JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. The judgment and order dated 03.11.2010 passed in WP(C) (SH) No. 155/2010 sustaining the challenge of the Respondent No. 1 herein to the decision of the Appellant-Institute to keep her appointment as Asstt. Professor therein on hold and instead requiring her to appear in an interview in connection, therewith forms the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. By order dated 02.11.2010 the Appellant-Institute in the interim had been restrained from making appointment to the aforementioned post. 2. We have heard Mr. A.K. Bhattacharjee, Senior Advocate for the Appellants and Mr. D.C. Bora, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1. Heard, as well Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 2. 3. The rival pleadings provide the factual preface. The Respondent No. 1 has introduced herself to be an highly academically decorated personality, having inter alia acquired Master of Science Degree in Chemistry (Analytical Chemistry) from Rourkee University. Details of her research and professional experiences have been profusely provided to highlight her worth and suitability for the post. According to her, in response to an advertisement made by the Director, Rajiv Gandhi Indian Institute of Management (RGIIM), (for short referred to as the Institute) at its website for the post of Asstt. Professor, she applied therefore online on 23.11.2008 alongwith her curriculum vitae. She also posted additional testimonials thereafter to fortify her candidature for the said post. She received an offer of appointment on 05.05.2009 issued by the Officer on Special Duty, RGIIM, Shillong informing her that the Director of the Institute had been pleased to make the same for the post of Asstt. Professor initially for a period of three years. Inspired thereby, the Respondent No. 1 claims that she returned with her husband from abroad on 06.05.2009, she forwarded an e-mail to the Director of the Institute conforming her acceptance of the offer intimating the latter that she would join the RGIIM latest by 01.07.2009. In response to a query made by the Director, she confirmed her joining on 29.06.2009, by her two communications dated 30.05.2009 and 27.06.2009. She has averred that accordingly, on that date she reported at the Institute and submitted her joining report. In response to a query made by the Director, she confirmed her joining on 29.06.2009, by her two communications dated 30.05.2009 and 27.06.2009. She has averred that accordingly, on that date she reported at the Institute and submitted her joining report. As she was then in her family away, according to her, the Director of the Institute instead of accepting her joining report, advised her to seek extension of time by a period of six months for joining. She accordingly, on 01.07.2009 submitted an application before the Director, RGIIM, Shillong to that effect seeking extension from 01.07.2009 to 01.01.2010 on medical grounds and that the application was duly received by the said authority. 4. The further pleaded case of the Respondent No. 1 is that when thereafter, on 14.12.2009 she submitted her application before the Director informing him of her arrival for joining with effect from 01.01.2010, she was served with a letter dated 22.12.2009 from the said authority to the effect that in view of the changed directive it had been decided to keep her appointment on hold pending the processing thereof through the normal procedures. She has alleged that inspite of her request made on 04.01.2010 to the Director of the Institute seeking information about the changed directives, the same was not responded to. Her reminder to the said effect also did not evoke any result. It was subsequent thereto, that the Chief Administrative Officer of the Institute by letter dated 13.02.2010 requested her to appear in an interview to be held on 01.03.2010. Being aggrieved by the action which she perceived to be wholly illegal, unjustified and arbitrary, the Respondent No. 1 got a legal notice dated 04.03.2009 served upon the Director, RGIIM, Shillong insisting for being allowed to join in the Institute as an Assistant Professor as per the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment dated 05.05.2009. The legal notice elicited response from the Institute to the effect that she was on probation and that she had therefore been asked to appear in the interview. The challenge was laid by her before this Court in this backdrop. 5. The legal notice elicited response from the Institute to the effect that she was on probation and that she had therefore been asked to appear in the interview. The challenge was laid by her before this Court in this backdrop. 