( 1 ) AN advertisement was issued on 13th October, 1995 by Banaras Hindu University for filling up of vacancies in different Posts in the Central Hindu Girls School including the post of assistant Lecturer in English. Many others as well as the petitioner and respondent No. 5 had applied for the post pursuant to the said advertisement. At the material point of time, in the absence of the principal, the respondent No. 4 was acting as principal of the Central Hindu Girls school as officiating principal. She was inducted in the Selection committee as one of the members in place of the principal. The selection committee had recommended the name of the respondent No. 5 for appointment in the post for which the petitioner had contested. By a resolution dated 20/21st July 1996, the Executive council had appointed the respondent No. 5 in the said post. This appointment has since been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.

( 2 ) MR. K. M. L. Hajela, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the constitution of the selection Committee was invalid in view of Ordinance 5 Clause- (VI) (C) Chapter-VI of the banaras Hindu University Calendar providing for the Ordinance governing the Management of institution under the School Board earned under Statute 41 (2) of the Banaras Hindu University statute. In as the said clause provides for constitution of the Selection Committee for selection of principal and teachers. The Selection Committee for teachers consists of (1) Vice-Chairman, (2)Dean, Faculty of education, (3) Two members nominated by the chairman of the School Board, (4) Registrar, B. H. U. (5) Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, B. H. U. Campus and (6) principal of the concerned Institution. According to him, the word principal does not include officiating principal. The expression principal is meant for a principal who has been appointed substantively. Thus, according to him the inclusion of the officiating principal has vitiated the constitution of the selection committee. The officiating principal is incompetent on account of her not being appointed in substantive capacity, constitution of the Selection committee itself was vitiated and therefore, the Selection Committee could not have recommended the name of the respondent No. 5 such recommendation was, therefore, without jurisdiction. Thus, the selection was void and without authority. In support of his contention, he relies upon the decision in the case of S. K. Lamba v. State of U. P. , (1993) 3 UPLBEC 1624), by a Division bench. He then contends that in view of Sub-section 6 of Section 18 of the Banaras Hindu university Act, 1915 every Ordinance is to be placed before the Visitor who may disallow of remit the same to the Executive council. According to him, in the present case, there was nothing to show that the Ordinance by which the Executive Council had appointed the respondent No. 5 purported to have been amended by a resolution dated 20/21st July, 1996 had ever been placed before the visitor. Therefore, according to him, the reliance placed by Mr. V. K. Upadhyay on the said ordinance, to defend the claim of the petitioner, is wholly misplaced, since in the absence of placement of the ordinance before the visitor, the same had never come into existence and could not have been enforceable. He contends that the purported amendment of the Clause (VI) (c) of Ordinance 5 on the basis whereof the appointment of the respondent No. 5 was issued, had never come into life and as such the Executive Council could not assume jurisdiction to appoint respondent No. 5 is wholly without jurisdiction and void. According to him, unless there is an approval by the visitor which is implied in Sub-section (6) of Section 18, an Ordinance does not become effective and enforceable. In support of his contention, he had relied upon the decision in the case of Inamdars of Sulhnagar Colony and Ors. v. Government of Andhra pradesh and Anr. , AIR 1961 AP 523, (V. 48 C 150 ).