JUDGMENT R. M. Sahai, J. - Bandana Banerji and Smt. Chandrika Singh, undisputedly born in 1937 and 1945 respectively were appointed as Lecturer in Arya Kanya Pathshala Intermediate College, Mirzapur on 1st July, 1965, same day, and their appointment was approved by Regional Inspectress of Girls School, V Region, Varanasi also on same day, that is, 7th October, 1965. On 30th June, 1989 the permanent principal retired and a substantive vacancy arose, Smt. Singh appears to have been appointed as Principal. Regional Inspectress, however, directed Administrator on 7th July, 1988 to appoint Miss. Banerji. She was appointed on 9th July, 1988. Against her appointment Smt. Singh made representation. And after notice the Administrator decided that Smt. Singh was senior to Miss. Banerji. But, the R. I. G. S. on her representation observed that it was Miss. Banerji who was senior and entitled to continue. Both these orders were challenged in this Court, and the two petitions filed by Miss. Banerji and Smt. Singh, being numbered 23007 and 23008 of 1988 respectively were heard and decided by this Court on 24th October, 1989. Both the orders were held without jurisdiction. A direction was issued to the authorised Controller to make immediate appointment of ad hoc principal on merits. The bench further made it clear if controversy of seniority of Miss. Banerji and Smt. Chandraka Singh arose before any competent authority the same shall be disposed of by it on merits in accordance with law. 2. Since one of arguments advanced was that promotion or appointment as ad hoc principal does not involve or necessitate determination of seniority of the teacher the question of seniority cannot be said to have been an issue which could have been gone into by the Authorised Controller and this very determination earlier, by the two authorities having been quashed principally because they had gone into question of seniority the claim of petitioner that the authorised Controller acted erroneously much less palpably illegally was misconceived. In the alternative it was submitted that the Bench was satisfied on arguments and on material on record that Smt. Singh was senior in view of earlier resolution and circumstances, therefore, it did not permit issue of seniority to be raised and directed the authorised Controller to make immediate appointment of ad hoc principal in accordance with law and the same having been done under Section 18 of U. P. Act V of 1982 the occasion to interfere with the order was non-existant. 3. What has been adjudicated upon by the Bench was that permanent vacancy of Principal having arisen the exercise of power either by Authorised Controller or R. I. G. S. under Chapter 11 Regulation 2(3) was illegal. And an ad hoc principal could be appointed only either under Act V of 1982 or the Removal of Difficulties Order issued under it. It is not disputed that for appointment as ad hoc principal by promotion under paragraph-4 of the 1st Removal of Difficulties Order seniority amongst the teachers is the criteria. But for ad hoc appointment under Section 18 of Act V of 1982 clause (b) reads as under : (b) the post of such teacher has actually remained vacant for more than two months, then, the management may appoint, by direct recruitment or promotion, a teacher on purely ad hoc basis from amongst the persons possessing qualifications prescribed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations made thereunder." Therefore, it was urged that what was necessary to be seen was qualification and not seniority. Literally speaking, the argument may be correct. But can the provision be construed or understood in this manner. Under Chapter II of Regulations framed under U. P. Intermediate Education Act, an ad hoc or officiating principal either against a permanent or temporary vacancy could be appointed on seniority. Same scheme has been continued, under Removal of Difficulties Order and any ad hoc appointment either under paragraph 4 or paragraph 5 by promotion has to be made of the senior most teacher. Can this scheme be deemed to be given up for appointments under Section 18. In our opinion it cannot. Reasons are two fold, one that the clause purported to lay down qualification only, not only for promotion but ad hoc appointment by direct recruit also. It could not, therefore, provide that for promotion seniority should be criteria. Can this scheme be deemed to be given up for appointments under Section 18. In our opinion it cannot. Reasons are two fold, one that the clause purported to lay down qualification only, not only for promotion but ad hoc appointment by direct recruit also. It could not, therefore, provide that for promotion seniority should be criteria. In fact it was not necessary as Section 32 of the Act provides as under : "The provisions of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulations made thereunder in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provision of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder, shall continue to be in force for the purpose of selection, appointment promotion, dismissal, removal, termination or reduction in rank of a teacher." In absence of any provision to the contrary the provisions under Chapter II of Regulation framed under U. P. Intermediate Education Act for promotion which includes the provisions for fulfilling the post of head of Institution due to retirement temporarily by promoting the senior-most qualified teacher has to be read as part of Section I8(l)(b) of Act V of 1982. 