The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the provisions of the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979 and the rules framed therein in the appointment process, particularly in cases of vacancies and the validity period of the panel list.

JUDGMENT

H.S. Madaan, J. - Case taken up through video conferencing.

Briefly stated facts of the case, which are not much in dispute by either of the parties are that, Maharana Partap National College, Mullana, District Ambala, Haryana, a Government Aided Private College had advertised one post of Assistant Professor (Hindi); a duly constituted Selection Committee having nominee of the University and Government after conducting interview had selected following candidates in order of merit; (i) Dr. Manoj Kumar (ii) Dr. Pooja Rani (present petitioner) and (iii) Dr. Nirmala; requisite approval was obtained from University and Government and Dr. Manoj Kumar, who was on the top in the merit was offered appointment and he joined as Assistant Professor (Hindi) on 15.02.2020; unfortunately, Dr. Manoj Kumar expired on 10.05.2020; according to the petitioner, she being second in order of merit should have been offered appointment on account of arising of vacancy due to untimely death of Dr. Manoj Kumar because in terms of Haryana Govt. instructions issued on 03.03.1999 (Annexure P-3) and 25.06.2019 (Annexure P-4) if during the validity of the select list, post fall vacant due to resignation or death, then the post be filled up from the next candidate in order of merit.

Respondents No.5 and 6 had requested respondents No.1 to 4 to grant approval for appointment of petitioner as Assistant Professor (Hindi) in order of merit as validity of the list would expire on 28.06.2020; however, respondent No.1 in the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 had taken up a stand that in order to be appointed to the post of Lecturers (now Assistant Professors), the recommendations of the Selection Committee are first approved by the affiliating University and then by the Director i.e. the office of answering respondent No.2; the University has defended its decision dated 30.06.2020 and 18.06.2020.

Short reply has been filed by Sh. S.P. Sukhija, Joint Director Colleges, Director General Higher Education, Haryana, Panchkula on behalf of respondent No.2; inter alia, the assertions in the writ petition have been controverted; it has been contended that the selection to the post of Assistant Professor in Govt., Aided Private Colleges are made in accordance with the provisions contained in the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979 and rules framed therein called the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 2006 (for short 'the Act'); that appointment to any post in aided institution is made by the Managing Committee of the concerned institute in the manner provided in Rule 7 of the Act; in that way, for appointment of Lecturer (now Assistant Professor), the recommendations of the Selection Committee are first approved by the affiliating University and then by the Director i.e. the office of answering respondent No.2; in the instant case, in pursuance of the interview held for the appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi), one Dr. Manoj Kumar was placed at Sr. No.1 and he joined his duties on 15.02.2020; unfortunately, he expired on 10.05.2020; according to the answering respondents, any appointment to the post of Assistant Professor against vacant post can be made out of the panel of selected candidates only during the validity period of 06 months from the date of interview as has been specifically provided in Clause 2 of letter No.8/12-98 C-IV (1) dated 03.03.1999, which provided that the validity period of the panel will be 06 months only from the date of interview and the appointment can be made during the validity period only; the interview for appointment to the post in question was held on 28.12.2019 and the panel of selected candidates was prepared on that day; in the end, such respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

In the written reply filed on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4, they have taken up various legal objections to wit that the writ petition is not maintainable a