JUDGMENT S.D.Agarwala J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Baba Baruadas Mahavidyalaya, Purajya Ashram, Faizabad, is a college affiliated to the Faizabad University and is governed by the provisions of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as 'Universities Act'. The post of the Principal of the College fell vacant. In accordance with the provisions of U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, hereinafter referred to as 'Commission Act', the vacancy was reported to the Commission constituted by the above Commission Act. The Commission advertised the said post. The petitioner was one of the applicants. Dr. Ram Vyas Tripathi who was lecturer in the said College was also one of the applicants. The Commission after following the procedure laid down in the Commission Act and the Rules framed therein made a recommendation under section 13 of the Commission Act that the petitioner Dr. R. K. Markandey, be appointed as Principal of the said College. This letter was issued by the Commission on 5th June, 1986. The direction was issued to the Management of the aforesaid College to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner as he was selected for the said post. 3. The petitioner waited for three months after the issue of the letter by the Commission and since the letter for appointment was not issued by the Management of the College the present writ petition was filed in this Court on 17-9-1986, inter alia, for a relief that a writ of mandamus be issued for appointment of the petitioner and it was further prayed that the Director of Higher Education, Allahabad who has been impleaded as respondent No. 1 be directed to take steps as required by Section 15 (2) of the Commission Act. This petition came up before a Bench of this Court for admission on 17-9-1986 and the following interim order was passed by this Court :- "Heard Counsel. This petition came up before a Bench of this Court for admission on 17-9-1986 and the following interim order was passed by this Court :- "Heard Counsel. Let interim mandamus issue directing the Director of Higher Education, Allahabad, respondent No. I, to enquire into the representation made by the petitioner dated 18th August, 1986 (Annexure 'III'; in the matter of selection made of the petitioner for appointment as Principal Baba Baruadas M iha- vidyalaya, Pnraiya Ashram, Faizabad, as contemplated under section 15 (2) of the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 and thereafter issue requisite direction to the Committee of Management to issue letter of appointment to the petitioner, within four weeks from the date of the presentation of the certified copy of this order before him or show cause. The petitioner is permitted to serve respondent No. 2 personally also." 4. In pursuance of the above order passed by the Court since the Management did not issue any appointment letter to the petitioner, the Director of Higher Education by an order dated January 7, 1987 issued a direction under section 15 (2) of the Commission Act asking the Manager of the College to appoint the petitioner by 28tb January, 1987 and permit the petitioner to take charge as Principal of the College and to work as such. It was further directed that in case the order was not complied with by the Management then action will be taken under section 15 (3) of the Commission Act. In spite of the direction issued by the Director and in spite of the fact that the petitioner made representation to the Management of the Institution asking him to issue a letter of appointment, no letter of appointment was issued by the Management of the College. 5. When the Management did not issue a letter of appointment to the petitioner, the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit bringing these facts to the notice of this Court. This Court thereafter by an order dated 4th May, 1987 gave a further direction to the Management of the College not to interfere in the petitioner's working as Principal of the College. The order dated 4th May, 1987 is quoted below ; "Issue notice. A supplementary affidavit has been filed today. This Court thereafter by an order dated 4th May, 1987 gave a further direction to the Management of the College not to interfere in the petitioner's working as Principal of the College. The order dated 4th May, 1987 is quoted below ; "Issue notice. A supplementary affidavit has been filed today. We direct the respondent No. 2 not to interfere with the petitioner's working as the Principal of Baba Baruadas Mahavidyalaya, Puraiya Ashram Faizabad until further orders." 6. In spite of the above direction issued by the Court the petitioner was not permitted to work as Principal of the College. When this petition was pending in this Court two writ petitions were filed in connection with the appointment of the petitioner in the Lucknow Bench of this Court. The first petition was filed by Sri Gaya Ram Pandey being Writ Petition No. 5212 of 1986 Gaya Ram Pandey v. U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Allahabad and others. By means of that petition selection of Dr. R. K. Markandey, petitioner in this petition was challenged. By judgment dated 23rd October, 1986 by the Bench consisting of Honourable K. J. Shetty, C. J. (as he then was) and Honourable Brijesh Kumar J., the petttion was dismissed. It was held that the selection of the petitioner was valid selection. The other petition which was