JUDGMENT B. L. Yadav, J. 1. These three writ petitions, Writ Petition No. 14975 of 1982, (hereinafter referred to as the first writ petition), Writ Petition No. 1120 of 1986, (hereinafter referred to as the second writ petition) and Writ Petition No. 7853 of 1986, (hereinafter referred to as the third writ petition), under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are directed against the appointment of Principal in Inter College, Machchlishahr, Jaunpur, (hereinafter referred to as the College). It is convenient to dispose of these three petitions by a common judgment. By first and third writ petitions the petitioner has prayed for a writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 6-12-82 (Annexure 11 to the first writ petition and Annexure 7 to the third writ petition) and for quashing the proceedings for selection of Principal held by the Commission in pursuance of the procedure provided under the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 (for short the Act) and Rules and Regulations by which the petitioner of second writ petition was found to be most suitable and was issued appointment letter as Principal on substantive vacancy (vide Annexure 1 to the second writ petition). The petitioner of first and third writ petitions prayed further for issuing a writ of Mandamus directing the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur to accord approval of the signature of petitioner as ad hoc principal of the College. 2. Some portrayal of the essential facts are imperative in order to appreciate the controversy involved. There is an Intermediate College known as Inter College, Machchlishahr, Jaunpur. Sri Krishna Lal, officiating Principal of the College retired on 30-6-81 and the petitioner of first and third writ petitions, Mai Bahadur, being senior most lecturer, was promoted and appointed as officiating Principal on 1-7-81. The resolution of the Committee of Management for approval of the petitioner of first and third writ petitions, Mal Bahadur, as Principal of the College was sent to the District Inspector of Schools. But he did not approve the said appointment by his order dated 3-10-81 (Annexure 6 to the first writ petition). The Committee of Management and the petitioner of first and third writ petitions made several representations that the appointment as officiating Principal may be approved, but they did not succeed. But he did not approve the said appointment by his order dated 3-10-81 (Annexure 6 to the first writ petition). The Committee of Management and the petitioner of first and third writ petitions made several representations that the appointment as officiating Principal may be approved, but they did not succeed. In the meanwhile U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Selection and Board) Ordinance, 1981 (for short Ordinance) and Act, 1982 (for short the Act) came into force. Under Section 16 of the Act, after the enforcement of Ordinance and Act, every appointment of teachers specified in the schedule including the appointment of principals of Intermediate Colleges was to be made only on recommendation of U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (for short the Commission) and in no other way. The petitioner of first and third writ petitions claim that he may be confirmed on the post of Principal in view of the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 and Section 33-A of the Act. This completes the one phase of the facts. The second phase, however, is that one Sri Tribhuwan Singh, Principal of Maharana Pratap Inter College, Ram Dayal Ganj, Jaunpur (respondent no. 2 in the first and respondent no. 7 in the third writ petition) was transferred by order dated 8-12-82 (vide Annexure 11 to the first and Annexure 7 to the third writ petition), as Principal of Inter College, Machchlishahr, Jaunpur, and was directed to take charge from officiating Principal, Mal Bahadur. But before he could take charge, the first writ petition was filed and an interim stay was obtained staying the operation of order dated 8-12-82. But as there was a permanent vacancy of Principal hence under Section 10 of the Act the same was notified by the Committee of Management to the Commission, the process of selection of Principal started and the petitioner of first and third writ petitions was also a candidate along with the petitioner of second writ petition. The Commission held interviews and the petitioner in second writ petition was found most suitable for appointment as Principal of the College, whereas petitioner in first and third writ petition was unsuccessful. 3. The case of Birendra Nath Singh, the petitioner in second writ petition is that in the selection held by the Commission the petitioner in first and third writ petition was also a candidate. 3. The case of Birendra Nath Singh, the petitioner in second writ petition is that in the selection held by the Commission the petitioner in first and third writ petition was also a candidate. But he (Birendra Nath Singh, petitioner in second writ petition) was selected as most suitable (vide Annexure 1 to the second writ petition). In view of section 16 of the Act, the Committee of Management issued an appointment letter dated 30-11-85 in favour of the petitioner in second writ petition (vide Annexure 2 to the second writ petition). The petitioner in second writ petition joined the College as Principal and the Manager informed the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, by his letter dated 5-12-85 that the petitioner in second writ petition has taken charge of the office of Principal with effect from 4-12-85 and his signature may be verified. 