MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner herein was working as P. G. T. (Chemistry) with the respondent No. 1 since July, 1976. An advertisement was issued by the respondent sometime in the month of June, 1986 calling for applications for filling up certain vacancies in the post of Principal in Kendriya Vidyalaya : 2 : WP (C) NO. 8451/2005 Sangathan (in short `kvs ) against Direct Recruitment Quota. The petitioner also submitted an application as against the aforesaid advertisement praying for considering his case for such appointment to the post of principal-KVS against the direct Recruitment quota. The petitioner was called for the interview for the purpose, wherein he appeared and he was interviewed by the Selection Committee constituted especially for the aforesaid purpose.

( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that although he was selected in the said selection by the said Committee, he was not appointed as against one of the aforesaid vacant posts of Principal-KVS, due to the bias on the part of the respondent. In order to prove bias, the petitioner has alleged before the Tribunal and also before this Court that while he was working as Principal, proceedings were drawn up against him on charge of misconduct which ultimately came to be dropped. It is also alleged that even despite the said order of dropping the charge and closure of the proceedings, his consequential : 3 : WP (C) NO. 8451/2005 benefits were not paid which according to the learned counsel proves and establishes bias against the petitioner. The petitioner was reinstated in service sometime in september, 2002. In the meantime, the petitioner submitted certain representations before the respondent authority requesting them to give effect to his order of appointment as a Principal of KVS, pursuant to the aforesaid selection. But, it is alleged that all the said representations were disposed of by the respondents intimating the petitioner that since a departmental proceeding is pending against him, such representations cannot be entertained at that stage.

( 3 ) THE petitioner relying upon the aforesaid communications issued by the office of the respondents, filed a petition before the learned Central Administrative tribunal (for short `the Tribunal ) praying for a direction to the respondents to give effect to the order of appointment as Principal. The aforesaid petition was contested by the respondent who filed a reply contending, inter alia, that the : 4 : WP (C) NO. 8451/2005 petitioner was not selected in the aforesaid selection held for the purpose of appointment to the post of Principal and, therefore, the allegations of the petitioner are all motivated and false and consequently, without merit. In order to decide the dispute raised, the learned Tribunal also called for the records including the minutes of the Selection Committee which was perused and considered.

( 4 ) AFTER hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, a reasoned order was passed by the learned Tribunal holding the application filed by the petitioner as not maintainable and without any merit. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned Tribunal, the present petition is filed before this Court wherein the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal is under challenge.

( 5 ) THE arguments as advanced before the learned Tribunal are also advanced before us by the counsel for the petitioner. He has drawn our attention to the aforesaid : 5 : WP (C) NO. 8451/2005 communication which are placed at page nos. 96, 97 and 98 of the paper-book which letters were issued by the KVS, but the said letters were written at the level of assistant Commissioner. The counsel appearing for the respondent however disputes the intimations sent through those letters that the petitioner was selected. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent the Assistant Commissioner is not the appointing authority for the post of principal and it is the Commissioner of the kvs who is th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document