JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard Shri P.N. Saxena, assisted by Shri Jagdev Singh for Dr. Jagdish Singh-the petitioner. Shri R.N. Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri V.K. Singh and Shri G.K. Singh have appeared for Dr. Gulab chand Singh-respondent No. 5. 2. By this writ petition Dr. Jagdish Singh-the petitioner, has prayed for directions to quash the orders dated 16.8.2010 and 18/20.9.2010 passed by the Director of Higher Education, U.P. at Allahabad-respondent No. 2, and Committee of Management of Udai Pratap (Post Graduate) College, Varanasi (in short the college) by which Dr. Gulab Chand Singh was placed, under Section 13 (3) of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act as Principal of the college, in pursuance to which the Committee of Management has issued appointment letter to him. 3. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the post of Principal of the college was advertised by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission vide Advertisement No. 36, combined with Advertisement No. 39, alongwith other posts of Principals of various Post Graduate colleges. In all 79 posts of Principals were advertised. Earlier to these advertisements the Advertisement Nos. 33, 34, 35 and 36 were cancelled, in pursuance to different orders of the Court, and it was provided that in the Advertisement No. 39 the candidates, who have already applied in pursuance to earlier Advertisement Nos. 33, 34, 35 and 36, will not be required to apply afresh. 4. Dr. Jagdish Singh, the petitioner had applied in pursuance to the Advertisement No. 36 on 3.8.2003. Dr. Gulab Singh-respondent No. 5 had also applied for the post of Principal in pursuance to the same Advertisement No. 36. The Commission issued an interview letter dated 26.5.2008, asking him to appear for interview on 19.6.2008. At the time of interview the candidates including the petitioner and respondent No. 5 were informed that the post of Principal in the Udai Pratap (PG) College, Varanasi was filled up by appointment of one Dr. Om Prakash Singh by way of transfer, as a result thereof their is no vacancy on the post. They were required to give their preferences afresh. 5. Om Prakash Singh by way of transfer, as a result thereof their is no vacancy on the post. They were required to give their preferences afresh. 5. The petitioner had as per the provisions of Section 12 (4) of the Act given his preferences, as follows : “(i) U.P. (P.G.) College, Varanasi (ii) Saltnat Bahadur P.G. College, Badlapur, Jaunpur (iii) Tilakdhari College, Jaunpur (iv) Gandhi (P.G.) College Maltari, Azamgarh (v) Ganpat Sahai (P.G.) College, Sultanpur.” 6. Dr. Gulab Singh-respondent No. 5 had also given the first preference for Udai Pratap Post Graduate College, Varanasi. 7. In the select list dated 2.7.2008 Dr. Gulab Singh-respondent No. 5 was at Sl.No. 9, whereas Dr. Jagdish Singh, the petitioner was at Sl.No. 15. 8. A complaint was made against the transfer of Dr. Om Prakash Singh on the ground that he was a permanent Principal of a Undergraduate college and thus he could not be transferred to the Post Graduate college. An enquiry was made into the allegations. Dr. Om Prakash Singh was also selected by the Commission in pursuance to the vacancy in the Advertisement No. 39, and that in pursuance to the Government Order dated 22.11.2007 the Director of Education issued an order on 23.11.2007, on which the college gave him placement on 24.11.2007. Dr. Om Prakash Singh joined on 26.11.2007. Since he had misrepresented to the State Government in the matter of his transfer from Undergraduate college to the Post-graduate college, his appointment was cancelled. Dr. Gulab Singh-respondent No. 5 made a representation against him on 23.12.2008 requesting that he may be permitted to join as the Principal on his selection in pursuance to the choice given by him for the college in pursuance to Advertisement No. 36. 9. The Director of Higher Education on discovery of the fraud played by Dr. Om Prakash Singh, cancelled his transfer order and directed him to be relieved. Shri Om Prakash Singh was consequently relieved from the college on 1.9.2009, after which Shri Sabha Shankar Tiwari took over the charge as Officiating Principal on 1.9.2009, and remained in office upto 11.6.2010. Dr. The Director of Higher Education on discovery of the fraud played by Dr. Om Prakash Singh, cancelled his transfer order and directed him to be relieved. Shri Om Prakash Singh was consequently relieved from the college on 1.9.2009, after which Shri Sabha Shankar Tiwari took over the charge as Officiating Principal on 1.9.2009, and remained in office upto 11.6.2010. Dr. Om Prakash Singh filed Writ Petition No. 47680 of 2009 in which an interim order dated 14.9.2009 was granted only to the effect that the recovery of pay directed against him shall remain stayed with liberty to him to approach the Special Secretary, Higher Education, U.P. for allowing him to work in the erstwhile Paliwal Degree College, Shikohabad, from where he was illegally transferred. 