JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, J. - By means of this writ petition, the Petitioner has sought quashing of an Order dated 25.01.1980 passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, 9th Circle, Naziabad. In this order, the Regional Deputy Director of Education has indicated that the recommendation made by a Selection Committee for appointment of Principal has to be supported by at least two experts; since this requirement was not fulfilled, the recommendation was not acceptable, he further directed for taking fresh steps in accordance with the Rules. 2. The brief facts, relevant for the purposes of disposal of this petition are that the Management of Kalikow Singh Higher Secondary School Mohanganj, District Pratapgarh advertised, in the newspaper on 11.10.1978, for filling up of the post of Principal of the Institution. The Petitioner also applied for the post advertised on 19.09.1978 the Selection Committee interviewed the candidates for selection to the post of Principal, in the meeting of the Selection Committee, in all four members were present, namely, two representing the Management of the Institution and two experts, viz. one Dr. Radhey Shyam Gupta and the other Dr. Red icy Mohan Dwivedi. Under the relevant provisions, the selection is made by awarding quality marks to the candidates by the members of the Selection Committee and the Selection Committee is required to recommend three names in order of preference. 3. A Copy of the chart prepared by the Selection Committee as required under the relevant provisions has been filed as Annexure A-l along with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2. This chart indicates that in all four candidates were interviewed, namely, Sarvasri Sadhu Misra, Ranjeet Singh, Satya Deo Singh the Petitioner and Girinesh Narain Tiwari ; the other candidates were absent. So far, awarding of quality marks is concerned, Rankest Singh was awarded 131 marks, Satya Deo Singh was awarded 127 marks, Sadhu Misra was awarded 119 marks and Girinesh Narain Tiwari was awarded 80 marks. From a perusal of chart it appears that the two members of the Selection Committee representing the Management had awarded 2 marks each to the Petitioner whereas the two experts had awarded 49 marks each. In the case of Ranjeet Singh, he was awarded 49 and 50 marks by the two members of the Selection Committee representing the Management, whereas the two experts had awarded 9 and 10 marks. In the case of Ranjeet Singh, he was awarded 49 and 50 marks by the two members of the Selection Committee representing the Management, whereas the two experts had awarded 9 and 10 marks. There was a difference amongst the members of the Selection Committee, namely the two experts on the one side and the two members representing the Management on the other on the question as to who was to be placed at serial No. 1 in order of preference. The two experts made an endorsement that in their opinion, Satya Deo Singh, namely, the Petitioner was first in order of preference whereas the two members representing the Management disagreed with the experts' opinion and their recommendation, on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates was that Ranjeet Singh was at number one in order of preference. 4. The recommendation of the Selection Committee was forwarded to the Committee of Management, which, it appears, did not agree with it. Thus the matter appears to have been referred to the Deputy Director of Education. Ultimately the Deputy Director of Education passed the order which has been impugned in this writ petition. 5. It would be better to look to the relevant provisions under the Act and the regulations in connection with selection and appointment of a Head of Institution. Section 16E of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 provides for procedure for selection of teachers and bead of institutions. The relevant Sub-sections of Section 16E of the Intermediate Act (for short the Act) are as follows: 16E.... (6) The Selection Committee shall prepare a list containing in order of preference the names, as far as practicable, three candidates for each post found by it to be suitable for appointment and shall communicate its recommendations together with such list to the Committee of Management. (7) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (8), the Committee of Management shall, on receipt of recommendations of the Selection Committee Under Sub-section (6), first offer appointment to the candidate given the first preference by the Selection Committee, and on his failure to join the post to the candidate next to him in the list prepared by the Selection Committee under this section, and on the failure of such candidate also, to the last candidate specified in such list. (8) The Committee of Management shall, where it does not agree with the recommendations of the Selection Committee, refer the matter together with the reasons of such disagreement to the Regional Deputy Director of Education in the case of appointment to the post of Head of Institution and to the Inspector in the case of appointment to the post of teacher of an institution, and his decision shall be final. (9) Where no candidate approved by the Selection Committee for appointment is available, a fresh selection shall be held in the manner laid down in this section. The next provision, which is relevant, is Section 16F of the Act which relates to Selection Committees. Section 16F(1) is as under: 16F. Selection Committees.