( 1 ). Respondent 4 applied for the post of Principal pursuant to an advertisement issued on 29/10/1995/2/11/1995 by Appellant 1. The Selection Committee constituted in terms of Rule 7 of the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Rules, 1993 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the rules) selected Respondent 4, The Managing Committee, however, did not issue any letter of appointment to Respondent 4 and at that stage he approached the High Court for appropriate directions in regard to the selection made. The High court, on examination of the matter, came to the conclusion that the selection had been done in accordance with the relevantrules applicable to such selection and the reasons assigned by the appellants as to why Respondent 4 could not be appointed now are arbitrary and not germane to the appointment. On that basis it allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to appoint Respondent 4 as the Principal of the College. This order is in challenge before us in this appeal.

( 2 ). Mr Pankaj Kaira, learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no indefeasible right in any selected candidate to get appointed to a post for which he was selected a