JUDGMENT
1. The U.P. Higher Education Services Commission recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Principal under Section 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). On the basis of the recommendation made by the Commission, the Director of Education (Higher Education) sent a communication dated 3.6.2002 to the Secretary/Manager of the Mihir Bhoj Manila Degree College, Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the 'College') intimating that an appointment order in favour of the petitioner may be issued. A copy of the letter was also sent to the petitioner. It has been stated in paragraph 4 of the petition that the Manager of the aforesaid College refused to issue the appointment letter to the petitioner and in paragraph 5 of the petition it has merely been stated that thereafter the petitioner approached the Director of Education (Higher Education) for his grievances. It has then been stated that the petitioner came to know that a post of a permanent Principal was lying vacant in another College, namely, Mihir Bhoj College, Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar and so the petitioner approached the management of the said college for issuance of an appointment letter on the post of Principal in his favour. The said College, however, refused to issue any appointment letter since a direction to such an effect had not been given by the Director of Education (Higher Education). However, the said College did give a 'No Objection Certificate' for the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Principal. It has further been stated that the Director of Education had sent a letter to the Secretary, Government of U.P. seeking necessary instructions but no orders have yet been passed. This writ petition has, accordingly, been filed for a direction upon the State Government to issue necessary orders.
2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
3. Under Section 13 of the Act, the Commission, after the notification of the vacancy to it, holds the interview and then sends the names of the candidates found most suitable to the Director. Under Section 13(3) of the Act, the Director having due regard to the order of preference, if any, communicated by the candidates, intimates the Committee of Management of the name of a candidate from the list for being appointed in the vacancy intimated under Section 12(2) of the Act. In the instant case the Director of Education (Higher Education) had sent the communication dated 3.6.2002 to the Secretary/Manager of the College. The petitioner has merely stated that on the basis of the said letter no appointment letter was issued by the Committee of Management of the College. The Act provides for a complete remedy in such cases where the Committee of Management does not issue the appointment letter as is clear from Section 15 of the Act. In the instant case nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner to indicate whether an application was submitted by him as contemplated under Section 15 of the Act before the Director of Education (Higher Education). We are unable to appreciate the stand taken by the petitioner that even though the vacancy for the post of Principal of Mihir Bhoj College, Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar, which is a different College to which the name of the petitioner had been recommended by the Director of Education (Higher Education), had not been intimated or advertised when the recommendations were sent by the Commission, yet the petitioner should be appointed in the said College on the post of Principal because subsequently an advertisement had been issued for the post of Principal. Such a stand is clearly contrary to the provisions of the Act and the petitioner cannot claim appointment against the said post. We also do not appreciate the attitude of the Director of Education (Higher Education) in sending the communication dated 2.8.2004 to the State Government seeking instructions as to whether the petitioner should be appointed merely because the College had given its 'No Objection Certificate' in the matter. As stated above, such an appointment would be de hors the provisions of the Act and, therefore, such instructions should not have been sought by the Director of Education (Higher Education).
4. For the reasons stated above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.