It was also directed that in default no further correspondence shall be done and the candidate at serial No. 2 will be directed to take over charge. Annexure 4 to the writ petition is the letter dated 14.11.2008 referring the fact that since the candidate selected at serial No. 1 has not taken over charge hence it was directed to the Manager of the Committee of the school to issue appointment letter to Dr. Pramod Pal Singh with a direction to ensure that the post is vacant and there is no dispute over the same. Annexure 6 to the writ petition is the letter issued by the District Inspector of Schools to Dr. Pramod Pal Singh that since Dr. Kamlesh Kumari Verma had not joined and hence the Manager of the concerned college was directed to issue appointment to Dr. Pramod Pal Singh for joining but he had not given any information of joining, hence it was again directed that Pramod Pal Singh may take over the charge over the post of Principal immediately and also inform him about the concerned proceedings. vide letter dated 16.12.2009 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) Dr. Pramod Pal Singh informed the District Inspector of Schools that as per direction he had been issued letter on 2.2.2010 but the same had not been obtained by him hence in absence of any knowledge he could not join, hence requested for issuing a direction to take over the charge of the Principal. Anenxure 8 to the writ petition is the letter dated 17.12.2009 issued by the District Inspector of Schools to Dr. Pramod Kumar Singh stating that he has not taken over charge and it was again directed that he shall appear in the school and shall obtain his appointment letter and shall take over charge, in default, the candidate selected at serial No. 3 shall be directed to take over charge. vide Annexure 9 to the writ petition Dr. Pramod Kumar Singh stating that he has not taken over charge and it was again directed that he shall appear in the school and shall obtain his appointment letter and shall take over charge, in default, the candidate selected at serial No. 3 shall be directed to take over charge. vide Annexure 9 to the writ petition Dr. Pramod Pal Singh has applied to the Manager of the concerned college to issue an appointment letter in his favour and to allow him to join and copy of the order of the District Inspector of Schools is also annexed alongwith it. Annexure 11 to the writ petition is a letter written by Dr. Pramod Pal Singh to the Joint Director of Education stating that he was directed by the District Inspector of Schools to appear in the college and to obtain the appointment letter and also to ascertain his joining but the Manager of the Institution neither issued an appointment letter nor gave any direction for taking over charge. In this connection there was a talk with the Manager and Director of Education and it was decided that within a week they will proceed to get the applicant Dr. Pramod Pal Singh to take over charge but despite this nothing has been done in this regard and hence it was prayed that the process for taking over charge and appointment be ascertained. vide Annexure 12 to the writ petition the District Inspector of Schools has written a letter to the Regional Joint Director of Education and it was mentioned that several directions were issued to get the selected candidate Dr. Pramod Pal Singh appointed as Principal and to take over charge but the Manager was deliberately avoiding the direction and it was referred that deliberately the Manager was doing such irregularity and it was decided that a Controller be appointed in the institution. A copy of the same was sent to Dr. Pramod Pal Singh with a direction that he may appear till 22.2.2010 and take over charge. vide Annexure 13 to the writ petition Dr. Pramod Pal Singh the petitioner appellant again appeared before the Manager for obtaining the appointment letter and for taking over charge vide letter 20.12.2009. Annexure 15 to the writ petition is the letter given by Dr. Pramod Pal Singh with a direction that he may appear till 22.2.2010 and take over charge. vide Annexure 13 to the writ petition Dr. Pramod Pal Singh the petitioner appellant again appeared before the Manager for obtaining the appointment letter and for taking over charge vide letter 20.12.2009. Annexure 15 to the writ petition is the letter given by Dr. Pramod Pal Singh to the District Inspector of Schools intimating that he presented himself in the said school alongwith a copy of letter issued by the District Inspector of Schools to give him appointment letter or permit joining. He has pointed out that the Manager and Adhoc Officiating Principal Suraj Pal Singh are jointly against him. In between, Suraj Pal Singh filed a writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court which has been dismissed. Annexure 16 to the writ petition is the letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated 23.2.2010 to the Manager of the said school and it was directed with warning that he may in all conditions issue an appointment letter to Dr. Pramod Pal Singh till 26.2.2010 and ascertain that he may take over charge, in default without any further notice Dr. Pramod Pal Singh will be directed to be appointed under Section 17(C) of the U.P. Madhayamik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1921 and the arrears shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue and an F.I.R. will also be lodged against the Manager. vide Annexure 17 to the writ petition Dr. Pramod Pal Singh by his letter dated 24.2.2010 again appeared before the Manager for obtaining the appointment letter and for taking over charge, a copy of which is received on 24.2.2010 but despite this no appointment letter was issued by the Manager nor any steps were taken to ensure the appointment of the petitioner appellant. Hence vide Annexure 18 to the writ petition order dated 26.2.2010 the District Inspector of Schools has directed for the appointment of Dr. Pramod Pal Singh and exercising powers under Section 17(2) (3) Dr. Pramod Pal Singh was appointed as the Principal and it was directed that the Manager shall ensure his joining by 3.3.2010, in default the salary of Dr. Pramod Pal Singh Principal be recovered as arrears of land revenue and the Manager will be wholly responsible