JUDGMENT B. L. Yadav, J. 1. Whether the petitioner Indra Sen Verma or the respondent no, 3 Ram Swaroop Mathur, was the senior most lecturer so as to be appointed as ad hoc Principal in Kali Prasad Intermediate College, Allahabad, (for short the College), whether the provisions of Regulation 2 framed under Chapter II under sections 16-E and 16-F etc. of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, (for short the Act), or the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (1st) Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, (for short the Removal of Difficulties Order), would be applicable, and in case of dispute about the seniority, whether matter can be referred to the Deputy Director of Education and thereafter appeal would lie to the Director, and whether the petitioner was entitled to the writ of Mandamus prayed for, are the short questions for our determination in. the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The portrayal of essential facts are these. According to the petitioner he was appointed in lecturer's grade in the clear vacancy and on substantive basis on 2nd August, 1956 and respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 were appointed as lecturer on substantive basis on the dates subsequent to the date of appointment of the petitioner, therefore, he was senior most lecturer in the college on the basis of substantive appointment and length of service. On the other hand, according to respondent no. 3, he was appointed in L. T. Grade on 22-7-1952, and, thereafter, he was promoted as Lecturer on 18-8-1956 (vide para 29, annexure-16 of the counter affidavit), whereas the petitioner was confirmed as Lecturer since 31-7-1959 and not since 1-9-1958 or 11-2-1959, therefore the petitioner was not senior most lecturer in the college on the basis of substantive appointment and longest period of continuous service in lecturer's grade. 3. A provisional seniority list was prepared on 10-6 87 by the Additional Secretary of the Committee of Management to which the petitioner objected. But later on seniority list of all the Assistant Teachers including lecturer's grade was circulated and objections were invited by the Additional secretary The petitioner having seen that seniority list and finding it erroneous, made a representation on 2-2-84, which was recommended as such by the Principal and Manager (vide Annexure-3). But later on seniority list of all the Assistant Teachers including lecturer's grade was circulated and objections were invited by the Additional secretary The petitioner having seen that seniority list and finding it erroneous, made a representation on 2-2-84, which was recommended as such by the Principal and Manager (vide Annexure-3). The District Inspector of Schools passed an order on 5-3-84 correcting the date of appointment of the petitioner and fixed the petitioner's pay in selection grade of lecturer and accepted the date of appointment as 2-8-56. One Chandra Mohan the Principal of the college retired on 30-6-88 and a clear vacancy arose for the post of Principal The petitioner oemg senior most Lecturer was entitled to be appointed under regulation 2 framed under chopier II under sections 16-E and 16-F of tie Act, Out illegally an Ram Swaroop Mathur, respondent no. 3 has been appointed by the Committee of Management as Principal. 4. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 6 and the allegations contained in the writ petition have been denied. It was averred in para 4 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner stands at serial no. 4 in the seniority list, whereas Ram Swaroop Mathur, respondent no. 3, Ram Chandra Srivastava and Shamsher Bahadur Singh, respondent no. 5, stand at serial no. 1, 2 and 3. The petitioner could not, therefore, be senior most lecturer and was not entitled to be appointed as ad hoc Principal on the vacancy caused by the retirement of Sri Chandra Mohan. It was further averred that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Hindi on purely ad hoc basis on 2-8-56 and continued to function as such only till 15 days. This substantive vacancy was filled up by selection of respondent no. 4 Ram Chandra Srivastava, who joined the post as Lecturer on 18-8-56 and the petitioner's appointment on ad hoc basis came to an end on 17-8-56. Just on compassionate ground the petitioner was offered part time job as Lecturer on a fixed salary of Rs.80/- per month and Rs.12/- as D. A. The petitioner worked on this part time job till 31-8-56. He was not given any grade or designation of lecturer. A copy of the letter of appointment dated 18-8-56 has been filed as Annexure CA 1 (vide para 5 of the counter affidavit). He was not given any grade or designation of lecturer. A copy of the letter of appointment dated 18-8-56 has been filed as Annexure CA 1 (vide para 5 of the counter affidavit). The petitioner was again appointed in leave vacancy from 1-9-56 to 31-7-57, as one Sri Ganpat Verma, Lecturer in Hindi, proceeded on leave with effect from 1-9-56 to 31-7-57. But was later permitted to continue for a year more. As Sri Ganpat Verma resigned, as alleged, on 31-7-58, a substantive vacancy was created and the petitioner was absorbed as lecturer on 1-9-58 and the Committee of Management resolved to confirm the petitioner on the said post since 1-9-58, the date when he joined on the, substantive post. The District Inspector of Schools, however, rejected the proposal of the Committee of Management and directed the petitioner to continue on probation since 1-9-58, and he was to be confirmed on 31-7-59 and from that date he was entitled to join Provident Fund Scheme (vide Annexure CAs. