JUDGMENT R.A. Sharma, J. - Petitioner has filed this writ petition for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to hand-over the charge of Principal of Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College, Lnkerganj, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as college), to her and pay her salary of ad hoc Principal with effect from 1-7-1989. 2. Petitioner and respondent No. 2 Dr. Asha Saxena, are working as lecturer in the college. After retirement of regular Principal of the college on 30-6-1981, the petitioner was appointed as acting Principal on 1-7-1989. This order appointing the petitioner as acting Principal, was challenged by the respondent No. 2 before this court by means of writ petition No. 12164 of 1989. Prayer in the aforesaid writ petition filed by respondent No. 2 is reproduced below : (i) a writ, order of direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner as the officiating Principal of the college, i. e. Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College, Allahabad and further to continue to pay her salary of the officiating Principal with all consequential benefits : (ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order appointing respondent No. 1 as officiating Principal of the institution as also the directions dated 28-6-1989 issued by the Regional Inspectors of Girls Schools, IVth Region, Allahabad ' (iii) any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case ; (iv) award costs of the petition to the petitioner." In the writ petition this court on 5-7-1989 passed the following interim order permitting the management of the college to make appointment of the acting Principal on merit in accordance with law : "Issue notice. Until further orders the Committee of Management, the Respondent No. 4 shall make an appointment of an acting Principal of the Institution concerned on merits and in accordance with law and in disregard of the directions dated 28-6-1989 issued by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, IV Region Allahabad." In pursuance of the aforesaid interim order the Manager of the college passed an order dated 6-7-1989 appointing respondent No. 2 as acting Principal. Copy of this order has been filed as Annexure-2 to the counter-affidavit. Copy of this order has been filed as Annexure-2 to the counter-affidavit. It appears that in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 6-7-1989 the petitioner was required to hand over the charge and as such she filled writ petition No. 12388 of 1989, before this court and an interim order was passed by this court restraining the respondents from interfering with the working of the petitioner as acting Principal. Both the writ petitions were referred to the Full Bench and Full Bench by its judgment dated 13-4-1990 since reported in (1990) 1 UPLBEC 516 (FB)1 allowed the writ petition No. 12164 of 1989, of the respondent No. 2. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. As one of the respondents in writ petition of respondent No. 2 was not served, an application for recalling the aforesaid judgment of the Full Bench was made by the unserved respondent. Full Bench was again constituted and the aforesaid decision of Full Bench dated 13-4-1990 was recalled and in view of new material placed before this court, the writ petition of respondent No. 2 was dismissed and writ petition, filed by petitioner was allowed on 19-12-1990 since reported in (1991) 1 UPLBEC 250 (FB)] by the Full Bench. The management of the college and respondent No. 2 filed Special Leave Petition before Supreme Court, which have been dismissed by order dated 24-1-1991, copy of which has been filed as annexure-2 to the writ petition. 3. Consequence of the first decision dated 13-4-1990 of the Full Bench was that petitioner was removed from the office of acting Principal and in her place the respondent No. 2 was given the charge of acting Principal. As mentioned before, the decision of Full Bench dated 13-4-1990 (supra) has been reversed by Full Bench of December 19, 1990 (supra) with the result that writ petition of respondent No. 2 was dismissed and writ petition of the petitioner was allowed. Natural consequence of the second decision of Full Bench dated 19-12-1990 is that the order appointing petitioner as ad hoc Principal with effect from 1-7-1989 stands and the office of acting Principal is liable to be restored to the petitioner. Natural consequence of the second decision of Full Bench dated 19-12-1990 is that the order appointing petitioner as ad hoc Principal with effect from 1-7-1989 stands and the office of acting Principal is liable to be restored to the petitioner. Accordingly the petitioner had represented before the management of the college for permitting her to work as acting Principal in place of the respondent No. 2, Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Allahabad, also vide her order dated 1-1-1991 directed the management of the college to hand over the charge of the post of acting Principal to the petitioner in pursuance of the decision dated 19 12-1990 of the Full Bench. In spite of the request made by the petitioner and the aforesaid order of Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, the management did not permit the petitioner to work as acting Principal, Petitioner has accordingly filed this writ petition for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to hand-over the charge of ad hoc Principal of the college and to pay by salary of the post of Acting Principal with effect from 1-7-1989. 