By the Court—These two appeals from the order of an Hon’ble Single Judge dated 5.7.2006 are taken up and disposed of summarily along with the additional pleadings filed before us.

2. Two writs filed by the appellant were disposed of by the said judgment, one of which was filed in or about the month of February, 2006 and the other in or about the month of April, 2006. The facts are set out in the judgment, which is impugned before us, and these facts are generally correct (said with respect) although some modification is called for.

3. We shall set out in brief some of the facts given and the arguments made in the Court below and before us. Since we propose to pass an interim order, which will most likely hold the field until the two writs are disposed of once again before the first Court, and since we are proposing to pass an order of remand, the recounting of some facts, and the setting out of some of our prima facie views are necessary. Without these, the interim order cannot be supported in law, as a prima facie arguable case has to be seen to be present.

4. When in February, 2006, the first writ was filed, it was a complaint against the appointment of the respondent No. 4 Ms. Shalini Kaul, as Principal in the School in question, which is in the Air Force Cantonment Area in Bamrauli, Allahabad. As we gathered, she has not yet been served, but if not already served, she has to be. She had been appointed as Principal two years before the writ was filed, (and this is a factor against the appellant) sometime on or about the 20th of June, 2004. The writ petitioner urged that her appointment was made mala fide. She was given a discriminatorily preferential treatment because she is the sister of one Air Vice Marshal Brown, who is said to be in vigilance and is also said to be a contender for the post of Air Marshal in future.

5. Apart from this relationship, certain other facts were pointed out to support the case of mala fides. The appellant stated that pursuant to an advertisement issued on the 4th of May, 2003, an interview was held on the 20th of June, 2003, wherein he was selected as Principal of the School and started functioning as such. According to him, there is an internal note in a departmental file made by one P.K. Nigam accepting him as Principal. Although the selection process was over, the matter was unsettled only for the purpose of accommodating Ms. Kaul. A second advertisement was issued on the 9th of January, 2004; the salary and perquisites were higher this time.

6. The second interview was held on the 1st of March, 2004. Prior to that on the 17th of January, 2004, the writ petitioner had applied again for the post of Principal and the aforesaid Nigam issued a call letter to him on or about 17.2.2004. In the impugned judgment, the facts proceeded upon seem to be different.

7. In the second process of selection, the writ petitioner was not in the list, perhaps because he was already functioning as Principal. Ms. Kaul was in position No. 3, one Ms. Neerja Singh was placed as No. 1, and one Mr. D.N. Thomas as No. 2. Apparently, Ms. Neerja Singh two months after applying, wrote a letter saying that she did not want the post as it would unsettle her family matters.

8. The appellant alleges that he was threatened by Ms. Kaul not to attend the interview; allegedly similar threats were held out to Ms. Neerja Singh and Mr. Thomas, all for accommodating Ms. Kaul. Why Ms. Neerja Singh should be suddenly troubled with her family after she had applied for the job just two months before might be a not irrelevant question.

9. The further allegation is that Ms. Kaul did not have the necessary experience of five years in administration and also had not experience in teaching Intermediate classes. A new and important allegation made before us is that she was overage, being 50 years 7 months and 9 days old on 9.1.2004, although the maximum age pre set was 50 years.

10. These facts are said to spell out bias and unreasonab