5. The Institute through its Director, in its affidavit, while endorsing the decision impugned pleaded that the assailment was misconceived as the offer of appointment made to the Respondent No. 1 on contract basis for a limited tenure and was thus was not enforceable by a writ Court. According to it, the number of faculty position in the Institute depends on the number of students and by way of an objective norm, the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, Govt. of India has prescribed for the purpose the teacher-student ratio of 1:10. The Institute averred that to maintain the above ratio of the Institutes of Management in the country were empowered to create a faculty post for three years, the term being extendable if duly sanctioned by the Ministry. The Institute further contended that having regard to the nascent and formative stage of the Appellant-Institute, the Ministry relaxed the prescription of 1:10 ratio by granting it the liberty of drafting higher number of faculty positions for initial batches. A faculty post of Asstt. Professor, on an assessment of the existing need of the Institute was thus created for a period of three years to which the Respondent No. 1 was offered the appointment for the said term. The Institute underlined that the appointment, however was not proceeded by any selection process and was wholly impelled by the prevailing exigencies. According to the Appellant, the Institute had not advertised any post of Asstt. Professor through its website, which, contained detailed data and relevant information's about its faculty to which it was open for the interested/prospective candidates to respond by forwarding their curriculum vitae online. The Institute however admitted that at times depending on the institutional demands, information's so furnished used to be acted upon for the purpose of temporary appointments. 6. The Appellant maintained that for recruitment to the faculty position at the relevant time it had adopted the rules and regulations of the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad and the requisite qualification prescribed for the post of Asstt. 6. The Appellant maintained that for recruitment to the faculty position at the relevant time it had adopted the rules and regulations of the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad and the requisite qualification prescribed for the post of Asstt. Professor thereby contained in the letter dated 18.08.2009 of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, was "Ph.D with first class or equivalent at the proceeding degree in the appropriate branch with a very good academic record throughout and at least 3 years industrial/research/teaching experience excluding however, the experience gain while pursuing Ph.D." The Appellant insisted that for a management institute, the appropriate degree is P.hd in Management Science. While Respondent No. 1 was a doctorate in Chemistry and her paper presentations in the conferences referred to by her demonstrated that the same were in Bio-Chemical-Chemistry and not in Management. 7. The Appellant-Institute has asserted that while the Respondent No. 1 came to join her post in the institution, it transpired for the first time that she was in an advance stage of pregnancy for which she sought a deferment by six months. According to the Institute, had her health condition being divulged earlier, having regard to the exigencies for which the appointment had been contemplated, the offer therefore would not have been made to her. As the Respondent No. 1 was thus unable to join immediately and with the passage of time the immediate need for being attended to otherwise eased doubt, the impugned decision was taken. The Appellant however, insisted that the action was wholly bona fide and the Respondent No. 1 was thereby accorded an opportunity of participating in a regular selection process to attest her suitability for permanent induction to the Institute. 8. The Respondent No. 1, in her affidavit-in-reply while referring to the stipulations contained in the offer of appointment, insisted that the same was on regular basis and not for a fixed term. 9. The learned Single Judge sustained the impugnment on the following considerations: (a) The offer of appointment dated 05.05.2009 subsists and has not been cancelled. (b) The offer had been made to the Respondent No. 1 after exhaustive deliberations on her candidature submitted in response to the advertisement of the Institute lodged in its website. 9. The learned Single Judge sustained the impugnment on the following considerations: (a) The offer of appointment dated 05.05.2009 subsists and has not been cancelled. (b) The offer had been made to the Respondent No. 1 after exhaustive deliberations on her candidature submitted in response to the advertisement of the Institute lodged in its website. (c) Her request for extension of time to enable her to join on 01.01.2010 had been accepted by the Director of the Institute by making an endorsement "Agreed" on her application dated 01.07.2009 to that effect. (d) If the Respondent No. 1 had been on probation as mentioned in the reply of the Institute to her legal notice, she was required to be appointed formally enabling her to render service and draw her salary. (e) The offer of appointment dated 05.05.2009 indicated some sort of permanence of the arrangement vis-a-vis the post involved, as amongst others it assured that she would be entitled to retirement benefits as per the decision of the Institute from time to time. (f) The insistence of the Institute for the Respondent No. 1 to appear in the interview was irreconcilable with the earlier approval of extension of the time of her joining till 01.01.2010. (g) The two sheets of paper produced in the name of records containing the notes dated 16.12.2009 and thereafter did not indicate the origin of the process and instead recorded a decision to require the Respondent No. 1 to appear in an interview for her regular appointment. (h) Everything was done in a hurry without putting the Respondent No. 1 to any prior notice. The Respondent No. 1 being encouraged by the offer had abandoned her earlier service abroad and returned to India to join the new assignment. (i) The post was still vacant and the appointment of the Respondent No. 1 thereto was valid for three years. 