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 to the COUNTER Affidavit). It was further stated in the counter affidavit that Sri Ram Swaroop Mathur was senior most lecturer in the College and he was at serial no. 1, hence, he was appointed in view of Clause 4 of the (First) Secondary Education Service Commission Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, as he was senior most lecturer having put in longest continuous service. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being senior most lecturer, was entitled to be appointed as ad hoc Principal, even though the seniority list prepared by the Committee of Management did not reflect that, and the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the District Inspector of Schools and the same was pending. It was further urged that respondent no. 3 Sri Ram Swaroop Mathur being junior to the petitioner, could not be appointed as ad hoc Principal by the Committee of Management nor he could have been appointed as such under the First Secondary Education Service Commission Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 and the appointment of respondent no. 3 was manifestly erroneous. It was further urged that respondent no. 3 Sri Ram Swaroop Mathur being junior to the petitioner, could not be appointed as ad hoc Principal by the Committee of Management nor he could have been appointed as such under the First Secondary Education Service Commission Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 and the appointment of respondent no. 3 was manifestly erroneous. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, urged that as indicated above, as the petitioner was not the senior most nor his name finds place as such in the seniority list prepared by the Committee of Management (vide Annexure-10 to the petition), where the petitioner was shown at serial no. 4. Against that the petitioner himself preferred a representation to the Manager/President of the College (vide Annexure-11 to the petition), and after considering the petitioner's objection, a final seniority list was prepared by the Committee of Management, in which the petitioner stands at serial no. 4 and respondent no. 3, 4 and 5 are at serial nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively (vide Annexure-15 to the petition). Against the final seniority list the petitioner preferred an appeal under Regulation 3 (1) under Chapter II framed under sections 16-A, 16-B, 16-C, 16- E and 16-F of the Act (vide Annexure-16 to the petition) and, that appeal is still pending. Hence it could not be said that the petitioner was senior most, as he was neither shown in the seniority list, either provisional or final, nor he was as such by any decision of the District Inspector of Schools. The petitioner cannot, therefore, be entitled to be appointed as adhoc Principal. The substantive appointment has to be made by the Commission as constituted under the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1981. But as yet no such decision has been taken by the Commission, by that time the senior most lecturer, respondent no. 3 as appointed by the Committee of Management, should be permitted to continue. The substantive appointment has to be made by the Commission as constituted under the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1981. But as yet no such decision has been taken by the Commission, by that time the senior most lecturer, respondent no. 3 as appointed by the Committee of Management, should be permitted to continue. However, it was a disputed question of fact as to whether the petitioner was senior most lecturer as even his date of appointment as lecturer was not correct and just for 15 days, since 2-8-56 to 17- 8-56, he has worked as ad hoc lecturer, but was appointed on 18-8-56 as a part time teacher on a fixed salary of Rs.80/- per month and Rs.12/- as D. A. This was not certainly salary of a lecturer. Whereas Sri Ram Swaroop Mathur, respondent no. 3 was working on substantive post since 18-8-56 (vide Annexure-16). Even though the appointment of Sri Ram Swaroop Mathur could be disputed by the petitioner, in that event the proper procedure was to have referred the matter to Deputy Director of Education, who could have decided the controversy and, thereafter, the appeal, if any, could have been disposed of by the Director of Education in view of the relevant provisions of para 7 of U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission First (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, as amended by para 3 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Removal of Difficulties (Fourth) Order, 1982. But the petitioner did not avail of this alternative remedy, which he must have availed. