JUDGMENT Yashoda Nandan, J. - The facts of this case as the charge from a perusal of the affidavits are to the effect that on the 25th of August, 1970 Smt. Amaravati Misra who was the Principal of Sudhakar Mahila Vidyalaya, Khajuri, Varanasi Cantt. was suspended by respondent no. 3. In the vacancy caused as a result of the suspension of the permanent Principal the Management of the institution appointed the petitioner as officiating Headmistress (Principal) and her appointment also received the approval of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools. The petitioners grievance is that in spite of the fact that the permanent Headmistress (Principal) continued to remain under suspension and the petitioner functioned as the acting Headmistress (Principal) of the Institution, the respondents declined to pay her the salary for the period subsequent to 13th of October, 1972. She has prayed for a writ of mandamus ordering the respondents to treat the petitioner as officiating Principal of the Institution and to pay her the salary and allowances admissible to the Principal of the Institution. 2. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the college supporting the petitioners case. Another counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Varanasi from which it appears that the case of Smt. Amarawati Misra the permanent Principal of the Institution had already been decided by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools Varanasi and in appeal by the Deputy Director of Education (W), Allahabad as a result of which Smt. Amarawati Misra has been restored to her service as Principal. In para 6 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Varanasi, it has been asserted that the petitioner has been paid her salary as Principal of the college for the period 26th of August, 1970 to 22nd of October, 1972 but she was not entitled to receive salary as officiating Principal after the date since on the 22nd of October, 1972 Smt. Misra was restored to service. From the counter-affidavit filed it further appears that though aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Director of Education the Management has filed a writ petition in this court but no interim order has been passed in the writ petition. 3. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and it was stated by the learned standing counsel that writ petition has already been rejected. 3. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and it was stated by the learned standing counsel that writ petition has already been rejected. 4. Having persued the material on record we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this petition. It is obvious that when the permanent Principal of the Institution was reinstated to service as a consequence of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education (W) Allahabad the petitioner ceased to have any right to continue to function as officiating Principal of the Institution., She was consequently not entitled to any salary as officiating Principal of the college with effect from 22nd of October, 1972 when Smt. Amarawati Misra reported for duty. The mere fact that the Management illegally prevented her from joining duty as Principal did not entitle the petitioner legally to continue as officiating principal of the college. 5. For the reasons given above this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. Interim order, if any, is hereby vacated.