The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the prescribed procedure for selection committee recommendations and the approval of appointments by the managing committee, as well as the need for recording reasons for non-acceptance of selection committee recommendations.

( 1 ) PETITIONER ms. Vandana seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus to respondent No. 4 school, to allow her to join duties as TGT Maths and for issuance of an appointment letter. Prayer is also made to call for the records of the Selection Committee and Attendance register and direct respondents 1 to 3 to take action against respondent No. 4 as per Delhi School Education act, 1973 and Rules framed thereunder, for not permitting the petitioner to join.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 4 had taken out an advertisement in a national daily on 10. 8. 2003 and 13. 8. 2003 inviting applications for the post of TGT Maths and Assistant teachers, Peon etc. Petitioner in response to the advertisement applied for the post of TGT Maths (OBC ). She appeared for an interview on 8. 10. 2003, before the selection Committee. Petitioner was found to be the most meritorious candidate and placed at No. 1 position in the panel as communicated to her verbally.

( 3 ) PETITIONER received a phone call from the principal of respondent No. 4, School asking her to come and join duties on 4. 11. 2003. Petitioner claims she joined and marked her attendance in the attendance register and took classes on 4th and 5th November. 2003. No appointment letter was given to her. Principal of respondent No. 4 school asked her not to come to the school from 6th November,2003, as some clarification had been sought from the Directorate of Education and once the same was received, she would be asked to report. As petitioner did not hear anything from respondent No. 4 school, she addressed a communication to the Deputy director of Education on 29. 11. 2003. No reply to the same was received. Petitioner made further inquiries from the Principal of respondent No. 4 school. She was informed that on account of some complaints against the selection, the Education Officer required appointment to be stopped. Petitioner by this writ petition assails the action of respondent No. 4 in not appointing the petitioner even after her due selection.

( 4 ) NOTICE to show cause in the petition was issued on 9. 2. 2004. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 as well as by respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 school has also produced the evaluation and marks awarded by the Selection Committee. Respondents 1 to 3 i. e. NCT of Delhi and Directorate of Education in their affidavit have accepted the factum of preparation of panel by the Selection Committee. It has been averred that appointment is done by the Managing Committee of the school. Further as per records of respondent No. 4 school, petitioner had in fact attended School on 4th and 5th November,2003 and had also been asked to take classes. Respondents 1 to 3 deny passing of any order by them directing the appointment of the petitioner to be stopped.

( 5 ) RESPONDENT No. 4 school in its reply has averred that writ petition was not maintainable. No contract of service had come into existence as appointment letter was not issued and there was no acceptance of the same. Even if a contract of service had come into existence respondent had no legal right to seek its specific enforcement. Reliance is placed by respondent no. 4 on banchhanidhi Rath Vs The State of Orissa and others AIR 1972 Supreme Court 843 to urge that a contract for employment cannot be specifically enforced in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that in case petitioner claims that she had joined service then the action of respondent in not letting her continue could be assailed in an appeal before the Delhi School Tribunal and not through a writ petition.

( 6 ) ON merits, it is contended that the Selection committee prepares the minutes of the selection proceedings and submits the same for approval of the managing Committee, which is the appointing authority. Unless and until the list of the successful candidates as prepared by the Selection Committee is approved by the managing Committee, the same does