(1) For the selection of candidates for appointment as Head of an Institution, there shall be a Selection Committee consisting of: (i) the President or any member of the Committee of Management nominated by the Committee by resolution in that behalf, who shall be the Chairman ; (ii) a member of the Committee of Management other than the one referred to in Clause (1), nominated by it in this behalf ; (iii) three experts nominated by the Regional Deputy Director of Education from persons not belonging to the district in which the institution is situated, out of the panel of names prepared under this Section (5) The business of the Selection Committee shall be constituted in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that the majority of the total membership of any Selection Committee shall form the quorum of such Committee: Provided further that no recommendation made by the Selection Committee in respect of any candidate shall be valid, unless two of the experts referred to in Clause (iii) of Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2), as the case may be, have agreed to it. 6. Regulation 10 of Chapter II of the Regulations provides for detailed procedure as to how the selection of the Head of Institution and teachers shall be made. It also provides that the candidate called for interview shall be selected in order of quality-point-marks obtained by them and the marks obtained by him in the interview. 7. 6. Regulation 10 of Chapter II of the Regulations provides for detailed procedure as to how the selection of the Head of Institution and teachers shall be made. It also provides that the candidate called for interview shall be selected in order of quality-point-marks obtained by them and the marks obtained by him in the interview. 7. From the provisions quoted above, it emerges out that the Selection Committee for selecting a candidate for the post of Head of Institution shall consist of five members including the three experts nominated by the Regional Deputy Director of Education and the other two members representing the Management. The majority of the total membership of any Selection Committee shall form the quorum. Thus in this case, four members of the Selection Committee validly formed the quorum. From second proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 16F, it is also clear that the recommendation made by the Selection Committee in favor of a candidate shall be valid only if two experts have agreed to it. However, we have not found any provision providing tore as to what would be the position where the members of the Selection Committee are equally divided as is the position in the case in hand. 8. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2. A true copy of the letter dated 09.10.1979 by which the Management had referred the matter to the Deputy Director of Education, has been filed as Annexure A-2 along with the counter affidavit. In this letter, it has been stated that order of preference which has been given by the two members, namely, the experts, has not been accepted by the Committee of Management in its meeting held on 07.10.1979. According to the Management, on the basis of marks obtained in the selection, first preference was liable to be given to Sri Ranjeet Singh. A request was made to the Deputy Director of Education that Sri Ranjeet Singh may be approved as duly selected candidate in the selection. Sub-section (8) of Section 16E of the Act provides that where the Committee of Management does not agree with the recommendations of the Selection Committee, it shall refer the matter to the Regional Director of Education along with its reason for disagreement. It appears that in the above circumstances, the opposite party No. 1 passed the order impugned in this writ petition. It appears that in the above circumstances, the opposite party No. 1 passed the order impugned in this writ petition. By its order, opposite party No. 1 found that none of the candidate recommended had agreement of two experts as provided Under the provisions of the Act; therefore, he ordered for taking fresh steps for filling up the post according to law. A perusal of the proceedings of the Selection Committee would indicate that the statement of fact made by opposite party No. 1 in the impugned order Annexure-8 to the petition is not correct. As indicated earlier also, Ranjeet Singh was awarded 131 marks. The Petitioner was awarded 127 marks and Sadhu Misra was awarded 119 marks. The dispute was in respect of assignment of place in order of preference. According to the two experts, the Petitioner should have been placed at serial No. 1 in order of preference whereas the other two members representing the Management favored Ranjeet Singh by placing him at serial No. 1 on the basis of marks obtained by him. Under second proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 16F of the Act, no recommendation made by Selection Committee shall be valid unless two experts have agreed to it. To that extent the order passed by opposite party No. 1 is correct, in so far as he has not accepted the request of the Committee of Management for approving Sri Ranjeet Singh for the post of Head of the Institution. Not even one expert had agreed to the recommendation for the selection of Sri Ranjeet Singh. So far the recommendation in favor of the Petitioner is concerned, the two experts had agreed for recommending him for the appointment by placing him at serial No. 1 in order of preference. Even if it is accepted that Ranjeet Singh should have been placed at first place as he had obtained the highest marks in the selection, that recommendation is not valid in view of second proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 16F of the Act but the same is not true in respect of the Petitioner as the two experts had agreed for his selection and appointment. Sub-section (7) of Section 16E of the Act provides that on receipt of the recommendations of the Selection Committee, first offer of appointment shall be given to the candidate, who has been given the first preference by the Selection Committee recommending his name. Each of the two experts had awarded 49 marks to Satya Deo Singh the Petitioner and had also agreed for assigning him first place in order of preference. In the above circumstances, second proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 16F was fully complied with in the case of Petitioner. It is not understandable as to how opposite party No. 1 ignored the fact that two experts had recommended the candidature of the Petitioner and still it had observed that the recommendation of two experts was not there in respect of any candidate. So far the Petitioner is concerned, he was entitled for the offer of appointment both ways, namely, in case it was taken that Sri Ranjeet Singh was assigned first place in order of preference, he could not be offered appointment as no expert had agreed to that recommendation and then choice had to fall upon the next candidate in order of preference who is none else but the Petitioner. Secondly, the experts cannot be said to have gone wrong in assigning first place to the Petitioner as under second proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 16F, recommendation in favor of a candidate shall not be valid unless two experts agree to it. Thus, in terms of the said provision, the recommendation in favor of Ranjeet Singh was not valid. In that event, the Petitioner would rightly be placed at serial No. 1 in order of preference. 