for the same. 17. Pramod Pal Singh and exercising powers under Section 17(2) (3) Dr. Pramod Pal Singh was appointed as the Principal and it was directed that the Manager shall ensure his joining by 3.3.2010, in default the salary of Dr. Pramod Pal Singh Principal be recovered as arrears of land revenue and the Manager will be wholly responsible for the same. 17. All these circumstances show that the Manager of the aforesaid Committee of Management of the school despite directions of the District Inspector of Schools did not issue any appointment letter to the petitioner appellant and neither took any proceedings for his taking over charge of Principal. Ultimately, the District Inspector of Schools exercising its power under Section 17(2) (3) of the said Act issued directions appointing Dr. Pramod Pal Singh as Principal vide letter dated 26.2.2010 (Annexure 18 to the writ petition) and it was further directed that his arrears of the salary shall be recovered on the responsibility of the Manager as arrears of land revenue. The entire transaction as reflected from the aforesaid documents and the correspondence show that the Committee of Management was not inclined to issue appointment letter to the petitioner appellant as the Officiating Principal Suraj Pal Singh who was the senior most teacher was already working and thus he flouted the direction of the District Inspector of Schools deliberately. Accordingly, the District Inspector of Schools was forced to exercise his vested powers under Section 17(2)(3) and directed for the appointment on the post of Principal in favour of the petitioner appellant and also for arrears of his salary to be recovered as arrears of land revenue at the sole responsibility of the Manager. This shows that on failure of the selected candidate Dr. Kamlesh Kumari Verma at serial No. 1 to join on the said post without any cogent reason and also after providing adequate opportunity and even extraordinary extension the District Inspector of Schools has taken a decision and has directed the selected candidate at serial No. 2 to be appointed as Principal. Not only this, the District Inspector of Schools has issued the direction on information being given by the petitioner appellant that Manager of the said school is neither issuing appointment letter nor taking any proceedings for his joining exercising his powers under Section 17(2 (3). Not only this, the District Inspector of Schools has issued the direction on information being given by the petitioner appellant that Manager of the said school is neither issuing appointment letter nor taking any proceedings for his joining exercising his powers under Section 17(2 (3). So far as the writ petition filed on behalf of Officiating Principal Suraj Pal Singh it has been stated that the same has been dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court. Neither any stay order has been filed in the counter-affidavit as an annexure which may justify the action of the Manager while disobeying the order of the District Inspector of Schools. There is even no averment in the counter-affidavit filed by the Manager respondent No. 4 that he was not in a condition to issue the appointment letter or to allow joining on account of any interim order of the Hon’ble High Court or any superior Court. So the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools under Section 17(3) has to be complied with and it has assumed finality. 18. The next point to be considered in the matter is whether the District Inspector of Schools can review its earlier order dated 26.2.2010. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner appellant in his rejoinder affidavit in para 13 that the District Inspector of Schools has no jurisdiction to review its own order unless the order in question is obtained under fraud or misrepresentation as has been held in Rama Shanker Pandey and others v. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and others, 1981 UPLBEC 86 (DB), which has been annexed as RA-5. It has been held in the Division Bench judgment passed in the aforementioned case by Hon’ble High Court that in Radhey Shyam and others v. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, (1978 (4) ALR (14), that the District Inspector of Schools having once approved the appointment of a teacher cannot review the order of approval except on grounds of mistake or fraud and even in that case the order cannot be reviewed, without affording an opportunity to show cause being given to the teacher concerned. It was further held in para 5 that as stated above, the allegations that the impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity to show cause to the petitioners has not been controverted by any of the respondents in Writ Petition No. 8149 of 1974 and consequently, there is no escape from the conclusion that the order is bad in law....... 19. The result is that allegations contained in the contention that the impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner remains uncontroverted for the reasons already stated. Therefore, the order cannot be maintained. In the counter-affidavit filed before us by respondent No. 4 there is no averment to the effect that the order dated 26.2.2010 was reviewed and set aside on any ground of any mistake or fraud. It is also not averred that an opportunity of hearing was ever given to the petitioner appellant while cancelling the order. No counter-affidavit has come from the side of the District Inspector of Schools respondent No. 3 itself. It is worth noting that the alleged application of Dr. Kamlesh Kumari dated 17.8.2008 for extension of time has neither been produced before the Court by way of annexure in counter-affidavit to show that infact any such application was moved by her. Similarly awarding permission for extension of time vide letter dated 20.12.2008 does not reflect what was ground taken by her in her prayer for extension of time. Even if for the argument sake it be taken that she had moved any such application dated 17.8.2008 for extension of time what was the reason it was deferred for a period of more than four months and was not expeditiously disposed of. This creates a situation that no such application has ever been given by respondent No. 5 for extension of time. Had it been given it must have been filed alongiwth the annexure and must have been expeditiously disposed of in the routine work of the school management. The delay in disposal of the alleged application creates doubt about the genuineness of the contention. 