filed was by the Management of the College being Writ Petition No. 6057 of 1986 Committee of Management v. State of U P. and others. The committee of management also challenged the validity of the selection of Dr R. K. Markandey for the post of the Principal of the said College. The challange was on the ground that since Dr. R. K. Markandey did not possess minimum qualifications prescribed for the post of Principal, his selection was illegal. The Bench by judgment dated 22nd October, 1986 consisting of Honourable K. J. Shetty, C J. (as he then was) and Honourable S. Sagir Ahmad, J) dismissed the petition. It was categorically held in the judgment that the members of the Commission had considered good academic record and high standard of research work of Dr. Markandey and consequently the minimum qualification required was relaxed by the Commission. It was further held that the Commission had power to relay the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of the Principal. It was categorically held in the judgment that the members of the Commission had considered good academic record and high standard of research work of Dr. Markandey and consequently the minimum qualification required was relaxed by the Commission. It was further held that the Commission had power to relay the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of the Principal. The ultimate finding of this Court was that the selection of the petititioner as Principal of the College was valid selection and it could not be possible to challange on the ground that he did not possess minimum qualification prescribed for the post of the Principal as they had been relaxed by the Commission. 7. In spite of the fact that both the petitions one by the Management and the other by the candidate who had not been selected, having failed, the petitioner was neither given an appointment letter nor was permitted to work on the post of the Principal of the College. 8. It may be relevant to mention here that at this stage Dr. Ram Vyas Tripathi, who is respondent No. 3 to this petition and is officiating as Principal of the College also filed another writ petition No. 1315 of 1989 Df. Ram Vyas Tripathi v. State of U. P. in the Lucknow Bench of this Court on the ground that he cannot be reverted from the post of officiating Principal as his services stands regularised under the U. P. Regularisation of Ad-hoc Promotions (On Posts within the perview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1988. This petition was also dismissed by the Lucknow Bench by judgment dated 13th February, 1989 by the Bench consisting of Honourable S. Sagir Ahmad and Honourable Brijesh Kumar, JJ. As already stated above on 7th January, 1987 the Director of Higher Education had passed an order under section 15 (2) of the Commission Act directing the Management to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner by 28th January, 1987. This was not done by the Management and consequently On 5 th January, 1988 Director of Higher Education issued another order under section 15 (3) of the Act directing the management to pay to the petitioner with effect from 29th January, 1987 to 30th January, 1987 Rs. 350.10 p. being difference of pay which petitioner was receiving as Lecturer and that of the Principal of the College. 350.10 p. being difference of pay which petitioner was receiving as Lecturer and that of the Principal of the College. This order of the Director under section 15 (3) had also not till now been executed. 9. The effect of the order of the Director was that the petitioner was treated as Principal of the College with effect from 29 th January, 1987. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after the petitioner was selected and his name having been recommended by the Commission for appointment as Principal of the College under the Commission Act, the petitioner is entitled to work on the post of Principal and he is also entitled to salary with effect from 29th January, 1987 in view of the certificate issued by the Director under section 15 of the Commission Act. 10. The Management of the College has filed counter affidavit in this petition but no body appeared to contest this petition before us at the time of hearing. Only the counsel for the respondent No. 3 Dr. Ram Vyas Tripathi appeared to contest this petition. Dr. Ram Vyas Tripathi is just an officiating Principal appointed by the College after the vacancy was caused and till the candidate recommended by the Commission joins the post in question. The Universities Act initially governed appointment of the teachers in the affiliated and associated College of the Universities which were governed by the Universities Act. It is not disputed that the College in the instant case was governed by the provisions of the Universities Act, In the year 1980 Commission Act was enacted by the Legislature to establish Services Commission for the selection of the teachers for appointment to the Colleges affiliated to or recognised by the University, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. This Act was enacted with a purpose to appoint teachers as well as Principals in the affiliated and associated Colleges in accordance with merit. Under Section 3 of the Commission Act, U. P. Higher Education Services Commission was constituted. The College was obliged to intimate the vacancy in the College to the Commission. Section 12 of the Commission Act provides