JUDGMENT By the Court.—Pursuant to the order dated 12.1.2010, the case has been put-up today as fresh. 2. Sri P.S. Baghel, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri R.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri R.N. Singh, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri S.M. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are present. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself without calling for counter-affidavits. 4. An application has been filed today on behalf of respondent No. 4. Registry is directed to give appropriate number to the said application. 5. The said application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Dr. Phool Chandra Singh (respondent No. 4). 6. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, inter alia, praying for quashing the orders dated 28.12.2008 and 22.10.2009 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively (Annexure Nos. 1 and 6 to the writ petition), and further, for directing respondent No. 2 not to take any coercive measure compelling the petitioners’ College to allow the joining of respondent No. 4. 7. From the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that an Advertisement No. 39 of 2006 was issued by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, Allahabad (Respondent No. 3) wherein a large number of posts of Principals were advertised. The petitioner’s College was one of such Institutions. The Commission after selection, declared a list of successful candidates on 28.12.2006, wherein the name of respondent No. 4 also found place. The Commission (Respondent No. 3) sent the list of selected candidates to the Director of Higher Education, U.P., Allahabad (Respondent No. 2) in terms of Section 13 of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 for placement of the selected candidates in different Colleges in accordance with their merit and preference, as provided under Section 11 of the said Act. By the order dated 28.12.2008, the respondent No. 2 made placement of respondent No. 4 in the petitioner’s College. 8. By the order dated 28.12.2008, the respondent No. 2 made placement of respondent No. 4 in the petitioner’s College. 8. It further transpires from the averments made in the writ petition that the petitioners made several representations before the respondent No. 3 and other authorities objecting to the placement of the respondent No. 4 in the petitioners’ College on the ground that several criminal cases were allegedly pending against the respondent No. 4. As no action was taken by the respondent No. 3 on the representations of the petitioners, the petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35632 of 2009. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by the order dated 20.7.2009 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), inter alia, permitting the petitioners to make representation before the respondent No. 3 and directing the respondent No. 3 to decide the said representation as per the directions given in the said order of this Court. 9. Pursuant to the said order dated 20.7.2009 passed by this Court, the petitioners submitted representations dated 29.7.2009, 13.8.2009 and 17.8.2009 before the respondent No. 3. Copies of the said representations have been filed and collectively numbered as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 10. The respondent No. 3 by its order dated 22.10.2009 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) decided the representations made by the petitioners and held that the selection of the respondent No. 4 was valid. 11. It further transpires that in the meantime, the Director of Higher Education, U.P., Allahabad (Respondent No. 2) sent a communication dated 31.5.2009 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) threatening to take action against the petitioners’ College under Section 58 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 in view of the failure on the part of the petitioners in permitting the respondent No. 4 to join on the post of Principal in the petitioners’ College. 12. In view of the above, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs, as mentioned above. 13. 12. In view of the above, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs, as mentioned above. 13. A perusal of the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 alongwith the aforementioned application shows that in view of the objection raised by the petitioners to the joining of the respondent No. 4, the respondent No. 4 has made an application dated 22.6.2009 before the Director of Higher Education, U.P., Allahabad (Respondent No. 2), inter alia praying that instead of placing the respondent No. 4 on the post of Principal in the petitioners’ College, the respondent No. 4 may be placed on the post of Principal in Sarvodaya Degree College, Ghosi, Mau. Copy of the said application dated 22.6.2009 has been filed as Annexure-1 to the said affidavit. 14. It further appears from a perusal of the averments made in the said affidavit that on 8.8.2009, the respondent No. 2 sent a letter to the State Government in view of the aforesaid application dated 22.6.2009 made by the respondent No. 4. In response to the said letter dated 8.8.2009 sent by the respondent No. 2, the State Government sent a letter dated 14.9.2009 to the respondent No. 2, inter alia, stating that in view of the provisions of Section 12(3) of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, the Director of Higher Education, U.P., Allahabad (Respondent No. 2) could take proper decision in regard to the aforesaid application made by the respondent No. 4, and no approval or guidance of the State Government was required in the matter. Copy of the said letter dated 14.9.2009 has been filed as Annexure-2 to the said affidavit. 15. In view of the averments made in the aforesaid affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4, it is evident that the respondent No. 4 is no longer willing to join on the post of Principal in the petitioners’ College, and he wants his placement elsewhere. 16. 15. In view of the averments made in the aforesaid affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4, it is evident that the respondent No. 4 is no longer willing to join on the post of Principal in the petitioners’ College, and he wants his placement elsewhere. 16. Sri R.N. Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 submits that in view of the objection raised by the petitioners to the joining of the respondent No. 4, the respondent No. 4 is not willing to join on the post of Principal in the petitioners’ College as the working of the respondent No. 4 as Principal in the petitioners’ College would be difficult on account of the attitude of the petitioners. Sri Singh submits that the respondent No. 4 has already moved an application, as mentioned above, for his placement on the post of Principal in another Institution. 17. Sri P.S. Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the respondent No. 4 is no longer willing to join in the petitioners’ College and wants his placement elsewhere, the writ petition may be disposed of giving direction to the Director of Higher Education, U.P., Allahabad (Respondent No. 2) to consider the prayer made by the respondent No. 4 for his placement in another Institution. 18. Learned Standing Counsel has placed before the Court a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Rama Shanker Rai v. State of U.P. and another, 2008(4) ESC 2491 (All)(DB), wherein the principles regarding placement on the posts of Principal in various Colleges pursuant to selection made by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, have been laid down. 19. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the stand taken by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be sub-served by disposing of the writ petition giving direction to the Director of Higher Education, U.P., Allahabad (Respondent No. 2) to take appropriate decision in accordance with law on the application dated 22.6.2009 submitted by the respondent No. 4 seeking his placement on the post of Principal in another institution. 20. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of with the following directions : 1. 20. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of with the following directions : 1. Within three weeks from today, the respondent No. 4 will submit before the Director of Higher Education, U.P., Allahabad (Respondent No. 2), an application annexing thereto a certified copy of this order as well as a copy of his aforesaid application dated 22.6.2009. 2. The respondent No. 2 will take appropriate decision in accordance with law on the aforesaid application dated 22.6.2009 submitted by the respondent No. 4, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks of the receipt of the application of the respondent No. 4, as mentioned in Direction No. (1) above. 21. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the claims of the parties on merits. ————