4. The second petition has been filed for a writ of Mandamus directing the District Inspector of Schools to attest the signature of Birendra Nath Singh, petitioner in second writ petition, as Principal of the College. Whereas first and third writ petitions have been filed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 8-12-82 by which Sri Tribhuwan Singh was transferred as Principal of the College, and for quashing the proceedings of the Commission for selection of petitioner of second writ petition as Principal of the College in which the petitioner of first and third writ petition was not selected by the Commission as most suitable candidate, and also for a writ of Mandamus directing the District Inspector of Schools to accord approval to the appointment of petitioner as ad hoc Principal of the College. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that, no guidelines have been provided either by the Ordinance of 1981 or the Act 1982 under Section 9 pertaining to the method of recruitment, rather, essential legislative function and uncanalised power have been delegated to the Commission. The Commission may select one person as Principal and reject the other according to its arbitrary and discriminatory approach, hence the provisions of Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Act are hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. As the petitioner was appointed ad hoc Principal under the first Removal of Difficulties Order, 1980, he was entitled to be regularised in view of Section 33-A of the Act. As the petitioner was appointed ad hoc Principal under the first Removal of Difficulties Order, 1980, he was entitled to be regularised in view of Section 33-A of the Act. As there was no vacancy to the post of Principal, as the petitioner was already working, as officiating Principal, hence the Commission had no power to initiate proceedings for appointment. Even the District Inspector of Schools had written a letter after the petitioner's first writ petition was admitted and stay granted, that no process of selection be commenced as there appears to be no vacancy. But no final opinion was expressed on that. The selection of petitioner of second writ petition as Principal by the Commission was void. It was further urged that under the circumstances of the case, the petitioner of first and third writ petition was entitled for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of transfer of Tribhuwan Singh as Principal of the College and quashing the entire proceedings of selection held by the Commission. The petitioner was further entitled for a writ of Mandamus directing the District Inspector of Schools to accord approval to the signature of petitioner in first and third writ petition as Principal of the College. It was further urged that equitable consideration may be extended to the petitioner of first and third writ petition, inasmuch as he was holding the post of Principal since 1-7-81 and was a senior most lecturer and was continuing as such on the basis of interim stay granted by this Court in first and third writ petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, urged that a substantive vacancy of the post of Principal cannot be filled up by transfer. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, urged that a substantive vacancy of the post of Principal cannot be filled up by transfer. Further in view of Section 16 of the Act, notwithstanding anything contained in the Intermediate Education Act, every appointment of a teacher including Principal as specified in the Schedule of the Act shall, after 10th July, 1981, be made by the management only on the recommendation of the Commission, that the petitioner of first and third writ petition was not entitled to the benefit of Section 33-A (thirty-three-A) as Section 16 of the Act has specifically provided that notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary under section 18 including Section 33 and 33-A of the Act, every appointment of a Principal as specified in the Schedule, shall after 10th July, 1981, be made by the management only on recommendation of the Commission, and as the petitioner was also a candidate before the Commission and his service record was also scrutinised and he was interviewed along with petitioner in second writ petition and the latter was found most suitable and was issued appointment letter by the management on recommendation of the Commission (vide Annexure 1 to the second writ petition), hence the petitioner in first and third writ petition was not entitled to any relief, nor he was entitled to relief for a writ of Certiorari or Mandamus. