CWP No. 5863 of 1987 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5863 of 1987 Date of Decision: 18.7.2008 Ashok Kumar Handa ......Petitioner Versus Panjab University and others ....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: None for the parties. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner has invoked the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court claiming a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner and to pay salary as is due to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Educational Psychology in DAV College of Education, Hoshiarpur vide letter dated 8.9.1986 for a period of six months. Such appointment was subject to approval by the Panjab University and Director Public Instructions, Punjab. It was stipulated in the appointment letter itself that if approval is not granted within 89 days of joining of the duties, the petitioner will not be paid any salary. It is pointed out that inspite of the best efforts, the approval has not been granted and, therefore, aggrieved CWP No. 5863 of 1987 (2) against the non grant of approval, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In the reply filed on behalf of the Director, Public Instructions, it has been pointed out that State is giving grants-in-aid to the privately managed affiliated colleges in the State under 95% deficit grants-in-aid scheme. It is further pointed out that the Managing Committee made appointment but no nominee of the said respondent was called for interview as per the terms and conditions of the grants-in-aid. It is further pointed that the Managing Committee of respondent No.3, got stay from the Court being minority community institution regarding selection and appointment of the teaching staff. Therefore, the approval to the appointment of the petitioner was not granted by the said respondent. From the perusal of the pleadings, it is apparent that the payment of salary was subject to approval thereto by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. However, no approval has been granted. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of payment of salary from respondent Nos.1 and 2. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to claim pay if he has worked in the said institution on the post, as claimed in by him in the present writ petition, in accordance with law. With the said liberty, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 18-07-2008 (HEMANT GUPTA) ds JUDGE