HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Appeal No.53 of 2010 Suraj Pmkash Chouhan, S/o Shri M.L. .Chouhan, aged about 47’ years; Laboratmy Amndant (Prayogshala Pan'charakf' Govt. ‘V Deg‘ee College, Sarngarh, District Raigarh (CG) APPELLANT: Venus RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Madhya Pmdcsh (now State of Chhattisgarh), Through Secretary, Higher Educau‘on V(Uchcha Shikeha) Raipur (CG) The Pdncipal, Government Degree College, Sarngarh, District Raigarh (CG) .- Piesent: Shri Sanjay Patel, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. Division Bench: Hon’ble shri Dhirendra Misha & Hon’ble Shri RJI. Chandrahr, JJ. J U D G M E N T (8-3—20 10) 1. By this writ appeal, the appellant] petitioner has impugned the order dated 20-1-20 10 passed in WP(S) igNo.~364/2005 whereby the appellant’s wn't petition challenging his termination from the post of Laboratory Attendant has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant, reiterating the petitioner’s arguments before the. learned Single Judge, submitted that he was selected on the post of Laboratory Attendant by following the selection process in accordance with law. The writ petition has been dismissed only on the ground that allegations in the return of State alleging that the Principal who was under transfer continued to be ‘ the member of the Selech'on Committee and the order of appointment. 1 was issued by a Junior Assistant Professor, who was handed over the t charge by the outgoing Principal without any instructions, have not been controverted. ' ® 3. We have heani learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Learned Single Judge after referring va1jous judgments of the Supreme Court has concluded in para-12 of the judgment that'the principle of natm‘al justice may not require to be followed in case N Where the conclusiou on admitted facts is foregone and no‘ other ' conclusion is possible; ’ Further considen'ng the pleadings of the respondentsf smte in its Ieturn and which. has not been contravened 4 by the petitioner, learned Single Judge arrived at a conclusion that“ the principal, who was under imnsfer, participated in the various proceeding of selection and was member of the selection committee. After selection process having been concluded, While proceeding on nansfer, without any insuuctions, handed over the charge of oEce to a‘ junior assistant professor, who proceeded to issue order of appointment and on these admitted facts, it has been held that the 4 - process of selection was vinated. The Assistant Professor, who was - not substantively appointed to the post of Principal, could not exercise power of appointing authority unless specihcally conferred either under statutory provisions or by a valid administrative order. 5. We are entirely in agreement with the above reasoning of the learned Single Judge for dismissing the writ petiu‘on and we do not nnd any substance in this writ appeal, the same deserves to be‘and is hereby“ v dismissed. “l \ \ W i Sd/— Sdl— i j// RN. CHANDRAKAR. BarVev Dhirendra Mishra K Judge \ Judge