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the first point for determination is as to whether the provisions of Sections 9, 10 (2) and 11 of the Act were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution on account of delegation of essential legislative function of the Commission, inasmuch as these Sections do not lay down any guideline for exercising power relating to method of recruitment of teachers specified in the Schedule. The second point is as to whether a substantive vacancy of Principal in an Intermediate College can be filled up by transfer from another Intermediate College ; the third point is as to whether the petitioner was entitled to benefit of Section 33-A (thirty-three-A) of the Act ; the fourth point is as to whether the petitioner in first and third petition was entitled to equitable consideration in his favour as he was officiating as Principal since 1-7-81 being senior most lecturer in the College ; and the last point to be considered is as to whether the petitioner in first and third petition was entitled to relief of a writ of Certiorari and a Mandamus. As regards the first point it may be stated that in pursuance of powers under Section 35 of the Act, the State Government has framed rules known as U.P. Secondary Education Service Rules, 1983. Rule 3 of the said Rules provides the minimum academic qualification for appointment of a teacher including the Principal or Head Master. Similarly Rule 4 provides the procedure for selection of head of institution, which enjoins the management to forward names of two senior most teachers along with their service records and character rolls to the Commission. Similarly Rule 5 enacts that the Commission shall advertise the vacancy in at least two newspapers having wide circulation in the State and to notify the same to the Deputy Director of Education. In view of Rule 6 the Commission is to scrutinise the application and then call for interview such number of candidates as it may consider proper. Rule 7 provides that the Commission shall prepare a institution wise panel of those found most suitable for appointment to the post of teacher including Principal and arrange them in order of merit. Rule 8 provides that the panel so prepared is to be sent to the Deputy Director of Education who shall notify the same on the notice board and send two copies to the District Inspector of Schools, who shall, in his turn, intimate the names of candidates selected to the management, which shall comply with the directions in view of Rule 8 (iv) of the Rules read with Section 16. 7. 7. Section 4 of the Act makes it clear that the Commission is an Expert Body consisting of educational experts including two members of the State Education Service who have acquired a position of eminence, one Professor of the University, a Principal of a Degree College of not less than ten years standing, a Principal of an Intermediate College, and a person from judicial service who has acquired a position of eminence. The reasons for delegated legislation has been discussed on page 521 of ' Law in the Making ' by C. K. Allen (Sixth Edition) as follows : “The great bulk of parliamentary, legislation now a days is of the social and administrative rather than of the legal kind. Parliament is obliged to delegate much of its legislative office for two principal reasons. First it has no time to deal in detail with the multifarious matters which claim its attention. Second, many of these matters are so technical that there is a natural tendency to commit them to the experts while many others are of exclusively local importance. “Sir Ceil Carr in his “Delegated Legislations ", has stated that the growth of delegated legislation is so enormous and remarkable that “the child now dwarfs the parent. “On page 528 of ' Law in the Making ', it has been stated : “This is perhaps the high water mark, upto the present time, of the delegation of legislative power but by no means uncharacteristic........ The whole character of our legislation has fundamentally changed, and the average statute is merely a framework for details to be supplied by appointed authorities. " 8. By the present Act (U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982), after laying down the sufficient guidelines and principles, the details of selection of teachers, specified in the Schedule, has been referred to the trained and expert body constituted under section 4 of the Act. The details to be supplied by the appointing authority have been indicated under sections 34 and 35 of the Act and the rules and regulations. In view of section 34 of the Act regulations have been framed for selection including for holding interviews, which have been notified on August 22, 1983 and these regulations are known as U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Procedure and Control of Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1983. In view of section 34 of the Act regulations have been framed for selection including for holding interviews, which have been notified on August 22, 1983 and these regulations are known as U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Procedure and Control of Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1983. These Regulations provide in detail as to how procedure and conduct of business of the Commission would be regulated. Regulation 6 provides that the Commission shall constitute Board or Boards for interview, viva voce test of candidates for various posts for which selection is sought to be made. Regulation 8 provides proforma for submission of application and procedure and methodology for registration of applications received, scrutiny of applications, evaluation of candidates consequent upon interview and preparation of final select list and other allied matters. Rule 6 provides the criteria on the basis of which candidates were to be selected. Under these circumstances it could not be said by any stretch of imagination that any essential legislative function has been delegated to the Commission or Board. There is no excessive delegation nor arbitrariness. Under the Rules and Regulations sufficient guidelines have been provided. These rules and regulations afford sufficient opportunity to every candidate and no candidate is discriminated against. It could not be assumed that the commission acted otherwise than in accordance with the procedure provided under the Act. particularly, within the meaning of section 10 (2) of the Act. Somewhat similar arguments advanced were repelled by a Division Bench of this Court in Indraj Singh Yadav v. U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Ayog, 1984 Education Cases 197. 