JUDGMENT E.N. MISRA, J. 1. IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the selection/ recommendation made by the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission for the appointment of opposite party No. 3 Sri R. K. Agarwal on the post of Principal of Aminabad Intermediate College, Lucknow, which is run and managed by the Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow, the opposite party No. 1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows. 2. IT has been averred in the writ petition that Sri H. S. Tandon was functioning as Principal of Aminabad Intermediate College, Lucknow (for short the College). He died on 19th November, 1981 and on his death the office of Principal fell vacant and the petitioner Sri Kedar Nath Awasthi, being the senior most lecturer of the College -was appointed as Principal by the Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow after due approval having been obtained from the District Inspector of Schools by order dated 3-12-1981. The petitioner is, thus, serving as Principal of the College over since then. However, the post for appointment to the Principal was advertised in news paper 'Swatantra Bharat' on 13th August, 1983, but the name of the institution was incorrectly indicated as Nagar Mahapalika Inter College, Aminabad, Lucknow. IT has been further averred that earlier to it, some times in the month of March, 1983, the Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow had written to the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission, Allahabad (for short the Commission), which was established under section 3 of the U. P. Act No. V of 1983 indicating that the petitioner being the senior most lecturer in the institution was promoted to the post of Principal of the College with effect from 3-12-1981 and since then he is functioning as such, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, wherein it is mentioned that there is one post in L. T. Grade for teaching English subject on which Sri S. P. Singh for C. T. Grade, who is qualified for appointment on the post, is to be promoted and that two posts of L. T. Grade are being vacant on which appointment are to be made. Learned counsel for the petitioner had urged that the commission had not passed any order on the said letter of the Administrator, but a post for appointment of Principal was advertised on 13th August, 1983. Learned counsel for the petitioner had urged that the commission had not passed any order on the said letter of the Administrator, but a post for appointment of Principal was advertised on 13th August, 1983. He further pointed out that under Rule 4 of the Rules framed under the said Act, the management of the College was required to forward the names of two senior most teachers alongwith copies of their service records as also character rolls and such other records and particulars as the Commission may require in that behalf. IT was also pointed out that according to Rule 6 it was obligatory on the part of the Commission to have called for interview two senior most teachers of the institution whose names were forwarded by the management under clause (1) of Rule 4. In the instant case, however, neither the management of the institution had forwarded two names of the senior most teachers as was required to be done under sub-clause (1) of Rule 4 to the Commission for being considered for the appointment on the said advertised post, which according to the petitioner was wrongly advertised as it was not lying vacant, nor the Commissioner had called for interview the two senior most teachers of the institution, including the petitioner, who being the senior most lecturer was already working as Principal ever since 3-12-1981. This fact has been averred in para 12 of the petition that neither the petitioner, who was senior most lecturer and acting as Principal of the institution, nor the other senior lecturer next to him Sri Vishnu Narain Rastogi were called for interview. Learned counsel urged that the management as well as the Commission has, thus, violated the mandatory provisions of sub-clause (1) of Rule 4 and Rule 6, and, as such, the selection and recommendation made by the Commission of the name of opposite party no. 3 on the post of Principal of the College is per se illegal and void and deserves to be quashed. 3. IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1 it has been averred that the petitioner was appointed as Principal of the College on ad hoc basis and as a time gap arrangement to be continued for six months only or less than that. 3. IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1 it has been averred that the petitioner was appointed as Principal of the College on ad hoc basis and as a time gap arrangement to be continued for six months only or less than that. It has been admitted that the petitioner has been the senior most lecturer in the institution and that is why he was given this ad hoc appointment till the person duly selected by the Commission is available. Later- on vide order dated 15-7-1982 the earlier order of appointment was modified to the extent that the period of six months was deleted and the appointment of the petitioner was to be treated purely temporary and was to be terminated as soon as the Commission was available to select/appoint a person on the post. The appointment could be terminated even earlier if deemed necessary. It has been averred that the Commission held the