By the Court.—Both the special appeals arise from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11 November 2014. Chronologically, the first special appeal is by the original petitioner before the learned Single Judge, while the second special appeal is by the fifth respondent in the writ proceedings. For convenience of reference, parties would be referred to by the array of parties before the learned Single Judge.

2. The Regional Joint Director of Education and the District Inspector of Schools, Moradabad granted approval to the appointment of the fifth respondent as a Principal of the Fazlur Rahman Inter College, Chandausi, District Sambhal. The appointment was sought to be challenged on the ground that the father of the fifth respondent was a member of the Committee of Management and that under Regulation 4 of Chapter III of the Regulations under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the fifth respondent was not eligible for appointment.

Regulation 4 of Chapter III provides as follows:

^^4- dksbZ Hkh v/;kid] tks izcU/k lfefr ds fdlh lnL; vFkok iz/kkuk/;kid vFkok vkpk;Z dk lEcU/kh gS] laLFkk esa vLFkk;h vFkok Li"V fjDr LFkku ij ugha fu;qDr fd;k tk,xk vkSj u laLFkk esa fdlh Hkh iz/kkuk/;kid vFkok vkpk;Z fu;qDr fd;k tk;sxk tks izcU/k lfefr ds fdlh lnL; dk lEcU/kh gksA

bl fofu;e ds iz;kstu ds fy, ¼lEcUèkh½ esa fuEufyf[kr dk rkRi;Z gS %

firk] ckck] llqj] pkpk ;k ekek] iq=] ikS=] nkekn] HkkbZ] iq=h] ikS=h] iRuh] nknh] Hkrhtk] ppsjk ;k eesjk HkkbZ] lkyk] cguksbZ] ifr] nsoj] T;s”B] uUn] lkyh] iq=&o/kw] cfgu] Hkkot] ppsjk HkkbZ dh iRuh] ekWa] lkl] pkph ;k ekSlhA+ ^^

3. Insofar as is material, regulation 4 provides that a candidate whose relative is a member of the Committee of Management would not be appointed on a vacant post. The list of relatives includes the father. In the present case, the selection process had commenced after the incumbent Principal retired on attaining the age of superannuation. The father of the fifth respondent addressed a letter initially on 1 February 2014 to the Chairperson of the Committee of Management stating that his son, the fifth respondent, had applied for being appointed on the post of Principal and that if the selection Committee were to select him, he would not remain on the post as a member of the Committee of Management and his letter of resignation may be then accepted. The interview for the post of Principal was held on 31 May 2014. By a letter dated 1 June 2014, the father of the fifth respondent informed the Chairperson of the Committee of Management that his son had been selected and in consequence, he desired to be relieved from the Committee of Management. The resignation of the father of the fifth respondent was accepted at a meeting held on 5 June 2014. The papers in regard to the selection of the fifth respondent were forwarded to the Regional Joint Director of Education on 6 June 2014. On 22 August 2014, the Regional Joint Director of Education approved the appointment.

4. The learned Single Judge held that the father of the fifth respondent had remained a member of the Committee of Management during the entire selection process and the order of appointment could not be viewed in isolation. In the view of the learned Single Judge, the sheer presence of the father as a member in the Committee of Management would no doubt weigh upon the Committee which selects the person which could easily be influenced by the presence of the father. The father of the fifth respondent resigned only one day after the selection process was over. The learned Single Judge, therefore, held that the selection process was vitiated and so was the order of appointment.

5. The submission urged on behalf of the fifth respondent in support of the special appeal is that the bar in Regulation 4 of Chapter III is to the appointment of a person whose relative, as defined, is a member of the Committee of Management. It was urged that the Selection Committee under Section 16-F of the Act, 1921 is distinct and