JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. - These four writ petitions are in respect of appointment of Principal in Arya Kanya Intermediate College, Tanda, district Faizabad. Different reliefs have been claimed in these writ petitions and that is why all these petitions have been heard together and counsel of these petitions have been heard. 2. Writ Petition No. 4210 of 1987 has been filed by Smt. Maya Saxena praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to promote her on the post of Principal of the institution against the vacancy occurring on the retirement of Smt. Gunwati Grover with effect from 1-7-87 on ad hoc basis till a candidate duly selected by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission joins the post and for quashing the resolution of the opposite party No. 1 regarding promotion of Km. Veena Verma to the post of Principal of the institution. She has also prayed to direct opposite party No. 1 to promote her to the post of the principal on ad hoc basis according to the provisions of paragraph 2 to 4 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 and not to authorise payment of salary and allowances etc. to any person junior to the petitioner who may be appointed to the post of Principal. On 30-6-87 the court passed an interim order that meanwhile if any order for promotion of any person other than the petitioner is made, the same shall be subject to further orders of this court. 3. Writ Petition No. 7416 of 1987 has been filed by Km. Veena Verma who was appointed as Principal of the said college on ad hoc basis after retirement of Smt. Gunwati Grover. She has prayed for quashing of the order dated 20-7-87 passed by Regional Inspects of Girls Schools and not to interfere with the functioning of the petitioner as officiating Principal of the said college. 4. Writ petition No. 1238 of 1988 has been filed by the Committee of Management on 18-2-88 praying for a writ of mandamus commanding opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 to notify the vacancy of the Head of the Institution within a reasonable time and appoint a panel for selection to the post of Head of the institution. 5. Writ Petition No. 5702 of 1988 has been filed Mrs. 5. Writ Petition No. 5702 of 1988 has been filed Mrs. Urmila Pandey on 28-7-88 praying for a writ of mundamus directing opposite parties 1 to 3 to declare the appointment of Km. Veena Verma in the Lecturers grade as illegal ; not to send the name of Km. Veena Verma to the Commission till the validity of her appointment in the Lecturers grade is not finally decided ; to direct opposite party No. 1 to decide the representation dated 16-9-87 and 22-5-88 and also decide the matter referred to him under Section 16(E)( 10) of the Act. She has further prayed for directing opposite party No. 6 not to make any selection for the post of Principal of the College. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties in all the petitions. Mrs. Urmila Pandey has come forward with the case that Smt. Maya Saxena, un doubly, was senior most lecturer and she was senior to Km. Veena Verma who has been appointed as ad-hoc Principal and although her representation in this behalf has not been considered. Her case is that Km. Veena Verma does not possess post-graduate degree in Home Science and as such her appointment in Lecturers grade in the college is illegal and void ab-initio. In this petition the court passed an interim order that if the name of opposite party No. 5 is forwarded to the Education Service Commission, the selection process may go on but the same shall not be finalised. The petitioner made a representation on 19-8-87 to the management of the college in which it was pointed out that she does not even possess post-graduate degree in Home Science and as such she could not be appointed as Lecturer and she was senior to her. The manager vide letter dated 9-9-87 gave reply to her representation in so far as it pertains to her pay scale and that of Km. Veena Verma. The petitioner again made representation on 11-9-87 claiming seniority and Lecturers grade and questioning the appointment of Km. Veena Verma as Principal on ad-hoc basis and as no reply was given by the Manager, she preferred an appeal before the Regional Inspect of Girls Schools on 16-9-87 which too is still pending. According to the petitioner opposite party No. 3 has written to opposite party No. 1 that the appointment of Km. Veena Verma as Principal on ad-hoc basis and as no reply was given by the Manager, she preferred an appeal before the Regional Inspect of Girls Schools on 16-9-87 which too is still pending. According to the petitioner opposite party No. 3 has written to opposite party No. 1 that the appointment of Km. Veena Verma in Lecturers grade was illegal and as such the matter was referred to him under Section 16-E of the Act for consideration. It has been pointed out that despite several representations etc. the names of Smt. Maya Saxena and Km. Veena Verma have been forwarded to the Education Service Commission for appointment on the post of Principal. 7. Smt. Maya Saxena was appointed as Lecturer on probation on 2-7-64 and she was confirmed on 2-7-65 and promoted to the selection grade with effect from 4-3-78. It appears that she was not having good relations with the then Principal or the management as is evident from the affidavit of the management that the manager was influenced by her and whenever previous Principal was on leave she was appointed as Principal to the exclusion of the petitioner. It transpires that the state of affairs of the institution are very bad in as much as two teachers claim to represent by rotation on the Committee of Management but in this institution two teachers continued as such for a period of ten years and no rotation took place. Km. Veena Verma admittedly became a lecturer in the year 1974 and obviously she is junior to the petitioner Smt. Maya Saxena. The Committee of Management after retirement of Smt. Gunwati Grover passed a resolution on 29-6-87 to the effect that Smt. Maya Saxena is involved in groups and there are charges of indiscipline and her activities are against the institution and her integrity is doubtful and she had no experience of administration of the institution and, therefore, she should hand over the charge of the post of the Principal of the institution as the same is not in the interest of the institution. This was done when Smt. Gunwati Grover was on leave for a short while and she represented that it is she who be made as in charge. This was done when Smt. Gunwati Grover was on leave for a short while and she represented that it is she who be made as in charge. Earlier the management tried to terminate her services, against which, matter went to the Deputy Director of Education who vide order dated 4-5-75 pointed out that whatever action was taken against the petitioner Smt. Maya Saxena was only out of prejudice. Against the order passed by Deputy Director of Education the management approached the High Court and filed writ petition which was dismissed and special leave petition was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Committee of Management vide its resolution dated 29-6-87 although resolved out that Smt. Maya Saxena was senior most lecturer but as there were charges of indiscipline and group ism against her and her activities were not in the interest of the institution and her integrity was doubtful and she had no administrative experience and as such it was not proper to appoint her as Principal and consequently Km. Veena Verma who had good record of service and administrative experience was appointed as principal of the institution. Subsequently an application was moved for voluntary retirement by the petitioner. The management passed a resolution that the writ petition has become in fructuous although it has admitted that she can continue up to June, 1989. The petitioner Smt. Maya Saxena has refuted the allegation of the management and stated that the writ petition has not become in fructuous as she will continue upto the month of June, 1989. 