JUDGMENT V.M. Sahai, J.
1. The petitioner, the seniormost teacher has filed the instant petition challenging the order dated 29.12.1997 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Dehradun, according approval to the recommendation of the selection committee for appointing respondent No. 2 as head mistress.
2. There is no dispute that when the post of head mistress fell vacant on 30.6.1993, the Committee of Management invited application by publication in the newspapers having wide circulation. A duly constituted selection committee recommended the name of respondent No. 2. The petitioner did not apply for it. She claimed that she being the senior most teacher was entitled to be promoted. The Education Superintendent cancelled the selection on 14.10.1997, but the District Basic Education Officer granted approval on 29.12.1997 to the selection of respondent No. 2.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri L. P. Naithani argued that once the selection was cancelled by the Education Superintendent, then the District Basic Education Officer could not grant approval as it would amount to interfering or revising his order. The other argument is that in any case the petitioner having applied, the selection committee acted illegally in not calling her and considering her claim.
4. Both the arguments of counsel for the petitioner are without any merit. The post of head mistress is a selection post. The procedure for selection is provided by U. P.
Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teaches) Rules, 1978 (in brief Rules). The Committee of Management in accordance with these Rules constituted a selection committee, which recommended the name of respondent No. 2 to the District Baste Education Officer for granting approval. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any provision in the rules, which empowers the Education Superintendent to cancel the recommendation of the selection committee. The law is clear that once selection process has started, the power to grant or withhold approval vests in the District Basic Education Officer. It could not be Interfered by the Education Superintendent. The order dated 14.10.1997, therefore, was contrary to Rules and it has to be treated as null and void.
5. The other argument of the counsel for the petitioner that she had also applied for selection has also no merit. It is a question of fact. It cannot be raised in writ Jurisdiction. It is clear that in various applications made before different authorities, the petitioner based her claim only on seniority. There is no whisper in any of the applications or the orders of the authorities that she had applied for selection. The copy of the application filed as Annexure-R.A. 6 to the rejoinder-affidavit in April, 1998 is of no use to the petitioner, as the respondent had no opportunity to reply to it. Even in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner in March, 1999, no mention was made that the petitioner had also applied for selection. After the judgment was reserved on 9.4.1999, the petitioner filed a photo copy of the application along with the supplementary affidavit to support the allegation in the rejoinder-affidavit that she had in fact made the application for selection. A bare perusal of the application shows that the claim of the petitioner is absolutely baseless. The application bears an endorsement from the office of District Basic Education Officer, which was not the requirement as per the advertisement. The postal receipt cannot establish that application was made by the petitioner for selection. It is clear that the petitioner never applied before the appropriate authority, that is the Committee of Management, for selection.
6. In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The Stay order dated 4.2.1998 is vacated.
7. The parties shall bear their own costs.