4. On 21-3-1989 while granting time to the respondents to file counter-affidavit this court issued interim mandamus to the respondents either to hand over charge to the petitioner as a `hoc Principal of the college or to show cause within fifteen days from the date a certified copy of the order of the court is served on them. In pursuance of the aforesaid interim mandamus the management of the college filed counter-affidavit. Respondent No. 2 is also represented before me by a learned counsel. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made two submissions, namely (i) the post of acting Principal is liable to be restored to the petitioner in view of the decision of Full Bench dated 19-12-1990 and the respondents were not justified in permitting respondent No. 2 to continue as acting Principal ; and (ii) as the petitioner has been declared as senior most by Full Bench of this court, vide decision dated 19-12-1990 (supra), she is entitled to work as acting Principal by virtue of her seniority. Learned counsel for respondents have, on the other hand, argued that (t) although Full Bench has declared petitioner as senior most lecturer in the college, but there is no direction, issued to the management for appointing the petitioner again as acting Principal and (ii) the management is entitled to appoint an ad hoc Principal on the basis of merit under Section 18 (I) (b) of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and in pursuance of the interim order of this court dated 5-7 1989 in writ petition No. 12164 of 1989, filed by respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 2 was appointed as Principal on merits and her appointment now cannot be set-aside. 6. As mentioned before, the petitioner was appointed as acting Principal on 1-7-1989 and this order was challenged by respondent No. 2 by means of writ petition No. 12164 of 1989 in which interim order was passed on 5-7-1989, whereby the management of the college was permitted to make appointment of acting Principal of the college on merits. In compliance of the aforesaid interim order dated 5-7-*989 an order has been passed by the manager on 6-7-1989 appointing respondent No. 2 as acting Principal. The order dated 6-7-1989 could not be implemented in view of the stay order passed by this court in the writ petition of the petitioner. However, after the writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed and writ petition of respondent No. 2 was allowed by Full Bench of this court by its first decision dated 13-4-1990 (supra), respondent No. 2 was permitted to work as acting Principal after removing the/petitioner. As mentioned hereinbefore, this decision of 13-4-1990 of the Full Bench (supra) was recalled subsequently and on December 19, 1990 Full Bench (supra) dismissed the writ petition of respondent No. 2 and allowed writ petition of the petitioner. After the writ petition of respondent .No, 2 was dismissed the interim order dated 5-7-1989; passed in writ petition of the respondent No. 2 and every action taken in pursuance thereof, including the appointment of the respondent No. 2 by order dated 6-7-1989 as acting Principal, falls to the ground automatically. An order, passed in pursuance of or on the basis of any order of direction issued by the court in writ petition, falls automatically with the dismissal of the writ petition. An order, passed in pursuance of or on the basis of any order of direction issued by the court in writ petition, falls automatically with the dismissal of the writ petition. In this connection reference may be made to the case of M/s Maliahir Jute Mills Ltd. v. Shibban Lal, AIR 1975 SC 2057 , wherein Supreme Court has held that an order of reference made by the Government under the Industrial Disputes Act on the basis of an order passed in writ petition fails automatically with the dismissal of the writ petition and it is not even necessary for making a prayer for quashing of such an order of reference. Relevant extract from paragraph 11 of the judgment is reproduced below : "It was submitted that it was not at all proper for the Government to have revived a dead issue after more than twenty years and further as the order of the Government was based on the order of the High Court, if the order of the High Court was quashed the order of the Government making a reference to the Industrial Tribunal would fall automatically. We find ourselves in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant There can be no doubt that the order of the Government dated February 6, 1973 is undoubtedly based on the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court." Same thing was reiterated in paragraph 12, wherein the Supreme Court observed as follows : "The learned counsel, for the respondents submitted that no prayer was made by the appellant for quashing the order of the Government for making a reference to the Industrial Tribunal. It was, however, not necessary for the appellant to make such a prayer because if the High Court's order is quashed, then any subsequent proceeding which comes into existence as a result of the High Court's order would fall to the ground as a logical corollary of our finding." 7. As the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 2 against the appointment of the petitioner as acting Principal has been dismissed, the appointment of the petitioner as acting Principal stands and she is entitled to continue till regularly selected candidate by the Commission joins. As the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 2 against the appointment of the petitioner as acting Principal has been dismissed, the appointment of the petitioner as acting Principal stands and she is entitled to continue till regularly selected candidate by the Commission joins. The order dated 6-7-1989 passed in compliance of the interim order of this Court, dated 5-7-1989 has fallen to the ground after writ petition of the respondent No. 2 was dismissed. The management of the college was duty bound to restore the office of acting Principal to the petitioner immediately after the second Full Bench decision delivered on 19-12-1990 (supra). The respondents were not justified to deny the office of acting Principal to the petitioner, to which she was entitled, as a matter of right, after the second decision of the Full Bench. No specific direction for re instatement of the petitioner as acting Principal was required. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, that appointment of respondent No. 2 made on 6-7-1989 was made on merit under Section 18 (1) (b) of the Act and even after writ petition of the respondent No. 2 has been dismissed this appointment will survive, cannot be accepted, for two reasons, firstly, the order dated 6-7-1989 appointing respondent No. 2 as acting Principal was based on interim order passed by this court on 5-7-1989. This order does not have independent existence and would not have been passed, but for interim order, mentioned above ; secondly, the order dated 6-7-1989 cannot be treated to be an order under Section 18(1) (b) of the Act because an ad hoc appointment under Section 18 can be made only where management has notified vacancy to the Commission and the Commission has failed to recommend the name of any suitable candidate for being appointed within one year from the date of such notification or post of the teacher has actually remained vacant for more than two months. It is admitted to learned counsel for parties that in the instant case post of the Principal as notified on 19-4-1989. It is thus clear that upto 6-7-198v neither the period of one year, from the date of notification has expired nor the post has remained vacant for more than two months. It is admitted to learned counsel for parties that in the instant case post of the Principal as notified on 19-4-1989. It is thus clear that upto 6-7-198v neither the period of one year, from the date of notification has expired nor the post has remained vacant for more than two months. Post of Principal fell vacant after 30-6-1989 and period of two months will come to a 11 end after August 1989, with the result that the management has no jurisdiction to make an ad hoc appointment under Section 18. Condition precedent for making such appointment was not fulfilled. As this order dated 6 7-1989 was not passed and could not have been passed under Section 18, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, that order was passed on merit under Section 18 (1) (b) of the Act, cannot be sustained. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, as amended from time to time, where under ad hoc appointment by promotion is to be made on the basis of seniority alone and on that basis it is urged that the management could not have appointed anybody else except the petitioner, as she was the senior most lecturer in the college. Prima facie the argument of Dr. Dwivedi appears to be correct, but it is not necessary for me to go into this question, as writ petition filed by the respondent No. 2, challenging the promotion of the petitioner as acting Principal has already been dismissed by Full Bench on 19-12-It 90 (supra), with the result that the order of promotion of petitioner as acting Principal with effect from 1-7-1989 stands and she is entitled to be restored the office of acting Principal, forthwith. 10. Committee of Management is supposed to act fairly and in accordance with law. It is not expected to act in a partisan manner. There was no justification with the Committee of Management for not handing over the charge of the acting Principal to the petitioner after decision of Full Bench on 19-12-1990 (supra). It is clear that the management was adopting dilatory tactics so as to delay the restoring the charge of acting Principal to the petitioner. There was no justification with the Committee of Management for not handing over the charge of the acting Principal to the petitioner after decision of Full Bench on 19-12-1990 (supra). It is clear that the management was adopting dilatory tactics so as to delay the restoring the charge of acting Principal to the petitioner. The possibility of management of the college acting in collusion with the respondent No. 2, so as to deny the charge of acting Principal to the petitioner, cannot be ruled out. The conduct of the management and respondent No. 2 cannot be said to be justified. 11. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to hand-over the charge of the post of acting Principal of Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College, Allahabad, to the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner will also be paid, within three weeks from today, salary of the post of acting Principal for the period commencing with effect from 1-7-1989, after adjusting the payment, if any, already made. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons given hereinbefore I consider it to be a fit case where special cost, which I assess at Rs. 2000 be paid by the Committee of Management to the petitioner within three weeks from today. Respondent No. 2 also did not have any justification to continue to work as acting Principal, after Full Bench decision of this Court. Under the circumstances and in view of the reasons mentioned above, I direct that respondent No. 2 shall also pay special cost, which, in view of facts and respondent No. 2 belongs to the salaried class, I assess at Rs. 500 to the petitioner within three weeks from today. 12. Certified copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for parties on payment of usual charges within two days.