JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. - These two connected writ petitions arise out of the same matter i.e., promotion to the post of Principal, Sandi, district Hardoi. In Writ Petition No. 1092 of 1982 which has been filed in the name of the Institution by the Manager a prayer for quashing the Orders dated 10.01.1981 and 05.01.1982 passed by the District Inspector of Schools has been made. By the first order the District Inspector of Schools directed the Committee of Management to recognize the opposite party No. 3, Sri Hazari Lal Varma as Principal of the Institution and to do and take necessary action in this behalf and by Order dated 05.08.1982 the District Inspector of Schools refused to give approval in favor of Dr. Barister Singh and directed the Committee of Management to give effect to the earlier order passed in favor of Sri Hazari Lal Varma. A mandamus has also been prayed requiring opposite parties 1 and 2 to allow the Committee of Management to have a temporary Principal of its choice. 2. In Writ Petition No. 2225 of 1983 filed by Dr. Barister Singh prayers for quashing of the Order dated 02.04.1983, the interim order, passed by the Deputy Director of Education contained in Annexure-6 staying the operation of the subsequent order passed by the District Inspector of Schools in favor of Dr. Barister Singh recognizing him as adhoc Principal of the Institution, for quashing the Order dated 15.04.1983 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition by which he required the Manager to get the signatures of Acting Principal Ram Swarup Yadav attested and for quashing the Order dated 02.06.1983 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition by which he held that Sri Hazari Lal Varma, opposite party was held senior to Dr. Barister Singh have been made. This order was passed in appeal by the Deputy Director of Education in pursuance of a direction issued by this Court at the interlocutory stage. The Deputy Director of Education held that although Sri Hazari Lal Varma was not Lecturer as he "as Head Master earlier and was still getting salary of that post, the grade of which is higher than that of Lecturer's grade, yet he was senior to Dr. Barister Singh. 3. The Deputy Director of Education held that although Sri Hazari Lal Varma was not Lecturer as he "as Head Master earlier and was still getting salary of that post, the grade of which is higher than that of Lecturer's grade, yet he was senior to Dr. Barister Singh. 3. Sri Deo Darbar Singh Ashram Inter College was up-graded from High School to the Intermediate College in the year 1972 and Sri Hazari Lal Vanna who was the Head Master of the said Institution was temporarily appointed as Principal of the said Institution. In the year 1973 regular appointive to the post of the Principal was made and a teacher and one J.P. Yaaav was appointed on 04.12.1973 as Principal of the Intermediate College The said J P Vadav was murdered on 3tth May, 1981, and this is how the post of Principal of the Institution again fell vacant. For about one year viz 1972-1973 the said Sri Hazari Lal Varma acted as Principal of the Institution till the regular appointment to the said post was not made and in view of proviso to Regulation 16, Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act his pay was not reduced. During his period the said Sri Hazari Lal Varma, opposite party was suspended because of alleged indiscipline and misappropriation of funds and he remained under suspension for three years, but ultimately it seems that he approached the management with request and the management reinstated him with punishment of recovery from his salary which was still going on when the writ petition was filed. After the death of J.P. Yadav the management appointed one Ram Swarup as Principal who was teacher in the Institution, but as he was junior his appointment was not approved. It seems that Sri Hazari Lal Varma, opposite party No. 3, approached the District Inspector of Schools, may it be because Ram Swamp Yadav was appointed as Principal and the District Inspector of Schools without calling upon the management and taking its version passed an Order on 10.09.1981 that the said Sri Hazari Lal Varma, was senior amongst the Lecturers and as such he should be recognized as temporary Principal. 4. The Committee of Management in its meeting dated 7th October, 1981, approved the name of Dr. Barister Singh for the temporary post of Principal and a resolution to this effect was passed. 4. The Committee of Management in its meeting dated 7th October, 1981, approved the name of Dr. Barister Singh for the temporary post of Principal and a resolution to this effect was passed. The District Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 5th January, 1982, rejected the said proposal. It will not be out of place to mention that Dr. Barister Singh came in the Institution in the year 1979 on transfer from some another Institution and it seems that in the Institution he was placed at No. 2 i.e., after the said opposite party No. 3, Sri Hazari Lal Varma, in the seniority list. Even prior to the finalization of the said list the Committee of Management represented the District Inspector of Schools and took an objection to the appointment of Sri Hazari Lal Varma, opposite party No. 3, against whom there were several charges. Against the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools the management filed an appeal/representation before the Deputy Director of Education, but it seems that the said appeal/representation was dismissed vide Order dated 15.02.1982 holding that no appeal/representation lay before the Deputy Director of Education against the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools as decision of the District Inspector of Schools in the matter of ad-hoc promotion was final and it is thereafter that the Institution filed the aforementioned writ petition. 