JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality of orders passed by the District Inspector of Schools as Well as the Deputy Director of Education, whereby while the proposal of the Committee of Management of Gayatri Vidya Mandir Higher Secondary School to dismiss the petitioner as the Headmaster of the School was disapproved a rider was added to the effect that when the said school was upgraded into an Intermediate College, the petitioner should not be considered for promotion under the proviso to Regulation No. 16 of the Chapter 111 of the regulations framed under Intermediate Education Act. Another relief claimed in the petition is that the appointment of the respondent No. 4 as the Principal of Gayatri Vidya Mandir Intermediate College, Hamirpur (into which the aforesaid school was upgraded) be quashed. 2. The material facts are that the petitioner was the Headmaster of the above-mentioned school. It appears that there were some complaints against the petitioner as regards his integrity and conduct as the Headmaster of the said School. The Committee of Management appears to have appointed a Small, sub-committee to investigate these complaints and to submit a report. The sub-committee submitted its report to the Committee of Management on 27th of April, 1972. The Committee of Management considered the report and finding that the allegations against the petitioner were of a serious nature, it decided that the petitioner should be suspended. By resolution dated 7th of May, 1972 the committee decided to suspend the petitioner forthwith pending enquiry by a small sub-committee. By the same resolution, the Committee of Management authorised the sub-committee to enquire into the charge against the petitioner. In pursuance of the said resolution an order of suspension was served on the petitioner on 16-5-1972 The sub-committee formulated the charges which were served on the petitioner under the signature of Sri Beni Madho, the manager of the School. The charge-sheet was served on the petitioner on 1st of December, 1972. A copy of the report of the sub-committee was also served on the petitioner on 4th of December, 1972. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet on 27th of December, 1972. The petitions was thereafter given notice to be present at the enquiry which was to be held on 8th of April, 1972 before the sub-committee in the School premises. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet on 27th of December, 1972. The petitions was thereafter given notice to be present at the enquiry which was to be held on 8th of April, 1972 before the sub-committee in the School premises. It is asserted in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner refused to accept this notice. Thereafter despite repeated intimation and opportunities the petitioner abstained from the enquiry. Apart from sending the notices by post, as a matter of precaution, a notice was also published in newspapers intimating to the petitioner the dates fixed for evidence. Consequently, upon a consideration of the entire material collected by the sub-committee the Committee of Management adopted a resolution on 29th of April, 1973 proposing to dismiss the petitioner. The proposal was submitted to the District Inspector of Schools for approval. Of the five charges framed against the petitioner, the District Inspector of Schools found that only one charge relating to embezzlement of the amounts of scholarship of four students of the school and preparation of forged records with a view to conceal the embezzlement of the amounts by the petitioner was proved. In this view, the District Inspector of Schools held that while there was no ground for approving the dismissal of the petitioner. Having regard to the conduct of the petitioner in relation,to the amounts of scholarship of the students their embezzlement by the petitioner, the petitioner ought not to be considered for promotion to the post of Principal in case the School was upgraded into an Intermediate College. However, in conformity with the provisions incorporated in the proviso to Regulation No. 16 of the Chapter III, the District Inspector of Schools observed that when the School was upgraded the petitioner should be retained as an Assistant teacher on the highest post for which he was qualified, provided that his salary shall not be reduced. 3. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the foresaid rider added by the District Inspector of Schools and filed an appeal for quashing of that rider before the Deputy Director of Education. The Deputy Director of Education fully endorsed the opinion of the District Inspector of Schools as regards the rider and substantially dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by his order dated 17-10-74. The Deputy Director of Education fully endorsed the opinion of the District Inspector of Schools as regards the rider and substantially dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by his order dated 17-10-74. Meanwhile after the School was upgraded .the committee of Management considered the case of the petitioner and found that having regard to the record of service of the petitioner he was not lit to be promoted to the post of Principal. Having done that, the Committee of Management advertised the post of Principal in the newspapers on 23-8-1973. It is significant that the petitioner did not apply for selection. Thereafter, the selection committee interviewed various candidates and approved the respondent No. 4, who was already serving in the institution, first as an Assistant teacher and, subsequently, as the officiating principal of the College for the post of principal. The proposal to appoint the respondent No. 4 was approved by the Deputy Director of Education by this order dated 15-4-1974. 4. The first ground upon which the aforesaid orders passed by the District Inspector of Schools and the Deputy Director of Education were challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the District Inspector of Schools as well as the Deputy Director of Education had no power to award the punishment depriving the petitioner of the right to be considered for promotion on the post of Principal upon the School being upgraded. It was submitted that under Regulation No. 31 of the III Chapter of the Intermediate Education Act only four kinds of punishments are contemplated, namely : 1. Dismissal. 2. Removal or discharge. 3. Reduction in rank. 4. Definition in emoluments. It was submitted that the rider added by the District Inspector of Schools and approved by the Deputy Director of Education not being among the punishments contemplated under Regulation No. 31, the impugned orders were dearly without jurisdiction. 