10. In its supplementary affidavit in the present appeal, the Institute pleaded that its first academic session after its establishment started from the month of July, 2008. It averred that in the two year Master of Business Administration course, there is a compulsory subject title "Strategic Management" to be taught in the forth term in the institution, which commences in the second academic year around June-July. It averred that in the two year Master of Business Administration course, there is a compulsory subject title "Strategic Management" to be taught in the forth term in the institution, which commences in the second academic year around June-July. As at that relevant point of time the institution was lacking in competent faculty to teach the said compulsory subject, it while scouting for competent person came across the candidature of the Respondent No. 1 and decided to offer her appointment to the post of Asstt. Professor for a fixed period of three years without undertaking a regular selection process and holding necessary interview. The Institute maintained that the step was taken by its Director in its discretion to meet the immediate exigency prevailing in the interest of the career of its first batch of students. The deponent, Director of the Institute while admitting his endorsement on the Respondent No. 1's application dated 01.07.2009 seeking extension of the joining time till 01.01.2010, has conceded that the same laid the institute in an awkward and embarrassing situation having regard to the very purpose of her appointment to teach the compulsory subject in the forth term beginning from July, 2009. The deponent had disclosed in unambiguous terms that had the Respondent No. 1 revealed that she was in the family way at the time of being offered the appointment, she would not have exercised his discretion without resorting to the normal course of selection. According to the deponent, this much belated disclosure resulted in a spali of avoidable inconveniences to the students and the Institute. Situated thus, the Director of the Institute referred to the matter to the Finance Department for its suggestion and comment without cancelling her appointment. According to the Appellant-Institute, the Finance Department in its note dated 16.12.2009 observed as hereunder: 1. The letter of offer was issued for a specific period to meet the urgent requirement of the Institute. 2. The appointment offer was made without going through the normal procedure for such appointment. Now, as Dr. Tyagi failed to join the Institute the very purpose of her apptt. is frustrated. It is, therefore, suggested that her appointment may be regularized by following the normal procedure of such appointment. The Advisor of the Director responded to the aforementioned note as hereunder: The observations made by the Finance are correct. Since Dr. Now, as Dr. Tyagi failed to join the Institute the very purpose of her apptt. is frustrated. It is, therefore, suggested that her appointment may be regularized by following the normal procedure of such appointment. The Advisor of the Director responded to the aforementioned note as hereunder: The observations made by the Finance are correct. Since Dr. Tyagi could not join in time, the purpose for which her appointment was made without proper interview is not served. Since we have time now, it is advised that Dr. Tyagi be asked to appear before the Selection Committee so that regular appointment may be made if she qualifies. 11. The answering Institute further asserted that the Chairman of its Board of Directors also concurred with the suggested steps as above and accordingly the Respondent No. 1 was requested to appear in the interview to be held by the Selection Committee as conveyed by the impugned communication dated 13.02.2010 that due to the failure of the Respondent No. 1 to join the Institute in time, the Director had to make a hurried arrangement to seek a competent faculty to teach the first batch of students, the concerned compulsory subject has been mentioned in the affidavit. While emphasizing that the Institute of Excellence like the RGIIM cannot afford to appoint any faculty permanently without pursuing the appropriate procedure for selection, it's contended that in the interview held as scheduled, the Respondent No. 1 did not participate and that the Interview Panel recommended two candidates for appointment to the post of Asstt. Professor and Associate Professor respectively, who eventually were extended the offer of appointment. 