5. After rejection of the aforementioned appeal/representation by the Deputy Director of Education the Committee of Management filed the above mentioned writ petition. In the writ petition filed by the institution an interim order was passed requiring the District Inspector of Schools to decide the representation made by the Manager within a period of four weeks. The Director of Education thereafter required the District Inspector of Schools to take decision in the matter of ad hoc promotion to the post of Principal in view of the aforesaid interim order. The District Inspector of Schools vide his order dated 25th February, 1983, ordered that Dr. Barister Singh be appointed as ad hoc Principal of the College in place of Ram Swarup Yadav. It seems since then Dr. Barister Singh started working as Principal of the Institution. 6. The District Inspector of Schools vide his order dated 25th February, 1983, ordered that Dr. Barister Singh be appointed as ad hoc Principal of the College in place of Ram Swarup Yadav. It seems since then Dr. Barister Singh started working as Principal of the Institution. 6. Against the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools the said opposite party No. 3 Sri Hazari Lal Varma filed a representation before the Deputy Director of Education which is still pending and in that the Deputy Director of Education who had earlier refused to entertain the appeal/ representation on the ground that under the Removal of Difficulties Order (Fourth) the decision of the District Inspector was final and no appeal/ representation lay against it, passed an ex prate order suspending the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools in favor of Dr. Barister Singh which is under challenge in the writ petition filed by him. It was thereafter the Dis frict Inspector of Schools required the management to get the signatures of said Ram Swarup Yadav authenticated as Principal of the Institution, but it seems that the same was not done and Dr. Barister Singh continued to hold the office of the Principal. 7. The Deputy Director of Education vide his Order dated 07.06.1983 which was passed in appeal under the orders of this Court which directed him to decide the appeal within four weeks held that Sri Hazari Lal Varma, opposite party No. 3 being Head Master of the Institution which was subsequently upgraded to Intermediate College was senior and entitled to work as ad hoc Principal of the College. It was thereafter the writ petition was amended and a prayer for quashing of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education was also made. 8. Various provisions of the -U.P. Intermediate Education Act were amended by U.P. Secondary Education Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, and as certain difficulties had arisen in giving effect to certain provisions of the same, (U.P. Secondary Education Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1975, was issued which initially was to remain in force for 6 months, Thereafter few more Removal of Difficulties Orders were issued extending the same though amendments were also made in the same. On 10th July, 1981, Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Ordinance, iy81, (U.P. Ordinance No. 8 of 1981) was promulgated for selection of teachers in the institutions recognized under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, and as in matter of appointment the Selection Board was likely to take some time, as such in exercise of the powers u/s 33 of the said Ordinance the Government of U.P. passed the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, Clauses 2, 4, 6 and 7 of the said order read as Under Clause 2. Vacancies in which ad hoc appointment can be made. The management of an institution may appoint by promotion or by direct recruitment teacher on purely ad hoc basis in accordance with the provisions of this Order in the following cases, namely: (a) in the case of a substantive vacancy existing on the date of commencement of this Order caused by death, retirement, resignation or otherwise in the case of a leave vacancy, where the whole or unexpired portion of the leave is for a period exceeding two months on the date of such commencement ; (b) Where a vacancy of the nature specified in Clause (a) or Clause (b) comes into existence within a period of two months subsequent to the date of such commencement. Clause 4. Ad hoc appointment by promotion (1) Every vacancy in the post of the Head of an Institution may be filled by promotion; (a) in the case of an Intermediate College by the senior most teacher of the institution in the lecturer's grade ; (b) in the case of a High School raised to the level of an Intermediate College, by the Headmaster of such Junior High School ; (c) in the case of a Junior High School raised to the level of a High School, by the Headmaster of such Junior High School. (2) Every vacancy in the post of a teacher in Lecturers grade may be filled by promotion by the senior-most teacher of the institution in the trained graduate (L.T.) grade. (3 )Every vacancy in the post of a teacher in the trained graduate (L.T.) grade shall be filled by promotion by the senior most teacher of the