selection for filling up the vacancy on the post of Principal on regular/permanent basis and Sri Ramesh Kumar Agarwal, opposite party No. 3 was selected for being appointed on the said post. And after receiving communication from the Commission to that effect, the District Inspector of Schools sent a D. O. No. SM (1)/15466-79 dated 13-3-1964 to the answering opposite party No. 1 communicating about the selection of Sri R. K. Agarwal to the post of Principal of the College in compliance with the provisions of Rule 8 (3) sub-rules (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Service Commission Rules (for short the Rules). IN compliance of the said letter dated 13-3-1984 of the Inspector of Schools a letter of appointment was issued to Sri R. K. Agarwal appointing him on the post of Principal of the College on 21-5-1984, which has been annexed as Annexure A-2 to the counter affidavit filed by opposite party No. 3. Consequently the petitioner was reverted to his original substantive post of lecturer (English), but the operation of the aforesaid orders regarding appointment of opposite party No. 3 as Principal was stayed by an interim order of stay dated 24-3-1984. Consequently the petitioner was reverted to his original substantive post of lecturer (English), but the operation of the aforesaid orders regarding appointment of opposite party No. 3 as Principal was stayed by an interim order of stay dated 24-3-1984. With regard to the question about the intimation of the vacancy of the post to the Commission consequent to the death of Sri H. S. Tandon, it has been averred that the Administrator vide letter dated 3-3-1983 had indicated the District Inspector of Schools, Lucknow about it. The District Inspector of Schools (for short the DIOS) through this letter was also intimated about the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner and the Administrator had also recommended that he may he appointed as Principal of the institution. The petitioner had also filled in the proforma giving details of his service which was sent to the DIOS along with said letter dated 3-3-1983. It has, however, not been averred in the counter affidavit dated 12-7-1984 nor in the supplementary affidavit dated 14-9-1984 that the Management, as was required to be done under Rule 4 (1) (ii), had forwarded the names of two senior most teachers alongwith copies of their service records-including character rolls for being considered for the appointment on the post in question. It has, however, been averred in para 8 of the counter affidavit that the DIOS had sent a letter dated 28-1-1984 to opposite party No. 1 intimating that the Commission was going to bold the selection for the post of Principal of the institution under reference and the deponent of the counter affidavit, who Is the dealing clerk in the Department of Education in Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow, was required to send to the Commission the applications of two senior most teachers of the institution for participation in the said selection along with the seniority list and their service record and confidential character roll etc. It has been averred that a copy of this letter was endorsed to and was received by the petitioner also in his capacity as officiating Principal. It has been averred that a copy of this letter was endorsed to and was received by the petitioner also in his capacity as officiating Principal. It is said that the petitioner was thereupon communicated with the copy of the letter and proforma application with the request to submit, the same alongwith other necessary details to the Commission, but the petitioner refused to fill up the form or to participate in the selection as he thought that he was not required to undergo the selection and he considered himself to have been appointed on the post on regular basis. The second senior most teacher, namely, Sri B. N. Rastogi, was also directed to fill up the form, but he also declined to do so. The DIOS was informed about the refusal of the petitioner to fill up the form or to submit an application to the Commission vide letter dated 30-1-1984 alongwith the reply of the petitioner. It has further been argued that the seniority list, qualification and service record of the petitioner including his character roll entries were duly sent to the Commission for its consideration through DIOS, Lucknow even though the petitioner bad refused to fill up the application form. 4. IN reply to the contention of the petitioner that the Commission had not called the petitioner for an interview nor had considered the candidature of the petitioner as a teacher candidate for the appointment on the post in question as is required under the Rules and Regulations framed under the Act, it has been averred in para 9 of the counter affidavit that the contents of paragraphs No. 11 and 12 of the writ petition are based on misreading and interpretation of Rule 6 of the Rules; hence the same were denied as advised. We, thus, find that the averment of the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner was not issued any interview call letter has not been specifically denied. It has, however, been averred that even if the Commission was under an obligation to call for interview the senior most teachers under the said Rules, the said requirement was fulfilled by the Commission. It is averred that the petitioner had received information through letter dated 21-1-84 