12. To this, the Respondent No. 1 in her affidavit-in-opposition stoutly denied the imputation of her failure to join the Institute and reiterated her, the ever readiness to do so at all relevant points of time. While contending that the reference of the issue to the Finance Department of the Institute as well as its suggestions were wholly in significant, she also dismissed the notes appearing in the documents produced as non est and void. 13. Mr. While contending that the reference of the issue to the Finance Department of the Institute as well as its suggestions were wholly in significant, she also dismissed the notes appearing in the documents produced as non est and void. 13. Mr. Bhattacharjee in the background of the above pleaded stand off has persuasively urged that the offer of appointment not having conferred any unassailment right on the Respondent No. 1, it is not enforceable in law and that therefore the learned Single Judge had erred in directing the Institute to allow her to join the post. Referring to the exchange of her letters with the Institute bearing on the offer, the Senior counsel has questioned the bona fide of the Respondent No. 1 in withholding from the latter the factum of her pregnancy till 01.07.2009, reiterating that the offer of appointment had been made in compelling institutional need for a limited duration by skipping the regular participatory process for selection and recruitment. Mr. Bhattacharjee laboured to demonstrate that such a veiled disposition of the Respondent No. 1 disentitled her to any equitable relief. The learned Counsel contended that as with the passage of time for which the Respondent No. 1 is responsible, the demand for her stop gap induction had ceased, the impugned decision to provide her with an opportunity to get her temporary appointment consolidated into a regular one cannot be faulted with in any manner. As admittedly, the offer of appointment to the Respondent No. 1 was not preceded by any selection therefor, the stipulations contained in the letter dated 05.05.2009 to that effect ought not to be construed to lend any attribute of permanence, the Senior counsel insisted. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, the action having been taken in the best interest of the Institute as is demonstrated by the relevant official records, the impugned judgment and order ought to be interfered with. The following decisions were relied upon: Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India AIR 1958 Supreme Court 36, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Akbar Ali Khan AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1842; Kdear Nath Bahl v. The State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 1972 SC 873 and Dr. Kishore v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1997 3 SCC 209 14. Whereas, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel did not offer any comment, Mr. AIR 1972 SC 873 and Dr. Kishore v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1997 3 SCC 209 14. Whereas, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel did not offer any comment, Mr. Bora appearing for Respondent No. 1 maintained that the offer of appointment in all essential particulars portrayed the permanence thereof. While admitting that such an offer was not based on any selection of the Respondent No. 1, on a comparative suitability of competing candidates the learned Counsel asserted that she having been advised to seek extension of her joining time by the Director of the Institute and the latter having accepted her request when so made, Institute is estopped from denying her appointment on the ground of her non availability. As any exercise of the discretion by the said authority on whims and caprices is incomprehensible in law, the impugned decision on that count is liable to be adjusted non est. Mr. Bora pleaded that the ground of urgency expressed by the Institute seeking to justify the impugned decision not having been expressed earlier and as the Respondent No. 1 acting on the offer of appointment had abandoned her earlier job, on equitable considerations as well, the impugned judgment and order does not warrant interference, he argued. 15. The pleadings and the documents on record as well as the assiduous arguments have been duly analysed that the roots of the offer of appointment of the Respondent No. 1 as conveyed by the letter dated 05.05.2009 are traceable two interactive exchanges between her and the Institute while at its primordial state is clearly discernible. Whereas, the Respondent No. 1 asserts that she had proffered her candidature responding to on the advertisement of the Institute in its official website, according to the latter it had simply posted thereat, the essential information's about the institution highlighting in particular its faculty and the curriculum of study. Be that as it may, in the ultimate, without a selection though, on scrutiny of her testimonials as considered relevant she was offered appointment as Asstt. Professor in the Institute initially for a period of three years in the scale of pay of Rs.12,000-420-18,300/- . 16. The official records placed with the Court contained documents evidencing inter alia the hierarchy of the teaching faculty in Central Funded Technical Institutions including the Appellant-Institute, criteria of eligibility for appointment thereto and the conditions of service. Professor in the Institute initially for a period of three years in the scale of pay of Rs.12,000-420-18,300/- . 