institution in the trained Undergraduate (C.T.) grade. (3 )Every vacancy in the post of a teacher in the trained graduate (L.T.) grade shall be filled by promotion by the senior most teacher of the institution in the trained Undergraduate (C.T.) grade. (4) Every vacancy in the post of a teacher in the trained under-graduate (C.T.) grade shall be filled by promotion by the senior most teacher of the) Institution in the J.T.C. grade or B.T.C. grade. Explanation--For the purposes of Clauses (1) to (4) of this paragraph, the expression, senior most teacher having longest continuous service in the Lecturer's grade of the trained Graduate (L.T.) grade, or trained Undergraduate (C.T.) grade or J.T.C. or B.T.C. grade, as the case may be. Clause 6. Eligibility for appointment. So far it is relevant it reads as under: (a) The candidate sought to be appointed by the promotion or by direct recruitment must fulfill the essential qualifications laid down in Appendix-A referred to in the Regulation (i) of Chapter II of the Regulations made under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Clause 7. So far it is relevant it reads as under: Disputes referred to Director (1) Every dispute connected with the promotion or direct recruitment under this order shall be referred to the Director and his decision thereon shall be final. Certain amendments were made in the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, on 11th September, 1981 but the same are not relevant so far as these cases are concerned. By the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Public Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Third) Order, 1982 clauses 3 and 4 of the Order, 1981, referred to above, were amended. Para 3 was substituted as under: Clause 3. Every appointment of an ad hoc teacher under paragraph 2 shall cease to have effect when a candidate recommended by the Commission or the Board, as the case may be, joins the Post. Para 3 was substituted as under: Clause 3. Every appointment of an ad hoc teacher under paragraph 2 shall cease to have effect when a candidate recommended by the Commission or the Board, as the case may be, joins the Post. Para 4 of the Order, 1981, was substituted as under: In paragraph 4 for Sub-clause (1) of Clause (a) the following Sub-clause shall be substituted, namely, (a) in the case of an Intermediate College, by the senior most teacher of the Institution in the Lecturer's grade and in the case of a High School, by the senior most teacher of Institution in the trained graduate L.T. grade." Although few amendments were made in the said Removal of Difficulties Order and 4th Removal of Difficulties Order was issued in 1982 and 5th and 6th Removal of Difficulties Orders were issued in the year 1983, but the same are not relevant for the purposes of this case. 9. On behalf of the Committee of Management and Dr. Barister Singh, it was contended that as a matter of fact the vacancy occurred prior to 31st July, 19s 1 after the murder of J.P. Yadav, as such Removal of Difficulties Order, 1975, will apply which provided that the vacancy regarding adhoc appointment or the Head of Institution shall be filled in the case of Intermediate College by the senior most teacher in the Lecturer's grade provided he has good record and administrative ability meaning thereby that not only the seniority but good record and administrative capacity will be taken into consideration by the Committee of Management. But adhoc Principal should also fulfill the requisite qualification for the said post as provided in Appendix-A, referred to in Regulation 1 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. The said Removal of Difficulties Order was extended four times in the year 1976 and twice in the year 1977. Even though vacancy occurred when the Removal of Difficulties Order of the year 1975 was in force, but in view of the fact that the vacancy was still existing when the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, came into force on 31st July, 1981 then in view of clause-2 of the said Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, the same was to be filled in by the Committee of Management in accordance with the said order. The vacancy could be filled by the management of the Institution as provided under Clause 2 of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, and the District Inspector of Schools is only to approve or disapprove the said appointment. He has no power under the Removal of Difficulties Order, read with U.P. Intermediate Education Act, to make appointment himself and issue direction that a particular person may be accepted as Principal of the Institution. Even otherwise an order requiring management to appoint or not to appoint any one as Head of the Institution is not to be passed without hearing it if no proposal is sent by it. Obviously dispute, if any, regarding promotion was preferable to the Director of Education under Clause 7 of the said order dated 10-9-81 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, a copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition was in excess of jurisdiction and manifestly illegal, the same having been passed on the application of Sri Hazari Lal Varma, opposite party No. 3, and without hearing the Management and considering the provisions of Removal of Difficulties Order, 1975 and its requirement. The Deputy Director of Education rightly rejected the appeal/representation filed by the Committee of Management as Director of Education rightly rejected the appeal/ representation filed by the Committee of Management as incompetent, yet the Deputy Director of Education entertained the appeal/representation dated 28.02.1983 filed by Sri Hazari Lal Varma, opposite party No. 3 against the subsequent order passed by the District Inspector of Schools appointing Dr. Barister Singh as Principal of the Institution. This order was passed after a direction was issued by this Court that a decision may be taken within four weeks by the District Inspector of Schools. The Deputy Director of Education on the date on which it was presented had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal/representation as was held by him earlier. It was only under the U.P. Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Fourth) Order, 1982, which came into effect on 14th April, 1982, paragraph 7 of the Removal of Difficulties Order of 1981 was amended and matter of promotion became referable to Deputy Director of Education. The appeal filed by Sri Hazari Lal Varma was decided after coming into force of this Removal of Difficulties Order. The appeal filed by Sri Hazari Lal Varma was decided after coming into force of this Removal of Difficulties Order. Even if Deputy Director of Education in appeal could pass an interim order, but the date on which it was passed that is when appeal was not entertain able the said order was without jurisdiction. The writ petition filed by Sri Deo Darbar Ashram Inter College thus deserves to be allowed. So far as Annexure-1 is concerned the same was rendered ineffective by the subsequent order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, but it being illegal and vocative of principles of natural justice is quashed. The interim order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, a copy of which has been annexed to the said writ petition as Annexure-3 is also quashed. 10. Under the order dated 04.05.1983 passed by this Court the Deputy Director of Education decided the representation on 02.06.1983 to which reference has been made in this petition and held that Dr. Hazari Lal Varma, opposite party No. 3, was senior as he was the Head Master of the Institution before up-gradation of the Institution to the Intermediate College, which is higher post than that of Lecturer and as such he was senior. The grade of Head Master is Rs. 710-70-1600 and that of Lecturer is Rs. 650-1280, but Dr. Barister Singh is admittedly in selection grade which is Rs. 960-1450. If pay including personal pay of Dr. Hazari Lal Varma was higher than that of a Lecturer that could not be taken to mean that the grade of the person is also higher. Both Dr. Barister Singh and Dr. Hazari Lal Varma are drawing more salary than an ordinary Lecturer, Dr. Barister Singh because of selection grade and Dr. Hazari Lal Varma because of special pay, he having been Head Master earlier. The starting point of salary of Dr. Barister Singh is higher than that of Dr. Hazari Lal Varma though the higher limit is lesser. It is the starting point which is the determining factor for finding out which grade is higher. The Deputy Director of Education held that though amongst Lecturers Dr. Barister Singh is senior, but as his grade is lesser than that of Head Master he is junior to Dr. Hazari Lal Varma. The part of the order has been questioned by Dr. The Deputy Director of Education held that though amongst Lecturers Dr. Barister Singh is senior, but as his grade is lesser than that of Head Master he is junior to Dr. Hazari Lal Varma. The part of the order has been questioned by Dr. Hazari Lal Varma as he claims himself to be senior most lecturers and on whose behalf the averment made by management accepting him Lecturer has been pointed out. It appears that Dr. Hazari Lal Varma was never appointed Lecturer formally but he had been teaching Intermediate classes and taken as such. 11. Under Regulation 59A of Chapter III of the Regulations the services of an employee transferred from one institution to the other are also to be counted for the purposes of seniority in the institution where he is transferred. The said regulation also provides for reification of seniority of transferred employee in relation to other employees in the same cadre and grade. It appears that the seniority of Dr. Barister Singh vis--vis other Lecturers and Dr. Hazari Lal Varma has not yet been decided in the light of Regulation 59A. The Deputy Director of Education while deciding the appeal/representation was to consider the question of seniority which could not have been decided without taking the same in the light of Regulation 59A and he omitted to do so. The Deputy Director of Education committed manifest error of law in omitting to consider the correct legal and factual position in deciding the question of seniority. As necessary material has not been placed on the record it is not possible to decide the question in this writ petition. The writ petition thus deserves to be allowed and the order dated 02.06.1983 passed by the Deputy Director of Education a copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexuie-8 is quashed. The Deputy Director of Education is directed to restore back the said reference and decide the same again, but in accordance with law in the light of observations made above expeditiously. As Annexure-6 to this writ petition dated 02.04.1983 that is the interim order was without jurisdiction, the same is also quashed. 12. In the circumstances of the case parties will bear their own costs. The parties concerned shall take expeditors steps to make permanent arrangement on the post in question.