10. Dr. Jagdish Singh, the petitioner in pursuance to his selection by the Commission against Advertisement No. 39 was given posting in Saltanat Bahadur (PG) College, Badlapur, Distt. Jaunpur, which was his second preference, and where he joined and continued to serve as Principal, until he resigned on 30.4.2010. After his resignation Dr. Jagdish Singh-the petitioner, joined on the post of Reader in the Department of Agricultural Chemistry and Soil Science, in the college, and submitted his representation to be appointed as Principal of the college. 11. In the meantime, Dr. Gulab Singh-respondent No. 5 in pursuance to his selection by the Commission in Advertisement Nos. 36 and 39, was given placement by the Director of Education (Higher Education), by his order dated 28.12.2008 for appointment as Principal of DAV Post Graduate College, Azamgarh, in pursuance to which the Authorised Controller, DAV Post Graduate College, Azamgarh issued appointment letter to the petitioner on 27.1.2009 asking him to join within one month. Dr. Gulab Singh-respondent No. 5 requested for time to join upto April, 2009, on which the Authorised Controller by his order dated 26.2.2009 allowed him time to join upto 15.5.2009. Once again on the application of Dr. Gulab Singh- respondent No. 5 dated 11.5.2009, an order was passed by the Authorised Controller, DAV Post Graduate College, Azamgarh granting him time upto 15th July, 2009, to join on the post of Principal. The Authorised Controller again on the application of Dr. Gulab Singh-respondent No. 5 by his order dated 15th July, 2009 granted him time to join upto 31.10.2009. Before the expiry of the joining time Dr. The Authorised Controller again on the application of Dr. Gulab Singh-respondent No. 5 by his order dated 15th July, 2009 granted him time to join upto 31.10.2009. Before the expiry of the joining time Dr. Gulab Singh-respondent No. 5 applied to the Authorised Controller seeking time until the disposal of the writ petition filed by him for his placement in Udai Pratap (Post Graduate) college at Varanasi. The writ petition No. 53882 of 2009 filed by him is still pending. 12. The Authorised Controller, DAV Post Graduate College, Azamgarh did not pass any orders on the application, but was not inclined to grant any further time. In between, an order was passed by the Director of Education (Higher Education) on 8.1.2010 cancelling the placement order of Dr. Gulab Singh-respondent No. 5 on 28.8.2008 on which Dr. Gulab singh-respondent No. 5 filed Writ Petition No. 5923 of 2010. 13. In the meanwhile, it is alleged on behalf of Dr. Gulab Singh-respondent No. 5, that considering the fact that the post of Principal of the college had again fallen vacant and also considering that it was one of the post, which was advertised vide Advertisement No. 36 and 39, for which the respondent No. 5 had applied and was selected, a representation was filed by Dr. Gulab Singh-respondent No. 5 on 5.2.2010, on which the order dated 16.9.2010 was passed by the Director of Education (Higher Education), U.P. placing him under Section 12 (2) and Section 13 (3) of the Act, as Principal of the college. The Committee of Management issued appointment letter to him on 18/20.9.2010, in pursuance to which he has joined as Principal giving rise to this writ petition. 14. On 28.10.2010 while entertaining this writ petition and issuing notice it was made clear by the Court that no interim order has been granted. 15. Shri P.N. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Dr. Jagdish Singh, the petitioner is not raising any claim for appointment as permanent Principal, as after his placement as Principal in Saltnat Bahadur (PG) College, Badlapur, Distt. Jaunpur and his joining on 7.2.2009 upto 3.4.2010, he cannot claim his right for appointment as permanent Principal in pursuance to his selection under Advertisement Nos. 36 and 39. The petitioner, however, was on probation at Saltnat Bahadur (PG) College, Badlapur, Distt. Jaunpur upto the date he resigned and was not confirmed. Jaunpur and his joining on 7.2.2009 upto 3.4.2010, he cannot claim his right for appointment as permanent Principal in pursuance to his selection under Advertisement Nos. 36 and 39. The petitioner, however, was on probation at Saltnat Bahadur (PG) College, Badlapur, Distt. Jaunpur upto the date he resigned and was not confirmed. He continued to have lien on the post of Reader in the college, which was recognized, when he was promoted to join back as Reader in the Department of Agricultural Chemistry and Soil Sciences in the college and being the seniormost teacher in the college he has right to officiate as Principal of the college. Shri Saxena further submits that on the principle accepted by the Court in Kumari Ragini Srivastava v. State of U.P., 1997(1) ESC 649 (All) and in Chaman Singh v. State, 2010(8) ADJ 659 (DB) Dr. Gulab Singh-respondent No. 5 also, after being placed by the Director of Education (Higher Education) for appointment as Principal of DAV (PG) College, Azamgarh and the appointment letter issued to him by the Authorised Controller, even if he had not joined lost his rights to be appointed as permanent Principal of the college. Since he did not join, the order of his placement was cancelled by the Director of Education (Higher Education) on 8.1.2010. His selection thus got exhausted and so he could not be given fresh placement by the Director of Education (Higher Education) vide impugned order dated 16.6.2010, as Principal in the college. 16. Shri Saxena submits that since respondent No. 5 failed to join in pursuance to his placement at DAV (PG) College, Azamgarh, his selection and placement was cancelled. He cannot be appointed as Principal of the college, even if he had given first preference in interviews in pursuance to Advertisement No. 39. The petitioner being seniormost teacher of the college is going to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 29.1.2012. He has a right to continue as Officiating Principal. Dr. Gulab Singh-respondent No. 5 is usurping the office of the Principal on which he should officiate until his retirement. 17. Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. Adv. and Shri G.K. Singh submit that Dr. Gulab Singh-respondent No. 5 had given his first preference for the college in pursuance to his selection by the Commission vide Advertisement No. 36 and 39. Dr. Gulab Singh-respondent No. 5 is usurping the office of the Principal on which he should officiate until his retirement. 17. Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. Adv. and Shri G.K. Singh submit that Dr. Gulab Singh-respondent No. 5 had given his first preference for the college in pursuance to his selection by the Commission vide Advertisement No. 36 and 39. Since at that time the post of permanent Principal of the college was illegally occupied by Dr. Om Prakash Singh, on the order of transfer, which was not valid and was subsequently cancelled, the petitioner was placed for appointment in DAV Post Graduate College, Azamgarh. The petitioner requested for time to join, which was allowed. His request for extension of time joining were allowed by the Authorised Controller of the college. His placement was subsequently illegally cancelled by the Director of Education (Higher Education) on 8.1.2010. His representation was rightly allowed by the Director of Education (Higher Education) and he was placed in pursuance to his selection vide Advertisement No. 39 in accordance with his first preference as Principal of the college. Dr. Gulab Singh-respondent No. 5 was appointed as permanent Principal of the college in accordance with law on his own merits and the preference given by him. The Director of Education has not caused any illegality in giving him placement as Principal of the college for which an appointment order was issued to him and he had joined and is working. 18. It is submitted on behalf of Dr. Gulab Singh-respondent No. 5 that Dr. Jagdish Singh, the petitioner had no lien left on the post of Reader after he had joined at Badlapur on 7.2.2009. His resignation dated 30.7.2010 would not give him right to come back to the college and to be treated as senior most teacher. In any case it is submitted that Dr. Jagdish Singh, the petitioner is going to attain the age of superannuation on 29.1.2012. It would not be in the fitness of things to allow the Office of the Principal to be occupied by Dr. Jagdish Singh, the petitioner, for a few days. 19. In Km. In any case it is submitted that Dr. Jagdish Singh, the petitioner is going to attain the age of superannuation