from the office of the DIOS that the petitioner was called upon to appear for interview on 4-2-1984. It is averred that the petitioner had received information through letter dated 21-1-84 from the office of the DIOS that the petitioner was called upon to appear for interview on 4-2-1984. If the petitioner chose not to appear before the interview he is to blame himself for the same. IN the supplementary affidavit filed by Sri U. C. Agarwal, Sahayak Nagar Adhikari on behalf of opposite party No. 1 it has been averred that the petitioner and Sri B. N. Rastogi were called by him to his office on receiving letter dated 28-1-1984 (Annexure A-6) from the DIOS and had directed them to appear before the U. P. Education Service Commission on 4-2-1984 at Allahabad for interview as was desired in the said letter by the DIOS. It is, however, not disputed that nothing was given in writing to the petitioner or to Sri B. N. Rastogi in that behalf so that they could, on the basis of any such direction given in writing, appear before the Interview Board, which is said to have held interview on 4-2-1984 only of external candidates for the appointment on the post IN question. It has, however, not been disputed that the Commission itself had not issued any call letter to the petitioner or to Sri B. N. Rastogi requiring them to appear for interview held on 4-2-1984. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perusing the averments contained in the writ petition as well as in the counter, rejoinder and supplementary affidavits, we find that two crucial questions crop up for consideration. Firstly it has to be determined whether the management had forwarded the names of two senior most teachers of the College for being considered for appointment on the post in question or not. Firstly it has to be determined whether the management had forwarded the names of two senior most teachers of the College for being considered for appointment on the post in question or not. The stand taken by the management in this regard is that the petitioner and Sri B. N. Rastogi were required to submit duly filled in proforma application for the appointment on the post in question in order to enable the Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow, to send the same to the Commission alongwith the other necessary details, but the petitioner refused to fill-up the form or to participate in the selection to be made by the Commission asserting that he was not required to undergo the selection as he considered himself to have been duly appointed on the post in question on regular basis, and, as such, the petitioner cannot raise that question. Learned counsel, however, further asserted that in spite of it, the relevant information and documents namely, seniority list, qualification and service record of the petitioner including his character roll entries were sent to the Commission for its consideration through DIOS even though the petitioner had refused to fill-up the application form. It is, thus, to be seen whether by doing so the management made compliance of the provisions of Rule 4 (1) (ii) of the Rules or not, which is extracted below:- "4 (1) (ii) In regard to the post of head of an institution, the Management shall also forward, mutatis mutandis in the manner hereinafter specified, the names of two senior most teachers, copies of their service records (including character rolls, and such other record or particulars as the Commission may require from time to time." 5. THE management has to make compliance of this requirement of forwarding the names of two senior most teachers to the Commission for being considered for the appointment on the post of Head of the Institution even though they may not have themselves applied for being appointed on the said post. THE management has to make compliance of this requirement of forwarding the names of two senior most teachers to the Commission for being considered for the appointment on the post of Head of the Institution even though they may not have themselves applied for being appointed on the said post. To us it (sic) institution are not required to submit their applications as is also evident from sub-clause (2) of Regulation 8 which provides that except the senior most teachers whose names are forwarded for the post of the principal/head master in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules, no candidate shall be admitted to the examination or interview unless he has duly applied on prescribed form and has deposited the prescribed fees in accordance with the prescribed mode within the specified time. It is, thus, evident that the two senior most teachers would be called for examination or interview even if they have not applied on the prescribed form for the appointment on the post of Principal/Head Master. According to Rule 4 (1) (ii) the management would be found to forward the names of two senior most teachers to the Commission for being considered for the appointment on the post of Head of the Institution. 6. IN this view of the matter we are of the opinion that the opposite party No. 1 acted illegally in not duly forwarding the names of two senior most teachers, including that of the petitioner to the Commission as was required under Rule 4 (1) (ii) even if they had not applied for the post and had not submitted proforma application duly filled in as was allegedly required by the opposite party No. 1. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has, however, urged that although there may be a lapse on the part of the management in not formally forwarding the names of two senior most teachers of the institution to the Commission for being considered for the appointment on the post in question, but since all other relevant records including service records and character roll entries etc. were duly forwarded to the Commission through DIOS, and, as such, the selection made by the Commission for the appointment on the post in question cannot be said to be vitiated on the aforesaid ground especially when the petitioner and Sri B.N. Rastogi had themselves refused to fill up the proforma application and failed to appear before the Interview Board in- spite of intimation given to them by the Sahayak Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow. We are unable to agree with this contention as well. 7. IT is well settled that Rules and Regulations are to be faithfully observed and any action taken in disregard of those Rules cannot be legally sustained. IT is also equally well settled rule that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. See Taylor v. Taylor, (18751 1 Ch. D. 426; Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253 at 257 ; State of Gujrat v. Shanti Lal, AIR 1969 SC 635 at 654. Thus, when a certain power is given under the Statute, rules and regulations to do a certain thing in a certain way it must be done in the manner prescribed otherwise not at all. Anything which is done not in the manner prescribed would stand vitiated and cannot be sustained, 8. IN the present case it 1 quite evident that the management is required under Rule 4 (1) (ii) to forward the names of two senior most teachers to the Commission for being considered for appointment on the post of Head of the Institution. The management cannot refuse to do so on the ground that the two senior most teachers have declined to fill up the proforma application for the appointment on the post in question There appears to be no such requirement either under the Rules nor under the Regulations that two senior most teachers have got to apply for the appointment on the post in question for being considered as a teacher candidate. If in case, the two senior most teachers or any other teacher wants to be considered as a candidate of general category for the appointment on the advertised post, he may do so and then his candidature would be considered as a candidate of the general category. If in case, the two senior most teachers or any other teacher wants to be considered as a candidate of general category for the appointment on the advertised post, he may do so and then his candidature would be considered as a candidate of the general category. There appears to be no basis for the argument that the management would be obliged to forward the names of the two senior most teachers as required under Rule 4 (1) (ii) of the Rules only when the teachers apply for the appointment on the post. As already observed above, the management has to forward the names of the two senior most teachers to the Commission in compliance with the said Rule although the teachers may not have applied for being considered for the said post and the Commission would be obliged to call them for interview while making selection of the candidates. Thus, mere forwarding of the service record of the two senior most teachers by the management of the institution would not suffice because the Commission would call for interview the senior most teachers whose name have been forwarded in accordance with Rule 4 although they may not have applied for the post on the prescribed form as is provided under sub-clause (2) of Regulation 8. It is also relevant to note that under Regulation 6 (1) the Commission is required to constitute Board or Boards for interview/viva voce test of candidates for various posts for which selection is to be made and under sub-clause (5) the programme of interview is fixed by the Commission. It is further provided under sub-clause (6) of Regulation 6 that the intimation for interview will be sent to a candidate 21 days in advance. According to sub-clause (2) of Regulation 8 the two senior most teachers whose names have been forwarded under Rule 4 would be admitted to the examination or interview although they may not have applied on the prescribed form. It is, thus, evident that the names of the two senior most teachers have got to be forwarded to the Commission by the management of the institution much in advance so as to enable the Commission to issue call letters to teacher candidates for the interview at least 21 days prior to the date fixed for interview. It is, thus, evident that the names of the two senior most teachers have got to be forwarded to the Commission by the management of the institution much in advance so as to enable the Commission to issue call letters to teacher candidates for the interview at least 21 days prior to the date fixed for interview. The call letters for the interview are to be issued by the Commission itself and not by the DIOS or by the management at the instance of the DIOS. After the management forwards the names of two senior most teachers to the commission for being considered for the appointment on the post in question through DIOS the management has nothing to do with the selection of the candidate which is to be made by the Commission. The DIOS can also not participate in the selection of the candidates by the Commission in any capacity nor he can issue any call letter to any candidate for the interview at the instance of the commission who is obliged under sub-clause (6) of Regulation 6 to issue intimation for interview to the candidates 21 days in advance. 