4. Apart from it seniority for ad hoc or temporary or officiating appointment by promotion subject to being qualified is just and proper which should be adhered to. If the construction as suggested by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel or the learned counsel for opposite party is accepted it shall lead to arbitrariness and provide the management with a power to pick and choose which shall be destructive of the discipline in institutions and shall breed sycophancy than efficiency. 5. Seniority, therefore, of the qualified teacher has to be basis for ad hoc appointment of principal by promotion under Section 18(l)(b) of the Act V of 1982. Some dispute was raised initially on qualification but the amended regulations on qualification make both the teachers qualified to be appointed as principal as the mandatory requirement of training to alternative clause has been dropped and it has been provided that a first or second division graduate with ten years service and third division with 15 years shall be qualified, was it necessary then for Authorised Controller to enter into the controversy of seniority. To put it differently did the question of seniority arise ? To put it differently did the question of seniority arise ? In view of the construction of Section 18 it is obvious that only senior most teacher could have been appointed. Regulation 3 of Chapter II framed under U. P. Intermediate Act is extracted below : 3(a)........... (b) Seniority of teachers in a grade shall be determined on the basis of their substantive appointment in that grade. If two or more teachers were so appointed on the same date, seniority shall be determined on the basis of age ; On this regulation, therefore, there could be no doubt that petitioner is senior. But the learned counsel for opposite parties relied on resolution dated 11th August, 1968 passed by the Committee of Management, determining Smt. Singh as senior (Filed in Writ Petition No. 23008 of 1988) averment in paragraph 4 that Smt. Singh was teacher represented in 1970 in Committee of Management whereas Miss Banerji represented in 1971, seniority list sent by principal in 1976-77 and 1977-78, copies of which were filed as Annexures-2 and 3 and order, dated 15th September, 1981 determining seniority and acceptance by petitioner in her letter, dated 27th November, 1988 that Smt. Singh was senior to her (all documents and averments in Civil Misc. Writ No. 23008 of 1988 which were accepted and examined with consent of parties). Whereas the learned counsel for petitioner urged that the resolution, dated 11th August, 1968 which is basis of every order was passed behind back of petitioner without any knowledge or intimation. Letter, dated 21st July, 1982 written by Smt. Singh to R. I. G. S. to determine her seniority tiled with supplementary affidavit was relied to argue that the issue was very much alive. 6. However, the question of seniority in view of these facts has become a disputed question of fact which can effectively be determined by some authority entitled to appraise evidence. The observation of the Bench earlier also indicates that it did not accept claim of opposite party that the issue of seniority has become final. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits but taking guidance from paragraph 7 of the IV Removal of Difficulties Order, we are of opinion that the dispute of seniority connected with promotion having arisen, it may be decided by Deputy Director of Education. 7. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits but taking guidance from paragraph 7 of the IV Removal of Difficulties Order, we are of opinion that the dispute of seniority connected with promotion having arisen, it may be decided by Deputy Director of Education. 7. In the circumstances the petition is disposed of by directing the Deputy Director of Education to decide the dispute of seniority between the two teachers within one month from the date a copy of this order is produced before him and thereafter the ad hoc promotion as principal of the College shall be made on the basis of determination of seniority by Deputy Director of Education. 8. Till the disposal of the seniority dispute and consequent order passed on it within one week from the decision neither petitioner nor opposite party shall function as Principal. The functioning of the college shall be looked after by the Regional Inspectoress of Girls Schools. No costs. 9. A copy of this order may be issued to parties on payment of usual charges within three days.