K.M. JOSEPH, C.J.

The controversy in this case relates to the appointment to the post of Principal of M.K.P. (P.G.) College, Dehradun, of which the first respondent is shown as the Secretary. A Selection Committee, consisting of six persons, recommended the appointment of the second respondent on the post of Principal. Pursuant to the same, the matter was considered by the Managing Committee of the College and, finally, after correspondence between the Committee and the Vice Chancellor, on the strength of the decision of the Committee accepting the recommendation of the Selection Committee, appointment order dated 08.03.2007 came to be issued in favour of the second respondent. Petitioner, who was also one of the candidates, who appeared for the interview, has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the selection and appointment of Respondent no. 2 on the post of Principal M.K.P. (P.G.) College, Dehradun vide appointment letter dated 08.03.2007.

(ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent no. 1 to appoint the petitioner as Principal of the College who is fit and eligible candidates for the said Post.”

2. Pleadings have been exchanged. We have heard Mr. I.M. Quddusi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Anil Kumar Tewari, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 2, who was appointed by the impugned order; Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3, which is the University to which the College is affiliated; and Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate, who purported to submit that he would enter appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1.

3. Initially, this matter was heard and the following interim order dated 08.03.2011 was passed by a Bench of this Court:

“In this writ petition, it is being contended by the petitioner, to which we are ad idem, that the academic record of the petitioner was better than the academic record of the private respondent, who has been selected and appointed as the Principal of the Post Graduate College. It is the contention of the petitioner that in the matter of selecting the private respondent, the selectors did not apply their mind for the purpose of ascertaining better suitability of the candidates but were influenced by something else which have not been brought on record by the College in their counter affidavit, despite opportunities given to them. The College has filed its counter affidavit and, as directed, the representative of the Managing Committee of the College is also present in Court. It has been contended by the College as well as by the representative of the Managing Committee of the College that the selectors, apart from making a recommendation of the private respondent, did not furnish any other piece of paper to the College, except minutes of their meeting recording that they have prepared a select list but expressly recorded in the minutes that the same is not being furnished, as the same is a secret document. In the circumstances, there is nothing from where one can gather on what criteria/basis, the selectors selected the private respondent. True, in absence of statutory requirement, the criteria of selection may be fixed by the selectors and unless there is a requirement of law, it is not necessary to write down such criteria. It is also true that when very highly reputed people are appointed as selectors to select a person as that of a Principal of a Post Graduate College, there must be a presumption that the selectors have done what they found appropriate in the matter. At the same time, it is true that selectors, being experts in the matter, there is hardly any scope of interference by the writ Court in such selection, unless selection is capricious on the face of record. However, the selectors