9. Now coming to the second point as to whether a substantive vacancy of a Principal in an Intermediate College can be filled by transfer from some other institution suffice it to say that section 16 of the Act enacts that notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in the Intermediate Education Act or the Regulations made thereunder, every appointment of a teacher specified in Schedule including that of a Principal, shall be made after July 10, 1981, by the management on recommendation of the commission. Considering the other provisions of the Act, Regulations framed and the Rules made, the only irresistible conclusion is that the post of Principal of an Intermediate College or Head Master of a High School cannot be filled up by transfer from some other institution. Considering the other provisions of the Act, Regulations framed and the Rules made, the only irresistible conclusion is that the post of Principal of an Intermediate College or Head Master of a High School cannot be filled up by transfer from some other institution. It is to be made only through selection as contemplated by sections 9, 10 (2) and 11 of the Act read with relevant Rules and Regulations. Recently in O. P. Rana v. S. S. Tomar, 1986 AWC 911 = 1986 Ed. Cases 203 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have ruled that appointment to the post of Principal cannot be made by transfer from some other institution. Earlier a Division Bench of this Court held that on the basis of mutual consent the post of a Principal can be filled up by transfer from some other institution. But to that extent the Division Bench case of this court has been overruled. NOW it is well nigh impossible to conceive of the idea that the post of a Principal can be filled up with transfer from other institution. In view of this concluded opinion the first and third writ petitions deserves to be allowed to the extent that the order of transfer of Sri Tribhuwan Singh to the post of Principal of the College (dated 8-12-81) deserves to be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari. 10. Reverting to the third submission as to whether the petitioner of I and III writ petitions as senior most lecturer in the College could be regularised on the basis of his promotion as ad hoc or officiating Principal and whether he was entitled to the benefit of section 33-A of the Act. Ordinance of 1981 or the Act of 1982 was brought on the statute book. In view of the provisions of section 16 (1) of the Act, every appointment of a teacher including that of a Principal of an Intermediate College or a Head Master of a High School, as specified in the schedule, after July 10, 1981, has to be made by the management only on recommendation of the Commission. The elementary principal of interpretation of statute is to interpret the same by looking into the object and reasons. The elementary principal of interpretation of statute is to interpret the same by looking into the object and reasons. The object of enacting the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 was that establishment of a Commission and Selection Board under the Act was likely to take sometime and even after the establishment of the said Commission and Board it is not possible to make selection of teachers including Principal for the first few months and the delay in filling up the said vacancies was likely to create difficulties, hence the Removal of Difficulties Order 1981 was enacted. It was provided under order 2 that the management of an institution could make appointment by promotion or by direct recruitment to the post of teacher including Principal purely on ad hoc basis on the vacancy caused by retirement or otherwise. There is another important aspect that this Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 was published in the Gazette Extraordinary on 31-7-81 and the appointment of petitioner of first and third writ petitions to the post of Principal was made on 1-7-81 before the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 was even published in the Gazette or was enforced. Otherwise also in view of clear mandatory provision of section 16 of the Act, after 10th July 1981 such appointment could be made by the management only on recommendation of the commission and the same could not be made by management by promotion. As to whether the petitioner of first and third writ petitions was entitled to benefit of section 33-A of the Act, it is better to reproduce section 33-A as follows : “33-A-Regularisation of certain appointments : Every teacher directly appointed before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985, on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in accordance with paragraph 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 as amended from time to time, who possesses the qualifications prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualifications in accordance with the provision of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, shall, with effect from the date of such commencement, be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity provided such teacher has been continuously serving the institution from the date of such appointment up to the date of such commencement. (2) Every teacher deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity under sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be on probation from the date of such commencement. (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to entitle any teacher to substantive appointment : (a) if on the date of such commencement, such post had already been filled or selection for such post had already been made in accordance with this Act, or (b) if such teacher was related to any member of the Committee of Management or the Principal, or Head Master of the institution concerned. Explanation :- For the purposes of this sub-section a person shall be deemed to be related to another if- (i) they are members of a Hindu undivided family ; or (ii) they are husband and wife ; or (iii) the one is related to the other in the manner indicated in the Second schedule to the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. " A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions make it manifest that the first condition is that the person claiming benefit of the said section to be regularised, must be directly appointed before the commencement of U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985, (for short Ordinance of 1985) on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancy in accordance with para 2 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 and he must possess requisite prescribed qualification. It has to be ascertained as to whether the petitioner was appointed directly before the commencement of Ordinance of 1985. It is clear from the case of petitioner of first and third writ petition that even though the post of Principal in the College may be in substantive vacancy but the petitioner of first and third writ petition was not appointed directly, rather he was appointed on promotion being senior most teacher in the College. Further the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 came into force on 31-7-81 and according to the admitted case of the petitioner of first and third writ petitions he was appointed on 1-7-81. Hence by no stretch of imagination it can be assumed that the petitioner was appointed under clause (2) of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. Hence by no stretch of imagination it can be assumed that the petitioner was appointed under clause (2) of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. In this view of the matter the petitioner of first and third writ petition could not be held to be entitled to the benefit of Section 33-A of the Act. See Avdesh Kumar Verma v. District Inspector of Schools, Barabanki, 1987 AWC 227 (DB) ; Chandrika Prasad Yadav v. State of U.P., 1986 AWC 973 = 1986 Ed. Cases 223. The benefit of section 33-A of the Act may be made available to those teachers who were appointed under para 2 and not to a teacher including a Principal who was appointed under the Removal of Difficulties Order by way of promotion. The similar view, as we are taking, has been taken in a Division Bench case of this Court in Diwakar Misra v. State of U.P., Writ Petition No. 340 of 1986 decided on 20th August, 1987 Lucknow Bench. 11. The next point to be considered is as to whether the petitioner deserves to be permitted to continue on the post of Principal on equitable consideration as he was senior most lecturer and was holding the post of Principal since 1-7-81. As we have considered the case of petitioner on merits and as he had appeared before the Commission for selection to the post of Principal in a substantive vacancy, in the College and had faced interview, but was not selected, whereas the petitioner of second writ petition was selected and appointed by the management and has assumed charge also. As the interim stay in favour of the petitioner of first and third writ petitions was granted and the same continued staying the operation of the order of transfer as a consequence thereof the petitioner in second writ petition could not function as Principal. The petitioner of first and third writ petitions was also not directly appointed in accordance with the procedure provided under the Rules and Regulations or in view of Sections 9, 10 (2) and 11 of the Act. Hence he was also not entitled to the benefit of section 33-A of the Act or clause (2) of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. The petitioner in first and third writ petitions having failed on all counts, is not entitled for equitable consideration. Hence he was also not entitled to the benefit of section 33-A of the Act or clause (2) of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. The petitioner in first and third writ petitions having failed on all counts, is not entitled for equitable consideration. We have got all human sympathy with him, but this is not all before a court of law. It may be stated that the appropriate stage for filing the writ petition by the petitioner could have been when the vacancy was notified by the Committee of Management or the District Inspector of Schools under section 10 of the Act for the purposes of making appointment of teachers including Principal specified in the Schedule, and not subsequent to that. At that stage if the petitioner in first and third writ petition was feeling aggrieved, he could have approached this court and obtained an order directing the Commission not to proceed in the process of making