JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - The petitioner was a confirmed lecturer in Mathematics in the Shivaji Inter College, Knukhondoo, Deoria. 2. Purporting to exercise powers under the proviso to clause 2 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 on the retirement of the permanent Principal namely Sri Banshidhar Dixit of the aforesaid College, the committee of management pasted a resolution dated 9th of October, 1977 appointing the petitioner as the officiating Principal of the College. It is not disputed that the petitioner has since been working as the officiating Principal of the College. When however, the Manager of the College forwarded the bills of the petitioners salary as the Principal of the College to the District Inspector of Schools, the latter refused to clear the bills of the petitioner on the ground that there was no provision for payment of salary in the principals grade to those who were appointed merely to net as affiliating Principal. The petitioner, thereafter, personally met the District Inspector of schools and placed before him his grievance that under the proviso to Regulation 2 of Chapter II of the aforesaid Regulations read with Regulations 46 of Chapter III of the Regulations the petitioner was entitled to be paid the salary of a Principal. Having failed to obtain any redress from the District Inspector of Schools, the petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioner contends that the proviso to Regulation 2 of Chapter II was clearly attracted to his case and that consequently be was entitled under Regulation 46 of Chapter III to be paid the salary of a Principal. Learned Standing counsel on the other hand submitted that under the various Removal of Difficulties Orders issued by the Government from time to time the petitioner could be appointed as officiating Principal for a period not exceeding six months. He was hence not entitled to be paid any salary beyond that period. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the opinion that the contention of the petitioner is well founded. Regulation 2 of Chapter II of the aforesaid Regulations reads as follows : "2. He was hence not entitled to be paid any salary beyond that period. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the opinion that the contention of the petitioner is well founded. Regulation 2 of Chapter II of the aforesaid Regulations reads as follows : "2. (1) The posts of the Head of Institution shall, except as provided in clause (2) be filled by direct recruitment after reference to the Selection Committee under Sub-section(1) of section 16-F or, as the case may be, under Sub section (1) of Section 16-FF. Provided that in the case of any instruction not being an institution referred to in Section 16-FF a temporary vacancy caused by the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period no exceeding six months, or by death, retirement or suspension of any incumbent occurring during an educational session in the pest of the Head of Instruction shall be filled by the promotion of the senior most qualified teacher, if any, in the highest grade in Institution." 5. The next relevant provision is clause (3) of Regulation No. 2 of Chapter II which reads thus : - "Where the temporary vacancy in the past of the head of institution is for a period not exceeding thirty days, the senior most teacher in the highest grade may be allowed to work as acting head or institution, but he shall not be entitled to pay in a scale higher than the scale of pay in which he is drawing salary as such teacher." 6. A perusal of the proviso to Regulation No. 2 (1) shows that the petitioner's care was squarely covered by it. The petitioner was appointed in the vacancy caused by the retirement of Banshidhar Dixit, to officiate as the Principal of the College. The petitioner was the senior most teacher. He was, therefore, lawfully appointed as the officiating Principal contemplated by the proviso. 7. In Dhaneshwar Singh Chauhan v. District Inspector of Schools, Badaun 1980 UPLBEC 286, a Division Bench of this court rules that a teacher officiating on the post of Principal is entitled to receive salary in the Principals grade as provided by the Government Order dated 18-1-1974. This decision does support the petitioners contention. 8. The same conclusion also flows from clause (3) of Regulation No. 2 quoted above. This decision does support the petitioners contention. 8. The same conclusion also flows from clause (3) of Regulation No. 2 quoted above. The provision that where the temporary vacancy in the past of the Head of the institution is for a period exceeding thirty days, the senior most teacher may be allowed to work as acting head of the Institution but that he would not be entitled to pay in a scale higher than that in which he was drawing his salary as a teacher clearly suggests that where the vacancy in the post of Principal lasts more than 80 days, the teacher appointed to officiate as the Principal under the aforesaid proviso would entitled to the salary admissible to a Principal. 9. The aforesaid statutory provisions, therefore, clearly point to the conclusion that the petitioner was, as the officiating principal of the College, entitled to be paid the salary of a principal. The respondent no. 1 was consequently not justified in refusing the salary of a Principal to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was merely officiating as the Principal. 10. As regards the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that under the various Removal of Difficulties Orders the officiating appointment could last only for a period of six months, it is sufficient to say that, that was not the ground on which the payment of salary in the Principals grade was refused by the District Inspector of Schools. On the other hand from annexure 4 to the writ petition which is a copy of the letter of the Deputy Director of Education dated 3rd of July 1981 addressed to the District Inspector of Schools (with a copy forwarded to the petitioner) it is clear 'that the petitioner was still being treated as the officiating Principal of the College, The Deputy Director of Education pointed out the relevant statutory provisions applicable to the payment of salary to officiating Principals and observed that the District Inspector of Schools should comply with those provisions. We, therefore, find no substance in this submission raised by the learned Standing counsel. 11. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The District Inspector of Schools, Deoria is directed to pay salary to the petitioner admissible to the Principals as long as the petitioner continues to be the officiating Principal of the aforesaid College. We, however, make no orders as to costs.