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Reliance was placed on Ramji Tripathi v. Additional Director of Education (Madhyamik), 1985 UP LB EC 645 and Km. Nishi Bhargava v. Dy. Director of Education, 1987 Education Cases 131. 5. A provisional seniority list of lecturers and other teachers of the College was published, wherein the petitioner was shown at serial no. 4 and Sri Ram Swaroop Mathur, respondent no. 3 was shown at serial no. 1 (vide Annexure-10 to the petition). The petitioner made a representation to the Committee of Management against the above seniority list (Annexure-11 to the petition), and after considering the same a final seniority list was published (vide Annexure-15 to the petition), to the same effect indicating the petitioner at serial no. 4. 3 was shown at serial no. 1 (vide Annexure-10 to the petition). The petitioner made a representation to the Committee of Management against the above seniority list (Annexure-11 to the petition), and after considering the same a final seniority list was published (vide Annexure-15 to the petition), to the same effect indicating the petitioner at serial no. 4. Against that final seniority list the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District inspector of Schools under Regulation 3 (1) (f), of Chapter II of the Act (vide Annexure-16 to the petition), and the same is still pending. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that in the appeal before the District Inspector of Schools several questions of fact may be looked into and scrutinised before arriving at a conclusion as to whether the petitioner was senior most lecturer or respondent no. 3. In this view of the matter, the petitioner has availed the alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the seniority list wherein he was shown at serial no. 4. As the petitioner has availed the alternative remedy the judicial propriety requires that he should wait till the disposal of that appeal. Alternative remedy is not an absolute bar, but in certain cases is is just and imperative to direct him to wait the result of the same, particularly, in a case where he has already availed that remedy. 6. Reverting to next question as to whether an ad hoc appointment could be made under First Proviso to Regulation 2 of Chapter II of the Act, or under para 4 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (First) Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, after the enforcement of U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 (for short the Selection Boards Act, 1982). In' view of section 33-A thereof, the provisions of the Act would not apply, when they were not consistent with the provisions of the Selection Boards Act, 1982. To carry out the different provisions of Selection Boards Act, 1982, as there was difficulty, different Removal of Difficulties Order have been framed and it is the First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, which was applicable to solve the present problem. It is, therefore, para 4 of the Secondary Education Service Commission First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 that would apply. It is, therefore, para 4 of the Secondary Education Service Commission First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 that would apply. As the matter as yet could not be referred to the Commission in view of section 18 of the Selection Boards Act, 1982, learned counsel for the parties conceded that no reference has yet been made, hence the provisions of section 18 of the Selection Board Act, 1982, would not apply in terms for the appointment of ad hoc Principal. In Km. Nishi Bhargava v. Dy. Director of Education, (Supra), a Division Bench of this Court held as follows : "An ad hoc appointment made by the management could be deemed under section 18 (1) only if the vacancy has been notified. Therefore, in the absence of the notification of vacancy or any provision providing for deeming vacancy to be notified except the one mentioned in sub-rule (6) of Rule 4, no ad hoc appointment can be deemed to be under section 18 (1) (a), nor section 18 (1) (b) is of any assistance. In the result it was held that such ad hoc appointment where vacancy has not been notified can be made under the Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, as amended from time to time" It is, therefore, the Removal of Difficulties Order under which such appointments of ad hoc Principal could be made and not under section 18 or 16. We are accordingly of the view that the appointment of respondent no. 3 Sri Ram Swaroop Mathur as ad hoc Principal has been made under the U.P. Education Service Commission Removal of Difficulties (First) Order, 1981 and that would continue till the question of seniority has been decided by the District Inspector of Schools or the dispute is decided by the Deputy Director of Education in view of para 7 of the (First) Removal of Difficulties Order as amended by para 4 of the Fourth Removal of Difficulties Order. Coming to the next question, in case of dispute between the petitioner and the Committee of Management or Sri Ram Swaroop Mathur about the appointment of ad hoc Principal, the proper course in view of para 7 of First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, read with para 4 of the Fourth Removal of Difficulties Order, the aggrieved person was to refer the dispute before the Deputy Director of Education and thereafter to prefer an appeal before the Director of Education See Ramji Tripathi v. Addl. Director of Education, 1985 UP LB EC 645. The petitioner failed to avail that remedy open to him, which was the only proper remedy under the circumstances of the case. We are conscious that alternative remedy may not be an absolute bar when it is futile, but where it is not convenient, particularly when the circumstances of the case are such and the investigation is required in an enormous way, if that is pursued, the complicated questions of fact may be solved to the benefit of the petitioner, in that event the petitioner has to be directed to seek the alternative remedy-See Fitterco v. C. S. T. AIR 1986 SC 626 . In the present case it is proper that the petitioner must be relegated to avail of the remedy available to him under para 7 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 read with para 4 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Fourth) Removal of Difficulties Order. 7. Now reverting to the last question as to whether the present case involves a complicated question of fact and whether the same could be examined in the writ jurisdiction of this Court, by perusal of the writ petition, counter and rejoinder affidavits, we are satisfied that to decide as to whether the petitioner was senior or respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 were senior to the petitioner, is an uphill task. So many records of the institution which have not been filed are required to be looked into besides the orders passed by the District Inspector of Schools and the Committee of Management. 8. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of Mandamus, is also an important aspect. No doubt the language in which Article 226 of the Constitution is couched has got a very wide sweep. 8. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of Mandamus, is also an important aspect. No doubt the language in which Article 226 of the Constitution is couched has got a very wide sweep. This Court, no doubt, has got power to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ where injustice has been done. The writ of Mandamus can be issued where the public authority, i.e. the District Inspector of Schools, Deputy Director and Director of Education have failed to exercise its jurisdiction or wrongfully exercised its discretion or power conferred upon it by a statute. In all such cases this Court can compel the public authority to perform public duty in a proper way as required under law. But whereas in the present case the petitioner has just approached the District Inspector of Schools and his appeal is pending there. He did not approach the Deputy Director of Education or the Director of Education as provided under para 7 of the (First) Removal of Difficulties Order read with para 4 of the (Fourth) Removal of Difficulties Order. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the writ of Mandamus-See Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. K. S. Jagannathan, (1986) 2 SCC 679 ; State of Kerala v. A. Lakshmi Kutty, (1986) 4 SCC 632 . Particularly in such matters where the complicated question of fact is involved, it is better that the authority concerned should be directed to decide the controversy between the parties at an early date by looking into relevant records and by ascertaining the correct facts. 9. Applying posteriori and priori reasoning, we are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief at this stage. The petitioner having already filed an appeal against the seniority list, he may avail of that remedy. 10. We accordingly direct the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him. Similarly as the petitioner was aggrieved from the disputed appointment of respondent no. 3 Sri Ram Swaroop Mathur as ad hoc Principal, the proper remedy for him was to have referred the dispute before the Director of Education, who would dispose of the same. Similarly as the petitioner was aggrieved from the disputed appointment of respondent no. 3 Sri Ram Swaroop Mathur as ad hoc Principal, the proper remedy for him was to have referred the dispute before the Director of Education, who would dispose of the same. Thereafter the remedy was by way of appeal before the Deputy Director of Education. WE, therefore, direct that in case the appeal is preferred before the Director of Education, the same shall be disposed of within two months thereof. The writ petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. The interim stay order dated 7-7-88 is vacated. Petition dismissed.