JUDGMENT S. D. Agarwala, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for a direction to the respondents not to interfere in the petitioner's functioning as the Head Mistress of Hira Devi Tota Ram Kanya Uchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bhajoi, District Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as the School) and to pay her salary. 2. The petitioner, Smt. Mamta Rastogi was appointed as an Asstt. Teacher in the L. T. Grade in the School. It is not disputed that the School is governed by the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the U. P. Secondary Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982. The petitioner was appointed on 1st July, 1965 on probation for a period of one year. This appointment was approved by the Regional Inspectress of Girls' Schools, Bareilly by means of an order dated 15th December, 1965. 3. The respondent no. 4, Smt. Vijai Luxmi Saxena was also appointed as an Asstt. Teacher in the L. T. Grade on 8th July, 1971. This appointment was also approved by the Regional Inspectress of Girls' School, Bareilly by an order dated 18th November, 1971. 4. Both the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 had been working in the School The dispute arose because the permanent Head Mistress ceased to exist and as such the seniormost teacher of the School had to take over as an officiating Principal till a permanent Principal was selected by the Services Commission. By a resolution dated 30th May, 1987, the Committee of Management of the School resolved that the petitioner was the seniormost teacher and as such, was entitled to function as the officiating Principal of the School. A copy of this resolution was sent by the Manager of the School to the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools by his letter dated 1st June, 1987 for her approval. The Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools by an order dated 26th June, 1987 did not approve the resolution passed by the Committee of Management on the ground that, in her opinion, the petitioner was not senior to respondent no. 4. In consequence there of, respondent no. 4 started functioning as the officiating Principal of the School. It is this order of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools dated 26th June, 1987, which has been impugned in the present writ petition. 5. 4. In consequence there of, respondent no. 4 started functioning as the officiating Principal of the School. It is this order of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools dated 26th June, 1987, which has been impugned in the present writ petition. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Initially when the petition was filed, the petitioner sought a relief to the effect that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued to respondent no. 4 not to interfere in the petitioner's functioning as the Head Mistress of the School. In the counter affidavit to the petition, a copy of the order of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools dated 26th June, 1987 was filed as C. A. 6, by virtue of which, the resolution of the Committee of Management holding the petitioner as senior, was disapproved and as such, the petitioner further amended the petition and added a relief in the petition to the effect that the order dated 26th June, 1987 passed by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools be also quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order dated 26th June, 1987 passed by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools is manifestly erroneous. The finding recorded by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools to the effect that there was a break in service, was patently erroneous and as such, the order dated 26th June, 1987 is liable to be quashed. In the impugned order, the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools has not given any reason as to why there has been a break in service in the case of the petitioner. It is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed on probation on 1st July, 1965. The appointment was approved by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools on 15th December, 1965. In the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4, the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, the reason for holding that there was break in service has been given in paragraph 2. In this paragraph, it has been stated that the petitioner continued to work as an Asstt. Teacher in the L. T. Grade upto 30th June, 1970 and that she has been on leave without pay with effect from 1st July 1970 to 30th June, 1971 and from 1st July, 1971 to 30th June, 1972. In this paragraph, it has been stated that the petitioner continued to work as an Asstt. Teacher in the L. T. Grade upto 30th June, 1970 and that she has been on leave without pay with effect from 1st July 1970 to 30th June, 1971 and from 1st July, 1971 to 30th June, 1972. No order was available on record to the effect that the petitioner was granted leave without pay for her absence from the School with effect from 1st July, 1970 to 30th June, 1972. It is, therefore, clear that the sole basis for holding break in service by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, was that there was nothing on record to the effect that the petitioner was granted leave from 1st July, 1970 to 30th June, 1972. 7. In the rejoinder affidavit, which has been filed in reply to the counter affidavit, it has been categorically stated in paragraph 4 that the petitioner's leave from 1st July, 1970 to 30th June, 1972 was duly sanctioned by the management of the School. The resolutions sanctioning leave have also been filed as Annexures RA 1 and RA 2. Annexure RA 1 is a resolution of the Committee of Management dated 20th April, 1970 which clearly sanction leave without pay to the petitioner from 1st July, 1970 to 30th June, 1971. Annexure RA 2 is the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 6th May, 1971 by which the petitioner was granted leave without pay from 1st July, 1971 to 30th June, 1972. 8. During the course of arguments, the original record was produced in which those resolutions have been recorded. We have examined the original record and we are satisfied that they, on the face of it, appear to be genuine. In the circumstances, the case set up by the petitioner has to be accepted that her leave from 1st July, 1970 to 30th June, 1972 was duly sanctioned by the Committee of Management by means of valid resolutions. In this view of the matter, it is apparent that the finding recorded by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools that there is a break in service, is manifestly erroneous. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, in our opinion, is well-founded. 9. In this view of the matter, it is apparent that the finding recorded by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools that there is a break in service, is manifestly erroneous. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, in our opinion, is well-founded. 9. Once it is held that the petitioner was duly granted extra-ordinary leave without pay with effect from 1st July, 1970 to 30th June 1972, there cannot be possibly any break in service. The view to the contrary taken by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, consequently, cannot be sustained. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, has, however, urged that even in case the order of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools is quashed, the petitioner cannot be permitted to officiate as the Principal of the School in view of Regulation 4 of Chapter III framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. Regulation 4 of Chapter III is to the following effect :- " No teacher shall be appointed whether in a temporary or clear vacancy in an institution who is related to any member of Committee of Management or the Principal or Headmaster, nor shall a Headmaster or Principal be appointed in an institution who is related to any member of the Committee of Management. 11. On reading of this Regulation to our mind it is clear that this will apply only prospectively. It would not apply to a case where a teacher had already been appointed and where relationship came into existence after the appointment in the institution. This matter was also clarified by the Government Order dated 2nd December 1964, which has been attached as Annexure X to the petition. In the said G.O. it was clearly specified that Regulation 4 of Chapter III of the Regulations does not apply to the cases in which a person acquires relationship with the member of the management or the Principal or the Headmaster subsequent to his or her appointment in the same institution. 12. In view of the above, in our opinion, Regulation 4 does not come in the way of the petitioner in being appointed officiating Principal of the School, and this appointment she was entitled to get by virtue of her seniority. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order dated 26th June, 1987 passed by the Regional Inspectress Girls Schools, Moradabad is hereby, quashed. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order dated 26th June, 1987 passed by the Regional Inspectress Girls Schools, Moradabad is hereby, quashed. We further issue a writ of mandamus directing the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools to appoint the petitioner as officiating Principal of the School until a regular appointment is made by the Secondary Education Services Commission in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Secondary Services Commissions and Selection Boards Act, 1982. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.