selection of the best suitable candidate for the post of Principal on a substantive vacancy in the College. But the petitioner in first and third writ petitions did not do so. Rather he appeared before the Board, which considered the academic qualification and other requisite qualifications including the administrative competence of the petitioner and rejected him and selected the petitioner in second writ petition as the best suitable candidate. Now, under the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any benefit on account of equitable considerations. The principle, in fact, is that the equity follows the law and not vice-versa. The petitioners' claim in first and third writ petitions having failed on merits, he is not entitled for any consideration even on equitable ground. See Union of India v. Avtar Singh, AIR 1984 SC 1048 para 21 page 1056, Banarsi Pd. Pandey v. State of U.P., 1987 AWC 1423 para 3 page 1424 (DB). 12. Now coming to the last limb of the argument as regards the issuance of a writ of Mandamus in favour of the petitioner in first and third writ petitions, suffice it to say that in order that by a Mandamus a public body or authority under the Act could be compelled to perform certain act or duties, it is imperative that the petitioner must have a legal right and not that he must act contrary to law. At the same time it must be indicated that there was a legal duty imposed on the authority concerned and that the person aggrieved had a corresponding legal right for its enforcement. After the enforcement of the Act, particularly in view of provisions of section 16 of the Act, after 10th July, 1981, no appointment to the post of Principal of an Intermediate College could be made by the management otherwise than on recommendation of the Commission in favour of most suitable candidate. The petitioner was appointed as officiating Principal just on promotion being senior most lecturer in the College on 1-7-81 and he has no right to hold that post as he faced the interview board for selection of the Principal. But he was unsuccessful, rather the petitioner in second writ petition was successful, and according to his case he joined the post on the appointment letter issued by the management as a consequence of the result declared by the commission. He could not however, continue as interim stay in first and third writ petition was operative and the operation of order of transfer of Tribhuwan Singh to the post of Principal of the College was stayed. Similarly an interim stay order dated 21-5-86 was obtained in the third writ petition and the interim stay in Writ Petition No. 1497 of 1982 dated 23-5-83 was to continue. We accordingly do not find the petitioner entitled to a writ of Mandamus commanding the District Inspector of Schools to regularise and approve the appointment of the petitioner in first and third writ petitions as Principal of the College in substantive vacancy. See AIR 1984 SC 1030 . 18, Applying Posteriori and Priori principles of reasoning and in view of the premises aforesaid, the first petition (Writ petition no 14975 of 1982 Mai Bahadur v. District Inspector of Schools and others) succeeds in part and is allowed to the extent that the order dated 8-12-82 (Annexure 11 to the first petition) appointing Sri Tribhuwan Singh, respondent no. 18, Applying Posteriori and Priori principles of reasoning and in view of the premises aforesaid, the first petition (Writ petition no 14975 of 1982 Mai Bahadur v. District Inspector of Schools and others) succeeds in part and is allowed to the extent that the order dated 8-12-82 (Annexure 11 to the first petition) appointing Sri Tribhuwan Singh, respondent no. 2 to the first writ petition, as Principal of the College by transfer, is quashed But the first and third writ petitions, in respect of remaining reliefs including for a writ of Certiorari quashing the proceedings for selection initiated and held by the commission for selection of principal of the College and to quash the letter of appointment dated 30-11-85 (Annexure 18 to the third writ petition) issued in favour of the petitioner in second writ petition, including for a relief of Mandamus directing the District Inspector of Schools to regularise the appointment of petitioner in first and third writ petitions on the post of Principal of the College, are hereby dismissed. 19. The second writ petition filed by Birendra Nath Singh (being writ petition no. 1120 of 1986) succeeds and is allowed. The District Inspector of Schools is directed to attest the signature of the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of the judgment is produced before him. It is, however, made clear that as the petitioner in first and third writ petitions continued as Principal on the basis of interim stay granted by this court from time to time, the acts done by him would be deemed to be valid and legal. The interim stay dt. 21-5-86 in third writ petition no. 7853 of 1986 or of any other date in any other petition are vacated. In this view of the matter the first writ petition (Writ petition no. 14975 of 1982 Mal Bahadur v. District Inspector of Schools and others) succeeds in part and the third writ petition (Writ petition no. 7853 of 1986, Mal Bahadur v. State of U.P. and others) is dismissed. Whereas the second writ petition (Writ petition No. 1120 of 1986 Birendra Nath Singh v. U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and others) is allowed as indicated above. We, however, refrain from making any order as to costs.