on 29.1.2012. It would not be in the fitness of things to allow the Office of the Principal to be occupied by Dr. Jagdish Singh, the petitioner, for a few days. 19. In Km. Ragini Srivastava v. State of U.P., 1997(1) ESC 649 (All), this Court had considered the scheme of Section 12, 13 and 14 of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 and held in para 6 that the list sent by the Commission remains valid till the receipt of new list from the Commission under sub-section 2 of Section 13. It was held : “The process of selection and appointment comes to an end after a candidate has been selected, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and his name has been intimated to the management of a college by the Director, and he has been issued appointment letter, pursuant to such intimation. This process also gets exhausted if after a candidate is selected and his name is intimated by the Director having due regard to the order of preference intimated by him fore-stalls his appointment by the management by pleading that it is not possible for him to join the college. Once the appointment process is complete there remains no occasion for him to say that on account of his personal problems he should be appointed to a vacancy for which selection process contemplated under the Act was not gone through. The fact that in the past recommendations were made by the Director for the vacancies which were not notified and for which stipulated selection process had not been gone through would not form the ground for our holding that the others who did not get the benefit of illegal orders should be extended similar benefits. Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be extended to legalise the illegal orders though others had wrongly got the benefit of such order. In this view we find support from Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 706. So neither petitioner is entitled to relief. Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be extended to legalise the illegal orders though others had wrongly got the benefit of such order. In this view we find support from Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 706. So neither petitioner is entitled to relief. We are further of the view that where sub-section (4) of Section 13 applies to any vacancy, nomination is to be made by the Director of Education from amongst the candidates, whose name have not already been intimated to the management of any college and not from amongst those whose names have already been intimated to the management of any college having due regard to the preference indicated by them. The reason is that the appointment process come to a close after the selection process contemplated in the Act has been gone through and appointment letter has been issued by the concerned college pursuance to the recommendation of the director of Education or where after the intimation has been sent by the Director under Section 13 (3) the candidate frustrates the issue of appointment letter by saying that it is not possible for him to join the college. Any other view would cause the whole scheme unworkable throwing the cause of higher education in dis-array. If a candidate who having been selected and appointed is to be allowed not to join the post to which he was appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Act to permit him to wait for a vacancy in the college of his choice to arise, that would amount to total disregard to the interest of the college and the students and the cause of higher education to serve only personal interest of an individual.” 20. In Chaman Singh v. State of U.P. (Supra) the Court in the judgment to which one of us was a member held : “On the aforesaid facts, we do not find substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Digamber Jain P.G. College is not a College defined under the Act, and does not have a sanctioned post of Principal in the pay scale of Rs. 16,400-22,400/- for which the petitioner was selected. 