16. The official records placed with the Court contained documents evidencing inter alia the hierarchy of the teaching faculty in Central Funded Technical Institutions including the Appellant-Institute, criteria of eligibility for appointment thereto and the conditions of service. The minutes of the fourth meeting of its Board of Governors held on 04.08.2008 resolved that it (Institute) would be guided by and would follow the Rules of Govt. of India/other IIMS in India till it adopts its own rules and regulations. The rules and regulations of the Indian Institute of Management, Ahemadabad, the model whereof as has been disclosed in course of the arguments had at the relevant time been adopted by the Institute provides amongst others that unless waived in particular or full by the appointing authority, there would be a probationary period of two years which may be extended at the end thereof. The services of an employee on probation the same enjoins can be terminated without notice or either side, without assigning any reason. 17. In this backdrop, the assertion of the Institute that in the institutional exigencies to teach the compulsory subject of "Strategic Management" to the first batch of its students from the beginning of the second academic year in June-July, 2009 , its Director in the exercise of his discretion had offered temporary appointment to the Respondent No. 1 to tide over the immediate demands of the course cannot be jettisoned in absence of prepolent materials to the contrary Not only this averment has remained unrefuted, the Respondent No. 1 does not dispute as well that the said offer was not preceded by any process of selection contemplated in law for evaluation of comparative assessment of competing eligible candidates. The offer of appointment as communicated by the letter dated 05.05.2009 being the substratum of her case, the contents thereof deserves extraction The Director of the Institute is pleased to offer the post of Assistant Professor to Dr. Sadhna Tyagi initially for a period of 3(three) years in the scale of pay of Rs.12,000 - 420 - 18300/- (likely to be revised) plus allowances as admissible to the faculty from time to time. If Dr. Sadhna Tyagi decides to join the Institute, she will be on probation for 2(two) years. Sadhna Tyagi initially for a period of 3(three) years in the scale of pay of Rs.12,000 - 420 - 18300/- (likely to be revised) plus allowances as admissible to the faculty from time to time. If Dr. Sadhna Tyagi decides to join the Institute, she will be on probation for 2(two) years. Other terms and conditions of service will be subject to Rules, Regulations, norms and executive instruction of the Institute as enforced from time to time. The Institute has, for time being, adopted the rules and regulations of IIM, Ahmedabad. She will be entitled to retirement benefits as per the decision of the Institute from time to time. If the offer is acceptable, Dr. Sadhna Tyagi is required to send her willingness within 20 (twenty) days indicating probable date of joining. 18. A plain reading of the above quoted would unequivocally evince that not only the offer was initially for a period of three years, the Respondent No. 1 on her decision to join, she was to remain on probation for two years. Thereby, she was required to convey her willingness within 20 days indicating as well the probable date of her joining. The letter disclosed that the Institute had for the time being adopted the rules and regulations of IIM, Ahmedabad. It conveyed as well that the other terms and conditions of service would be the Rules and Regulations, norms and executive instructions of the Institute in force from time to time. The Respondent No. 1 was assured retirement benefits as per the decision of the Institute from time to time. Not only, the offer as above testifies that it is bound by time to start with, the Respondent No. 1 was essentially to remain on probation for two years on and from her decision to join the Institute in response thereto. As referred to hereinabove, her services on probation was thus terminable without notice on either side without assigning any reason in terms of the rules and regulations of the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. Viewed in that context, her notion of permanence in service based on this offer has no apparent foundation. The offer of appointment per se was not determinative of her regular induction in the services of the Institute from its very inception. Viewed in that context, her notion of permanence in service based on this offer has no apparent foundation. The offer of appointment per se was not determinative of her regular induction in the services of the Institute from its very inception. The stipulation for the retiral benefits was clearly referable to the event if any of her permanent assimilation in the faculty of the Institute. 