5. We find no substance in the above argument. All that Regulation No. 31 provides is that the punishments mentioned therein cannot be awarded by the Management without obtaining the prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools. 5. We find no substance in the above argument. All that Regulation No. 31 provides is that the punishments mentioned therein cannot be awarded by the Management without obtaining the prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools. The Regulation does not prohibit the District Inspector of Schools while considering the matter of approval of the proposals to award the punishments specified under Regulation No. 31 from expressing an opinion as to the fitness of the concerned teacher of Headmaster for being considered for promotional posts in the future having regard to the facts which the 1 district Inspector of Schools may have found in the course of proceedings in hand. In the present case, all that the District Inspector of Schools has observed is that in view of his finding that a serious charge of embezzlement and fabrication of important records of the School was fully established the petitioner was not fit for being promoted to the post of Principal under the proviso to Regulation No. 16 (as it then stood) of the III Chapter. The District Inspector of Schools, however, added that the petitioner shall in that event be retained as an Assistant Teacher on the highest post for which he might be qualified and that his salary shall not be reduced. 6. We have found nothing either in the Intermediate Education Act or in the Regulations framed thereunder which might lead to the interference that the District Inspector of Schools 'does not have any power to impose such riders or express such opinion as the one in question while considering the case of approval of the punishments proposed by the management. We, therefore, find no substance in the first point. 7. The next point urged was that under Regulation No. 35 of Chapter III, the Committee of Management was enjoined to, appoint a small sub-committee to enquire into the charges against the petitioner the petitioner being the Head-master of the School. It was urged that in point of fact the charges were enquired into by the Manager of the School and not by a sub-committee. This submission also does not have any substance. It was urged that in point of fact the charges were enquired into by the Manager of the School and not by a sub-committee. This submission also does not have any substance. The allegations that no sub-committee was appointed by the Committee of Management and that the enquiry was not conducted by any such committee as is contemplated under Regulation No. 35 have been seriously controverted in the counter-affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter-affidavit of Sri Beni Madho Singh, it has been clearly stated that right from the stage of preliminary enquiry conducted before the suspension of the petitioner and up to the passing of the Resolution by the Committee of Management dated 29th of April 1973, the matter was being investigated by the Sub-Committee appointed specifically in that behalf by the Committee of Management. The very first Resolution dated 7th of May 1972, a true copy whereof is Annexure III to the counter-affidavit fully corroborates the version of facts as given in the aforesaid counter-affidavit. It clearly shows that the matter of enquiry into the charges against the petitioner was entrusted to a sub-committee which was asked to submit its report after making the necessary enquiry to the Committee of Management. In paragraph 15 of the counters-affidavit, it has been asserted that after the Sub-Committee had made a preliminary enquiry, it formulated the charges which were served upon the petitioner under the signature of the manager. We find no reason to disbelieve the version of facts as given in the counter-affidavit particularly as the same is fully corroborated by the material brought on the record of this petition. Learned counsel rested this argument principally on the ground that the charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner by the Manager. As mentioned above, the charges were formulated by the sub-committee after it had held a preliminary enquiry, the mere fact therefore, that the same were served on the petitioner under the signature of the Manager cannot lead to the conclusion that the enquiry was not conducted by the sub-committee. 8. As mentioned above, the charges were formulated by the sub-committee after it had held a preliminary enquiry, the mere fact therefore, that the same were served on the petitioner under the signature of the Manager cannot lead to the conclusion that the enquiry was not conducted by the sub-committee. 8. The next submission was that the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 4 as the Principal of the College was bad in law, inasmuch as, the post of Principal cannot in law be filled by direct recruits without a prior consideration of the claim of the petitioner under the proviso to Regulation No. 16 of the III Chapter. In support learned counsel placed reliance on an unreported decision of this court in the case of Bharat Singh Raghuvanshi v. Director of Education U.P. and others, Special Appeal No. 59 of 1975 in which a Bench of this court considered the scope of Regulation No. 16. This submission too has no merit. In paragraph 49 of the counter-affidavit, it has been.specifically asserted that the case of the petitioner was fully considered after the school was upgraded into an Intermediate College and it was found, having regard to the past record of service of the petitioner that he was not fit for promotion to the post of Principal. Both the District Inspector of Schools and the Deputy Director of Education had concurrently already found that the petitioner was not worthy of consideration for the post of Principal, in view of the charges of embezzlement found proved against him, if and when the school was upgraded. It is after all this consideration that the post of Principal was advertised. The contention, therefore, that the case of the petitioner was not considered before making the selections is thus clearly untenable and cannot be accepted. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner also does not take the matter further for the petitioner. All that this case has held is that the claim of the promotion of a Headmaster ought to be considered independently on its own merit without being affected by the merits of other applicants for the post. In the present case, as discussed above, the case of the petitioner was in fact considered before the selections were held in pursuance of the advertisement. In the present case, as discussed above, the case of the petitioner was in fact considered before the selections were held in pursuance of the advertisement. The petitioner was, however, found not fit to hold the post of the Principal for the reasons mentioned above. 9. No other point was urged in support of the petition. 10. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.