20. Had it been given it must have been filed alongiwth the annexure and must have been expeditiously disposed of in the routine work of the school management. The delay in disposal of the alleged application creates doubt about the genuineness of the contention. 20. In the circumstances, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner appellant that the District Inspector of Schools has no authority to review its order as has been done in the present case it comes out that the order is bad in law as it has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and even no intimation of fraud or mistake is pointed out while reviewing the same so there is obviously violation of principle of natural justice. In the subsequent order dated 19.3.2010 which shows that on account of respondent No. 5 standing at serial No. 1 in the selection list the appointment letter was issued on 10.9.2003 on request for extending time. Lastly, second time this appointment letter is being issued and it is also mentioned that in case she does not take over charge no further correspondence shall be made. It is worth noting that earlier the District Inspector of Schools had taken a decision and vide letter dated 26.2.2010 exercising his powers under Section 17(2) (3) the District Inspector of Schools has directed for appointment of Dr. Pramod Pal Singh the selected candidate at serial No. 2. Without disclosing any subsequent fact of fraud or mistake again appointment order in favour of selected candidate at serial No. 1 was issued on 19.3.2010 when the District Inspector of Schools has earlier taken a decision that since the candidate at serial No. 1 had not made herself available for joining nor has joined on the post of Principal despite several reminders he decided the case of candidate at serial No. 2 and directed for issuing appointment letter to him. 21. It is further contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner appellant that at the time the District Inspector of Schools issued appointment letter on 19.3.2010 the interim order was operating in the present writ petition of the petitioner appellant and in the face of the status quo order it was not appropriate for respondent No. 3 to issue appointment letter dated 19.3.2010 to respondent No. 5. 22. 22. It is also contended by the learned counsel or the petitioner appellant that respondent No. 5 has submitted her representation before the District Inspector of Schools on 2.3.2010 Annexure 19 to the writ petition seeking permission for her joining over the post in question. It is mentioned in the said letter that matter being lis pendis before the Apex Court the respondent No. 5 has not taken over charge. After the decision of the writ petition the Manager again wrote a letter to the applicant to take over charge but due to unavoidable circumstances Dr. Kamlesh Kumari respondent No. 5 had made a request for extension of time which was accepted by the Committee of Management and six months ‘ time limit was extended and a letter was sent to her informing that time has been extended for six months. Despite this she could not join immediately after expiry of the six months and she requested that she wanted to take over charge of the Principal now. This letter has been given by her on 2.3.2010. Apparently, the first letter directing to join her as Principal after the decision of the matter pending in the Apex Court was issued on 17.8.2008. She said that she had applied for extension of time on which the Management has extended time for six months but despite the extension of time for six months she could not even join after expiry of six months. Delay is on the part of respondent No. 5 herself. On the aforesaid representation the District Inspector of Schools issued the order dated 4.3.2010 to respondent No. 5 directing her to submit reply as to how her lien is existing over the post in question. The explanation was directed to be submitted till 11.3.2010 but without waiting for her explanation, on 6.3.2010 without obtaining the information of the Commission, the District Inspector of Schools passed the order cancelling the appointment of the petitioner merely saying that first claim of respondent No. 5 shall be considered. 23. The explanation was directed to be submitted till 11.3.2010 but without waiting for her explanation, on 6.3.2010 without obtaining the information of the Commission, the District Inspector of Schools passed the order cancelling the appointment of the petitioner merely saying that first claim of respondent No. 5 shall be considered. 23. Thus the orders dated 6.3.2010 passed by the District Inspector of Schools cancelling the appointment of the petitioner appellant and further issuing order of appointment to Dr.Kamlesh Kumari respondent No. 5 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner appellant or also without disclosing any fraud or mistake appears to be not sustainable in the eye of law in view of the case law laid down in Rama Shanker Pandey and others v. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and others, 1981 UPLBEC 86 (DB), and is liable to be quashed. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioner appellant referred a case law “Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam and another v. Mukesh Kumar, (2004) 13 SCC 596 , wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that....... We find no genuineness in the plea of the respondent. Even assuming that the appellant had condoned the non-joining of the respondent for duty upto 15.11.1999, in our opinion, there was a legal obligation on the respondent to have verified with the appellant what had happened to his request for extension of time till 25.11.1999 which the appellant did not do. Even according to the respondent, he did receive the letter sometime after 15.11.1999 but we find no material on record except the self serving statement of the respondent to show what he actually did after receipt of that letter to join the duty. From the material on record, we only find that he approached the appellant on 16.2.2000 i.e. nearly three months after the last date sought by the respondent himself to join. This only shows that the respondent was not really serious in accepting the offer of the appellant and joining the duty with the appellant. Herein, we may notice it is on record that the respondent was serving in an Engineering College as a Lecturer, therefore, obviously he was in no hurry to join the selected post with the appellant. This only shows that the respondent was not really serious in accepting the offer of the appellant and joining the duty with the appellant. Herein, we may notice it is on record that the respondent was serving in an Engineering College as a Lecturer, therefore, obviously he was in no hurry to join the selected post with the appellant. This is further fortified by the fact that the appellant chose to file the writ petition only on 24.8.2000, i.e. another six months after he made his claim for the post with the appellant. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we think the appellant was justified in rejecting the request of the respondent to grant him further time to join and deny him the benefit of his selection. By the conduct of the respondent, the appellant had to keep a post vacant for him for a long time, therefore, there is no justification in acceding to the request made by the respondent. 25. Even if for arguments sake it is accepted that she applied for extension of time for six months on 17.8.2008 but till 20.12.2008 she did not take any pain to enquire as to what happened to her application for extension of time, whether allowed or refused for a period of four months. 26. Thus in accordance with this case law, indefinite time cannot be granted for joining the post. In the present case it has also come out that respondent No. 5 was working at some institution in Bulandshahar and therefore she was not in a hurry to join on the said post and it was not within the competence of the Committee of Management or the other respondents to extend her unlimited time for joining the post of Principal. 27. So far as the question of cancelling the earlier order passed by the District Inspector of Schools it is apparent from the material on record that earlier order passed in favour of Dr. Pramod Pal Singh for joining him as Principal vide letter dated 26.2.2010 the same was cancelled without affording an opportunity to the petitioner appellant and also without disclosing any element of mistake or fraud on the part of the District Inspector of Schools. In such circumstances, cancellation of its own order by the District Inspector of Schools is not in accordance with the settled position of law. 28. In such circumstances, cancellation of its own order by the District Inspector of Schools is not in accordance with the settled position of law. 28. In State of Bihar and others v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra, (2006) 12 SCC 561 , it has been held that appointment letter issued to respondent in 1992 asking him to join within 15 days...He failing to join within the stipulated period..... He filing representations in 1994, 1994, 1995, 1999/2000 and a writ petition in 2001... High Court, on sympathetic considerations directing the authorities concerned to accept his joining within four weeks since he had already been selected....Held, respondent had no legal right to be appointed... Life of a panel remains valid only for a year... Once it lapses, unless an appropriate order is issued by State, no appointment can be made out of the said panel... Further held, it may or may not be that respondent had actually received the appointment letter but he was expected to make inquiries thereabout, particularly when on his own showing those below him in the selection list had already been permitted to join...Postal delay, by itself cannot be a ground for taking a sympathetic view... So in the present case when the candidate at serial No. 2 who had been directed to be appointed and asked to join, the respondent No. 5 does not appear to have a legal right to the post. 29. It has been held in AIR 1992 SC 1596 in the case of Shyamalendu Nag v. State of Manipur and others, that Offer for....Revocation...Employee in service of Central Govt. offered appointment in State Judicial Service... Unable to join State service as he was not relieved by Central Govt. even two months after request for release was made... Revocation of offer of appointment by State Authorities was proper... Appointing authority could not be expected to wait indefinitely for selected candidate. 30. Thus perusal of the aforesaid verdicts it comes out that time limit for joining on the selected post cannot be extended for unlimited period. The decision once taken by the District Inspector of Schools on non-joining of respondent No. 5 to direct for appointment and joining the petitioner appellant standing at serial No. 2 cannot be held to be improper or illegal. 31. The decision once taken by the District Inspector of Schools on non-joining of respondent No. 5 to direct for appointment and joining the petitioner appellant standing at serial No. 2 cannot be held to be improper or illegal. 31. Now the question remains whether this appointment directed by the District Inspector of Schools to candidate at serial No. 2 in exercise of his powers under Section 17(2) (3) can be cancelled suo-moto by the District Inspector of Schools himself without any sufficient ground and without affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner appellant in whose favour the order dated 26.2.2010 was passed. According to the settled decision it would not be within the competence of the District Inspector of Schools as also it was not proper on the part of the District Inspector of Schools to have cancelled the said order and subsequently passed another order without affording an opportunity of hearing and without disclosing any point of mistake or fraud in its order. The order dated 6.3.2010 is therefore liable to be quashed. 32. Hence the Special Appeal is allowed. The order passed by the District Inspector of Schools dated 6.3.2010 as also the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the petitioner to make representation before the Joint Director of Education are quashed. ————