19. That it was on 01.07.2009 it transpired for the first time that the Respondent No. 1 was in her family way is not in dispute. Though the written exchanges bearing on the process had continued for some time prior thereto, the Respondent No. 1 did not reveal this fact earlier. This assumes significance in view of her request for extension of the joining time till 01.01.2010. Though, two pleaded versions have surfaced as to whether the request of the Respondent No. 1 therefore was voluntary or induced, the fact remains that vide her letter dated 01.07.2009 six months time was sought for by her from 01.07.2009 so as to enable her to join the post on 01.01.2010. The Director of the Institute acceded to the request as well. Admittedly, therefore the Respondent No. 1 though, had conveyed her acceptance of the offer on 06.05.2009 did not in fact join the post and render her services till date. Be that as it may, in terms of the offer of appointment on her decision to join the Institute she could thereby be construed to be on probation at all relevant points of time thereafter. 20. The records reveal that in the chain circumstances as above, the Director of the Institute though had permitted extension of time, laid the issue before the Finance Department of the Institute for its views. Having regard to the fact that he in his discretion had conceived of the arrangement, where under the Respondent No. 1 had been offered temporary appointment to teach "Strategic Management" under compelling circumstances, in our view due to her non availability it was open for him in the interest of the institution and the students in general to examine the needfulness of further steps as warranted. In any view of the matter, the Director having invoked his discretion in his assessment of the institutional interest to effect a time bound scheme he was not estopped in law and in the singular factual scenario to reflect on all possible measures in the alternative in the over all interest of the establishment. 21. The Finance Department of the Institute has noticed hereinabove on a consideration amongst others of the aspects that the offer was for a specific period and that too without resorting to the normal procedure for appointment suggested that the Respondent No. 1's appointment she having been failed to join in time, be regularized by following normal procedure. This view was endorsed by the advisor to the Director. The impugned decision was thus taken. That meanwhile, due to the absence of the Respondent No. 1, the Institute had to cause alternative arrangements to be made for imparting lessons in "Strategic Management" to the batch concerned from July, 2009 is also not controverted by the Respondent No. 1, in her pleadings. In this regard, the Director's assertion that had he known that at the relevant point of time, the Respondent No. 1 was carrying he would not have exercised his discretion to offer the appointment to her is also not out of context. 22. The impugned decision, noticeably did not signify cancellation of the offer of appointment to the Respondent No. 1 and required her only to participate in an interview in connection with her application for Faculty Position with the Institute. The letter dated 22.12.2009 clearly intimated her that her appointment had been kept on hold pending the processing thereof through normal procedure. Not only thereby, the Respondent No. 1,s candidature for the post applied by her was acknowledged to be valid thereby, having regard to the nature of the appointment offered to her by the letter dated 05.05.2009, the impugned decision does not betray lack of bona fide on the part of the Institute. The Respondent No. 1 instead of cooperating with the process undertaken by the Institute adopted a belligerent and paranoid front to denounce the same in a Court of law for its annulment. 23. As determined hereinabove, the acceptance of the offer of appointment by the Respondent No. 1 signified that she had been on probation at all relevant times thereafter. The Respondent No. 1 instead of cooperating with the process undertaken by the Institute adopted a belligerent and paranoid front to denounce the same in a Court of law for its annulment. 23. As determined hereinabove, the acceptance of the offer of appointment by the Respondent No. 1 signified that she had been on probation at all relevant times thereafter. As held on the Apex Court in Parshotam Lal Dhingra (Supra), the appointment to a post permanent or temporary on probation or on an officiating basis or a substantive appointment to a temporary post bestows no right on the incumbent to the post and his service may be terminated unless it had ripened in to under the service rules into a quasi permanent service. Having regard to the background in which the Respondent No. 1,s appointment had been kept on hold and the objective of requiring her to participate in an interview as disclosed by the impugned letter dated 22.12.2009, we are of the considered opinion that her challenge in the writ petition lacks merit. Further, the non disclosure of her physical state which eventually rendered her non-available for service, in our estimate is a factor as well which ought to weigh against her in an equity proceeding of the kind in hand. 24. On a perusal of the impugned judgment and order, we find ourselves in respectful disagreement with the findings recorded therein. The decision assailed before us is thus interfered with. The appeal succeeds and is allowed. No costs. Appeal allowed.