The government cannot make ad-hoc appointments to the post of Principal of a college without following the proper procedure and considering the qualifications of the candidates.

Headnote:
EDUCATION - APPOINTMENT OF PRINCIPAL - GOA COLLEGE OF PHARMACY - ACT-SECTION REFERRED : NIL - The court quashed the ad-hoc appointment of the 3rd respondent as Principal of the Goa College of Pharmacy and directed the petitioner, who had been holding the additional charge of the post for over a decade, to continue in that position until a regular appointment was made.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, who had been functioning as Principal of the Goa College of Pharmacy since 1981, challenged the government's order appointing the 3rd respondent as Principal on an ad-hoc basis for one year or until the post was filled on a regular basis. The petitioner contended that the appointment was illegal and contrary to the rules governing the appointment of Principals.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the impugned order had the effect of disturbing the existing arrangements which had been in vogue for over a decade. It held that the government's attempt to switch from one ad-hoc arrangement to another was undesirable and unsustainable and that the frequent disturbances would be contrary to the public interest and the rule of law.
Issues: Whether the government's ad-hoc appointment of the 3rd respondent as Principal was legal and justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the government's ad-hoc appointment of the 3rd respondent was illegal and contrary to the rules governing the appointment of Principals. It held that the government's attempt to switch from one ad-hoc arrangement to another was undesirable and unsustainable and that the frequent disturbances would be contrary to the public interest and the rule of law.
Final Decision: The court quashed the government's order appointing the 3rd respondent as Principal and directed the petitioner to continue in that position until a regular appointment was made.

JUDGMENT - K. SUKUMARAN, J.:---The petitioner, who has been functioning as Principal of the Goa College of Pharmacy from 1981 onwards, has approached this Court challenging the order of the Government-Exhibit 'O' dated 7-8-1991 by which the 3rd respondent was promoted on 'ad-hoc" basis to the post of Principal with immediate effect and for a period of one year or till the post is filled in on regular basis whichever event occurs earlier. In that order it was further mentioned that the petitioner would be relieved of the additional charge of the post of Principal. The order was varied by the Government itself by order dated 12-8-1991, where the word "promote" was substituted by the word "appoint". By an amendment petition, the petitioner had prayed for quashing this order as well as totally unjustified and contrary to law. The 3rd respondent has filed an affidavit in justification of the appointment and asserting his continuance as Principal after having assumed charge of that post from 8-8-1991.

2. The appointment to the post of Principal was earlier governed by the rules framed in the year 1969. Regular appointment was not made inspite of the lapse of a fairly long period. It is not in controversy that the petitioner was having additional charge of the Principal from the year 1981 onwards. Attempts were made to fill in the post on a regular basis. An advertisement was made inviting applications in that behalf. The petitioner contended that the qualifications for the post referred to in the advertisement were contrary to those provided by the rules. He moved this Court and successfully too. It was ruled by this Court that the advertisement did not have the necessary support from the statutory rules. The advertisement was accordingly quashed.

3. The rules were amended in the year 1988. Attempts at filling in the post on regular basis were revived. Initially, a selection made by the Government was suggested to be by passed by the Public Service Commission observing that a larger number of candidates would be preferably considered for appointment to that post. In that process, other advertisements followed. However, till 2-7-1991 there was no rectification of the attempts of the Government in selecting a person for appointment on regular basis. The last advertisement was published on 2-7-1991. 31-7-1991 was fixed as last date for submitting the applications. The 3rd respondent did respond to the advertisement. No appointment on a regular basis has been made by the Government. The impugned order of appointment, as noted earlier, is only an ad-hoc appointment and one which is to enure for a period of only one year or till a regular appointment is made.

4. The impugned order has the effect of disturbing the existing arrangements which had been in vogue for over a decade. On behalf of the Government, it was pointed out that the University and the Pharmacy Council were insisting on the post being filled in by a duly qualified hand. The disaffiliation threat apparently forced the Government to make an immediate order in relation to the filling up of the post. To the question whether the petitioner has challenged the qualification of the 3rd respondent to be appointed to the post of Principal for holding a Doctorate in Applied Biology, he has got a contention that Pharmacy is a subject, an important subject, in the scheme that is called a Doctorate in Applied Biology. There has not been any evaluation of this aspect of the matter. It is essentially and primarily for the academic Bodies to consider the effectiveness of a Doctorate in Applied Biology as equivalent to Doctorate in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical Technology. That has to be necessarily attempted before a regular appointment is made by the Government and a disturbance of the existing arrangement is resorted to. It is not proper or legal for the Government to switch on from one ad-hoc arrangement to another. This has been repeatedly held to be undesirable and unsustainable in relati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document