1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.91 of 2008. Dr. Digamber S/o Krishnarao Deshmukh. Vs. The State of Mah & others. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances,Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri Z. A. Haq, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Bharti Dangre, Addl. G.P. Foir R-1 & 2. Shri A. M. Ghare, Advocate for R-4 & 5. Coram: B. H. Marlapalle and A. H. JOSHI, JJ. Dated: 1st October 2008. 1. Heard Mr. Z. A. Haq, learned Counsel for the petitioner who is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent no.2 on 31-12-2007 thereunder appointing Respondent no.5 as the Officiating Principal of R. T. Ayurved Mahavidyalaya Akola. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as the Officiating Principal in place of Dr. K. M. Pimpalkar as per the order passed by the Respondent no.2 2 on 30-5-2007, and the petitioner, therefore, contends that the impugned order has been passed arbitrarily and more so, the order is without any just reasons when the Respondent no.5 herself has in the recent past declined to accept such assignment on officiating basis. It is also submitted that there was nothing adverse against the petitioner during 7 months tenure he had as the Officiating Principal. 3. The affidavit in reply has been filed by Respondent no.1, and it has been pointed out that whenever the temporary arrangement has to be made, awaiting permanent appointment of the Principal, the guidelines laid down by the University i.e. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences at Nashik as well as the State Government are followed, and such appointment is made normally of the senior most Professor. It has been further pointed out that the Dy. Director of Ayurved Nagpur vide his letter dated 31-10-2007 has submitted the seniority list of the 3 teachers working at the R. T. Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Akola, and undoubtedly, Respondent no.5 is the senior most Professor at the said College. There is no dispute that the petitioner is not the senior most Professor, and in addition to respondent no.5, there are two readers who are above the petitioner. 4. The clause 7.10 of direction No.25/01 dealing with the procedure for the appointment of the Principals/ Deans etc., as formulated by the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik, states that in the event of the vacancy on the post of Principal of any affiliated College/recognized Institute occurring due to illness, leave, retirement etc, the current dues of the post of Principal/Dean shall be appointed by the management of the College through one of the senior most teachers who is eligible to be appointed as the Principal/Dean in addition to his/her own duties as an alternate arrangement 4 in respect of temporary vacancy till the regular appointed incumbent takes charge. 5. We, therefore, do not find any illegality, infirmity and arbitrariness in issuing the impugned order appointing Respondent no.5 as the Officiating Principal and the justification furnished by the Respondent no.2 supports the order. Even otherwise, the appointment on officiating basis does not create a vested right, and it is only an interim arrangement till the regularly selected Principal/Dean takes over. Hence, there is no case to interfere with the impugned order under the extra ordinary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Petition is rejected summarily. JUDGE JUDGE Sbm