9. It appears that while the matter was still pending before this Court in the present writ petition, the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 came into force. Under the provisions of the said Act, Selection Boards have been constituted to select the candidates for appointment on different posts and on the recommendations of the Selection Board, the Commission recommends for their appointment. Under the provisions of the said Act, Selection Boards have been constituted to select the candidates for appointment on different posts and on the recommendations of the Selection Board, the Commission recommends for their appointment. Section 16 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 provides as follows: Appointments to be made only on recommendations of the Commission or the Board.-(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the Regulations made there under but subject to the provisions of Sections 18 and 33 (a) every appointment of a teacher specified in the Schedule shall, on or after July 10, 1981, be made by the management only on the recommendation of the Commission ; (b) every appointment of a teacher (other than a teacher in the schedule) shall, on or after July 10, 1981, be made by the management only on the recommendation of the Board: Provided that in respect of retrenched employees, the provisions of Section 16EE of the Intermediate Act, 1921, shall apply with the modification that in Sub-section (2) of the aforesaid section, for the words 'six months' the words 'two years' shall be deemed to have been substituted. (2) Every appointment of a teacher, in contravention of the provisions of Sub-section (1), shall be void. 10. When the post in question was advertised by the Education Service Commission by means of Annexure-9, it appears that the Petitioner approached for staying the appointment on the recommendation of the Commission. U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission was also imp leaded as opposite party No. 3 to the writ petition. It appears that three candidates were recommended for appointment by the Commission. Those three selected candidates were also imp leaded as opposite parties Nos. 4 to 6 by amendment of the writ petition. An order of interim relief was granted on December 20, 1983 to the effect that no appointment to the post of Principal of Kalikow Singh Higher Secondary School, Mohanganj, District Pratapgarh shall be made. That order was confirmed on 6th of January, 1984 but it was subsequently vacated on March 9, 1984 and it was provided that the appointment so made on the post shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has stated and none of the opposite parties Nos. That order was confirmed on 6th of January, 1984 but it was subsequently vacated on March 9, 1984 and it was provided that the appointment so made on the post shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has stated and none of the opposite parties Nos. 4 to 6 or anyone else has joined the post of Principal in the said Institution. In our opinion, the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 shall not be applicable in the present case as the vacancy in question related to 1978 and the selection was held in 1979. In pursuance of the provisions then existing, and the law then applicable, the Petitioner should have been offered appointment. The impugned order passed by opposite party No. 1 contained in Annexure 8 to the writ petition is based on incorrect assumption of fact that none of the candidates recommended by the Selection Committee had the agreement of two experts, The Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 came into force on July 14, 1982. The provisions of this Act have not been given retrospective effect. In this connection, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon a case reported in A.A. Calton Vs. Director of Education and Another, AIR 1983 SC 1143 . In that case, proceedings for selection for the post of an Intermediate College had commenced u/s 16F(4) of the Intermediate Education Act. This power was taken away by a subsequent amendment. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with the matter observed that the Amending Act did not provide expressly that it would apply to pending proceedings u/s 16F(4) of the Act nor there were words in the amendment which by necessary intendment would affect such pending proceedings. It was further observed that the process of selection commencing from the stage of calling for applications for a post up to the date on which the Director becomes entitled to make a Selection is an integrated one. At every stage in that process, certain rights are created in favor of one or the other of the candidates. It was held that by means of subsequent amendment, existing rights could not be impaired or taken away. At every stage in that process, certain rights are created in favor of one or the other of the candidates. It was held that by means of subsequent amendment, existing rights could not be impaired or taken away. In our opinion, the present case is squarely covered by the case relied upon on behalf of the Petitioner. 11. In view of the discussion held above the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by opposite party No. 1 contained In Annexure-8 to the writ petition is quashed. The opposite party No. 1 is directed to pass a fresh order expeditiously, say within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order in the light of the observations made in this writ petition. 12. There would be no order as to costs.