that after the appointment of a teacher of any College shall after the commencement of the Act be made by the management only on the recommendation of the Commission. The expression teacher includes Principal. The College was obliged to intimate the vacancy in the College to the Commission. Section 12 of the Commission Act provides that after the appointment of a teacher of any College shall after the commencement of the Act be made by the management only on the recommendation of the Commission. The expression teacher includes Principal. In the circumstances there was a mandate laid down under the Commission Act that no appointment of a teacher or Principal of an affiliated College can be made unless the management receives recommendation of the Commission for the said appointment. Section 13 of the Act provides that as soon as the Commission receives intimation of the vacancy it shall take steps for recommending a candidate to fill the said vacancy. Section 14 of the Commission Act which is relevant for the decision of this petition provides for the manner in which the management shall make an appointment on the vacant post. It is quoted below :- "14. Duty to make appointments (1) The management shall, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of recommendation of the Commission under section 13 issue appointment letter to the candidate whose name appears on the top in the order of preference. (2) Where the candidate referred to in sub-section (1) fails to join the post within the time allowed in the appointment letter, or within such extended time as the management may allow in this behalf or where such candidate is otherwise not available for appointment, the management shall within a reasonable period issue appointment letter to the next candidate recommended by the Commission and the Process shall be repeated till the names of the candidates so recommended are exhausted." 11. The above section clearly provides that after the receipt of the recommendation of the Commission, the management is obliged to issue an appointment letter to the candidate whose name appears on the top in the order of preference, In case the candidate at the top in order of preference is not available or does not join the post, then appointment letter has to be issued to the next candidate recommended by the Commission. 12. 12. Section 15 gives power to the Director to issue an order to a management who fails to appoint a teacher on the recommendation made by the Commission to appoint the said teacher forthwith and to pay him salary from the date specified in the order. If in spite of this order no appointment is made then under section 16 (3) of the Commission Act Director is empowered to issue a certificate to the teacher concerned in regard to his salary which is recoverable by the Collector as arrears of land Revenue. Section 15 of the Commission Act which requires interpretation in the petition is also quoted below :- "15. Inquiry by Directors : (1) Where any person is entitled to be appointed as a teacher in an any college in accordance with section 12 to 14, but he is not so appointed by the management within the time provided therefor, he may apply to the Director for a direction under subsection (2). (2) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), the Director may hold an enquiry and if he is satisfied that the management has failed to appoint the applicant as a teacher in contravention of the provisions of this Act, he may by order require : (a) the management to appoint the applicant as a teacher forthwith, and to pay him salary from the date specified in the order, and (b) the principal of the College concerned to take work from him as a teacher. (3) The amount of salary, if any, due to such teacher shail, on a certificate issued by the1 Director, be recoverable by the Collector as arrears of land revenue." From the Scheme of the entire Act it is clear that a teacher which includes a principal, can only be appointed by the management of an affiliated College who has been recommended by the Commission after selection having been duly held by the Commission in accordance with the Commission Act and the management cannot fill in the vacancy in the College in any other manner. On a reading of section 14 read with Section 15 of the Act, in our opinion, it is clear that if the management does not appoint a teacher in spite of the recommendation made by the Commission and thereafter by an order passed by the Director of Higher Education under section 15 of the Act, then the management is liable to pay to the teachers including the Principal, salary due with effect from the date fixed by the Director under section 15 of the Act. By Section 15 of the Act the Legislature intended to lay down a date of appointment of a teacher including the Principal in case the management did not issue an appointment letter. In the instant case no appointment letter was issued by the management as required by the Director and consequently initially the Director passed order under section 15 (2) of the Act directing the management to give an appointment letter by 28th January, 1987. Since the management did not issue an appointment letter, the Director passed an order under sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Act quoted above directing that the petitioner be paid salary with effect from 29th January, 1987. In fact, therefore, in law, the petitioner would be deemed to have been appointed as Principal of the College in terms of Section 15 of the Commission Act with effect from 29th January, 1987 and consequently he would be entitled to his salary with effect from that date. 13. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, the officiating Principal has vehemently urged that the petitioner cannot be posted as Principal of the College as he does not possess the qualifications. This argument is wholly misconceived and mischevious. He is only the officiating Principal, he was not selected and further this court has already held that the petitioner was validly selected in Writ No. 6057 of 1986 mentioned above. 14. The facts of the petition shocks the conscience of the Court. The management as well as the officiating Principal of the College viz. Ram Vyas Tripathi, in our opinion have acted in a total disregard to the law and the order passed by this Court. The educational institutions and the teachers are expected to follow the law down and not to flout the same. The management as well as the officiating Principal of the College viz. Ram Vyas Tripathi, in our opinion have acted in a total disregard to the law and the order passed by this Court. The educational institutions and the teachers are expected to follow the law down and not to flout the same. This is one of those cases where a calculated effort has been made to frustrate the purpose of the Commission Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has in connection with the validity of the appointment of petitioner brought to our notice an order passed by the Vice Chancellor of Avadh University, Faizabad, Professor R. B. Misra, dated 29th November, 1989. This order was passed under Statute 11.34 of the First Statutes of the Avadh University. Statute 11.34 provides that wherever there is a dispute regarding the management of the affiliated College, persons found by the Vice Chancellor to be in actual possession and control of the College properties may for the purposes of the Act and Statutes be recognised to constitute the management of such College unless a Court of competent jurisdiction orders otherwise. This power of the Vice chancellor was only limited to the decision of the dispute regarding management of College. We have gone through the order. In the order, the Vice Chancellor has not only embarked upon to decide the dispute of the management but went into the validity of the selection of Dr. R. K. Markandey, petitioner in this case. This decision in regard to the validity of the selection of the petitioner could not have been gone by the Vice Chancellor. Any observation made by him is wholly without jurisdiction. In fact, it is clear that this matter was gone into by the Vice Chancellor in collusion either with the management of the College or with the respondent No. 3 Dr. Ram Vyas Tripathi. who is officiating Principal of the College though he was not duly selected by the Commission. The order of the Vice Chancellor is in complete disregard of the orders passed by the Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6057 of 1987 Committee of Management v. State of U. P. decided by Honourable K. J. Shetty, C. J. (as he then was) and Honourable S. Sagir Ahmad, J. on 27th October, 1987. The order of the Vice Chancellor is in complete disregard of the orders passed by the Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6057 of 1987 Committee of Management v. State of U. P. decided by Honourable K. J. Shetty, C. J. (as he then was) and Honourable S. Sagir Ahmad, J. on 27th October, 1987. This act of the Vice Chancellor is wholly improper and is not expected from such a high authority of an University. 15. The contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are well founded. The petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Principal of the College having been duly selected with effect from 29th January, 1987. In the circumstances we allow the petition and and direct firstly that the petitioner shall be treated as Principal of the College with effect from 29th January, 1987 and shall be paid his salary accordingly. He shall also be permitted to function as the Principal of the College from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Manager of the Institution. The salary shall be paid to the petitioner by the Director of Higher Education, Allahabad from the account of the College Secondly, we direct that Dr. Ram Vyas Tripathi shall cease to officiate as Principal of the College and shall be deemed to be so with effect from 29th January, 1987. The Director of Higher Education is directed to take steps for recovery of the excess amount drawn by him from the College. Thirdly, we further direct that the Director of Higher Education Allahabad shall take appropriate steps against Dr. Ram Vyas Tripathi for the serious misconduct committed by him acting in arrogance of the orders of this Court, as well acting in contravention with the provisions of the Act. In case the management of the College does not permit the petitioner to function as Principal of the College then the State Government is directed to take steps to supersed the management. 16. A copy of the judgment shall also be sent to the Chancellor Avadh University, Faizabad, viz. Govenor of the State, who is Chancellor of the Universities for taking appropriate action against the Vice Chancellor of the University. With the above directions the petition is disposed of.