9. IT is, thus, evident that the letter dated 28-1-1984 issued by the DIOS to the Administrator requiring him to forward the necessary service records of the two senior most teachers of the college as demanded by the Commission which had fixed 4-2-1984 for holding interview, cannot be treated to be a call letter to the petitioner and to Sri B. N. Rastogi for appearing in the interview on said date. The averment in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties to the effect that the Sahayak Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow had verbally asked the petitioner and Sri Rastogi to appear before the Interview Board on 4-2-1984 appears to be very fantastic averment because it cannot be accepted that the Board would have admitted for interview the petitioner and Sri Rastogi merely on the basis of the alleged verbal direction issued by the Sahayak Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika Lucknow, If that be a fact that the Sahayak Nagar Adhikari had called these persons on receiving letter of the DIOS dated 28-1-1984 and had required them to appear before the Commission for interview, he should have at least taken care to have given something in writing to them so that they submit to the Interview Board with a request for being interviewed as directed by the Sahayak Nagar Adhikari. As already observed above, neither the Sahayak Nagar Adhikari nor the DIOS could issue direction to the teacher-candidates for appearing before the interview board and the interview board, at their instance, could not be bound down to take interview of these persons. We are, thus unable to hold that the Management had made necessary compliance of the Rules and the fault lies on the part of the petitioner in not appearing before the selection board. We are also unable to accept the contention that verbally the petitioner was told by the Sahayak Nagar Adhikari to appear before the Interview Board on 4-2-1984 because while giving them verbal instructions, he should have taken care in giving something in writing to the petitioner and Sri Rastogi for being submitted by them to the Board, although on that basis the Interview Board, in our opinion, could not be considered to be obliged to have interviewed the petitioner and Sri Rastogi in the interview held on that date. 10. SINCE, admittedly in this case the Commission bad not issued any Interview letter to the petitioner or to Sri Rastogi and, as such, there could be no two opinions on the matter that their candidature has not been considered by the Commission while making selection of opposite party No. 3 on the post of Principal of the College. 10. SINCE, admittedly in this case the Commission bad not issued any Interview letter to the petitioner or to Sri Rastogi and, as such, there could be no two opinions on the matter that their candidature has not been considered by the Commission while making selection of opposite party No. 3 on the post of Principal of the College. Even if this averment be accepted to be true that although the names of two senior most teachers were not forwarded to the Commission, but their service records were forwarded to it, it would not validate the selection made by the Commission of opposite party no. 3 for the appointment on the post in question because in that event on receiving the service record of the two senior most teachers of the College the Commission, even if it could overlook the lapse on the part of the management in not formally forwarding their names to it as was required under Rule 4, should have issued interview letters to the petitioner and to Sri Rastogi at least 21 days before the date fixed for interview as was required under sub-clause (6) of Regulation 6. Having not done so, the Commission could not proceed to make selection of the candidate for the appointment on the post in question by interviewing only the external candidates. The Commission has, thus, acted illegally and with substantial irregularity in making selection of opposite party No. 3 and recommending his name for being appointed on the post in, question. For the reasons stated above we find that the selection and appointment of opposite party No. 3 on the post in question has been Illegally made and deserves to be quashed. 16; We accordingly allow this writ petition and quash the selection and appointment of opposite party No. 3, Sri R.K. Agarwal on the post of Principal of Aminabad Intermediate College, Lucknow. The letter No. S. N. (1)115-66/68 dated 13-3-1984 issued by the District Inspector of Schools to the Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow, only to the extent it relates to recommendation for appointment of Sri R. K. Agarwal as Principal of Aminabad Intermediate College, Lucknow and the appointment letter dated 21-3-1984 issued by the Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow appointing opposite party No. 3 Sri R.R. Agarwal as Principal of Aminabad Intermediate College, Lucknow, are hereby quashed. It would, however be open to the management of the College to take proper steps for the appointment of the Principal of the College in accordance with law. 17. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.