8. On behalf of opposite parties it has been stated that the petitioner had adverse entries for the years 1983-84, 84-85, 85-86 and 86-87 and as such she was not considered fit for being appointed as Principal of the college. The petitioner has strongly refuted this allegation and stated that adverse entries were never communed to her and despite her challenge no document was filed along with any affidavit to indicate that adverse entries were in fact communicated to her. The petitioner has strongly refuted this allegation and stated that adverse entries were never communed to her and despite her challenge no document was filed along with any affidavit to indicate that adverse entries were in fact communicated to her. The contention of the petitioner thus appears to be correct that the effect of earlier adverse entries stood wiped out when she was allowed to cross efficiency bar with effect from 2-7-86 and under Regulation 54-A of Chapter III of the regulations made under the Intermediate Education Act no teacher shall be allowed to cross-efficiency bar unless he has proved himself a competent teacher-exercises a healthy influence on the students, co-operates in the maintenance of discipline and in co-curricular activities, remains loyal to the institution and his integrity is certified. Once the management allowed her to cross efficiency bar, the effect of earlier entries stood against her were wiped out. The management has come forward with the case that the management vide its resolution dated 26-5-87 i.e. during vacations and a month before Smt. Gunwati Grover was to retire as principal passed a resolution withholding her E.B. and had also passed a resolution on 2-6-87. In her reply the petitioner has pointed out that all this was done during vacation and she was not given any opportunity to make representation against these entries. She denied of having received any such communication to her. It has not been explained as to how in the year 1986 on 2-7-86 when the petitioner was allowed to cross efficiency bar this resolution could have been passed by the Committee of Management or how the Committee of Management could have with held it. Subsequently the petitioner submitted a representation against the same to the Regional Inspectors of Girls Schools which is still pending. 9. On behalf of the petitioner reliance has been placed on paragraphs 2 to 4 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981. Said paragraphs 2 to 4 read as under "2. The management of an institution may appoint by promotion or by direct recruitment a teacher on purely ad hoc basis in accordance with the provisions of this Order in the case of a substantive vacancy caused by death, retirement, resignation or otherwise. 3. Said paragraphs 2 to 4 read as under "2. The management of an institution may appoint by promotion or by direct recruitment a teacher on purely ad hoc basis in accordance with the provisions of this Order in the case of a substantive vacancy caused by death, retirement, resignation or otherwise. 3. Every appointment of an adhoc teacher under paragraph 3 shall cease to have effect when a candidate recommended by the Commission or the Board, as the case may be, joins the post. 4. (1) Every vacancy in the post of the Head of an Institution may be filed by promotion. (a) In the case of an Intermediate College, by senior most teacher of the institution in the Lecturers grade." Explanation : For the purposes of clauses (1) to (4) of this paragraph the expression "senior most teacher" means the teacher having longest continuance service in the institution in the Lecturers grade or the trained graduate (L.T.) grade, or trained under graduate (CT) -grade or JTC or B.T.C. grade, as the case may be." The U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removul of Difficulties) Order, 1981 obviously continued to remain in force notwithstanding coming into force of U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982. This question was considered by a Division Bench of this court of which one of us (U.C. Srivastava, J.) was a member in Syed Ali Adil Jafri v. State of U.P. and others, (1984) UPLBEC 488) in which it was held that the operation of Removal of Difficulties Order will continue to remain in force even after constitution of the Commission. Paragraph 4 of the Removal of Difficulties Order provides that it is the senior most teacher of the institution in lecturers grade can be appointed as an interim Principal. In view of this provision it is the senior-most teacher who is to be appointed as Principal of the institution. In this view, the petitioner was entitled to be appointed as Principal and merely because a dispute was going on with the management and the management has passed orders against the petitioner and did not allow her to act as Principal, the management could not deprive the petitioner to act as Principal in this manner and that is why the petitioner challenged the same on various grounds including on the ground of mala fides and deliberate act on the part of the management. The petitioner is to retire on 30-6-89, as such she was entitled to be appointed as Principal after exit of Smt Gunwati Grover. As such Smt. Maya Saxena henceforth will act as Principal of the institution and the management, if necessary, may pass formal orders in this behalf. She will also be entitled to the emoluments of the Principal from the very beginning. This appointment will continue till 30th June, 1989 or tili new person is appointed by the Service Commission takes over. Writ Petition No. 4210 of 1987 is allowed to this extent and in these terms. W.P. No. 7416 of 1987 is dismissed. Mrs. Urmila Pandey has filed writ petition praying that Km. Veena Verma is not entitled to act as Principal. This matter can be considered by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and it will consider all aspects of the matter and will decide as to who is to be appointed as Principal. While Smt. Maya Saxena is appointed as Principal, the Commission may call for other names of other senior teachers other than Smt. Maya Saxena as well. All this controversy would not have been arisen in case a regular Principal would have been appointed by the Commission. W.P. No. 1238 of 1988 is deducted in answer. 10. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the Committee of Management i.e. W.P. 1238 of 1987, is allowed to the extent that U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission is directed to expedite the matter for appointment of a permanent Principal of the institution in accordance with law. This disposes of all the four writ petitions. There will be no order as to costs.