16,400-22,400/- for which the petitioner was selected. After the petitioner was selected, placed and issued appointment letter by Digamber Jain P.G. College Bulandshahr, he did not have any right to claim placement in any other college, including Gocher Mahavidyalaya, Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur, where he was earlier teaching. The unwillingness of Shri Babu Lal Kushwaha to work as Principal of Gocher Mahavidyalaya, Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur, subsequently and thereafter placement of Dr. Chandra Shekhar-respondent No. 4 as its Principal, does not give petitioner a right to change his placement. He does not have any right to claim adjustment or fresh placement after he was placed as Principal, Digamber Jain P.G. College Bulandshahr, and was issued appointment letter. Dr. Babu Lal Kushwaha and Dr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, both selected and placed in their respective Colleges, had mutually agreed on interchange, for which the Director of Education (Higher Education) U.P., had no objection, vide para-29 of the counter-affidavit of Dr. Harsh Vardhan, Joint Director in the Directorate of Higher Education, U.P.” 21. In the present case the post of Principal of the college was advertised in Advertisement Nos. 36 and 39. Both of them applied to the advertisement made for 79 posts of Principals of the Post Graduate Colleges. Both the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 at the time of interviews gave their first preference for the college. At that time they were informed that Dr. Om Prakash Singh was transferred and was holding the post of permanent Principal of the college and thus they had to change their option. It was not foreseen by them that the appointment by transfer of Dr. Om Prakash Singh was illegal as he could not have got himself transferred from the Undergraduate college to the Post-graduate college and his transfer order will be cancelled. In the circumstances, the respondent No. 5, higher in merit was placed in DAV (PG) College, Azamgarh with his revised first preference, and the petitioner placed much below him, in the selections was placed in Saltnat Bahadur PG College Badlapur Distt. Jaunpur. Both of them were issued appointment letters. Whereas Dr. Jagdish Singh, the petitioner joined at Saltnat Bahadur PG college, Badlapur, Jaunpur on 7.2.2009, Dr. Gulab Singh-respondent No. 5 did not join and sought time for joining, which was extended from time to time. Dr. Jaunpur. Both of them were issued appointment letters. Whereas Dr. Jagdish Singh, the petitioner joined at Saltnat Bahadur PG college, Badlapur, Jaunpur on 7.2.2009, Dr. Gulab Singh-respondent No. 5 did not join and sought time for joining, which was extended from time to time. Dr. Jagdish Singh, the petitioner resigned on 30.4.2010 and was taken back as Reader in the college, whereas the placement of Dr. Gulab Singh was cancelled on 8.10.2010. 22. Dr. Gulab Singh-respondent No. 5 filed writ petition against the cancellation of his placement and selections. His representation was allowed by the Director of Education, Higher Education on 16.9.2010 for placement as permanent Principal on the vacant permanent post in the college. 23. We find that the post of Principal of the college was not filled up as the transfer of Dr. Om Prakash Singh. His transfer was illegal and was thus void and inoperative, however, in the meantime, both Dr. Jagdish Singh, the petitioner as well as Dr. Gulab Singh-respondent No. 5 lost their rights to be appointed as permanent Principal in the college in pursuance to their placements and issuance of appointment letters in the post graduate colleges at Badlapur (Jaunpur) and Azamgarh respectively. The selection of both of them in pursuance to Advertisement Nos. 36 and 39, got exhausted and both of them cannot claim, under the scheme of the Act, to fall back upon their first preference for the college. It would not make any difference, whether Dr. Gulab Singh-respondent No. 5 joined at Azamgarh or not. Since he was placed and issued appointment letter in the college, his selection came to an end and was rightly cancelled by the Director of Education for not joining at Azamgarh. The Writ Petition No. 5923 of 2010 was filed by him against the order cancelling his placement is still pending. 24. For the reasons given as above, both Dr. Jagidsh Singh, the petitioner and Dr. Gulab Singh, the respondent No. 5 have lost their rights in pursuance to their selections vide Advertisement Nos. 36 and 39 by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and it is declared that the permanent post of Principal of the college is still vacant and should be filled up by fresh advertisement to be made by the Commission. 36 and 39 by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and it is declared that the permanent post of Principal of the college is still vacant and should be filled up by fresh advertisement to be made by the Commission. In the meantime, the arrangement of the senior most teacher to continue as officiating Principal will be allowed to operate. ——————