JUDGMENT : R.A. SHARMA, J. 1. Validity of appointment of the Appellant to the office of the Principal of Bapu Inter College, Salempur, Deoria (hereinafter referred to as the College) was questioned before this Court by Respondent No. 1, Sri Birendra Bahadur Singh, a lecturer in the college by writ of quo-warranto. Further prayers for restraining the Appellant from working as the Principal and for directions commanding the educational 'authorities and the committee of management of the college to appoint a Principal in accordance with law, were also made. This petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 17-9-1991, but as the Appellant has been working as Principal for the last several years, he has been allowed to continue until a suitable candidate is selected in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge has also issued directions to the Respondents in the writ petition to take steps immediately for selection of the Principal by U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission. It is against the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge that this special Appeal has been filed. 2. Sri R.C. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant has made four submissions, namely (i) Appellant's services stand regularised as Principal u/s 16-GG of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, (ii) in view of the order dated 25-9-1979 of the Deputy Director of Education, Appellant's services as Principal of the College has been regularised and he is entitled to continue on that post, (iii) in any case the ad hoc appointment of the Appellant is liable to be regularised u/s 33-A of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act); and (iv) the Respondent No. 1 is guilty of delay and laches in challenging the appointment of the Appellant and for this reason this Court should not interfere. Sri Murlidhar, learned Senior counsel for the Respondents has disputed the aforesaid submissions and has pressed for dismissal of this Special Appeal. 3. Appellant's father Sri Bhanu Pratap Sinha, who was the Principal of the college and was due to retire on 30-6-1976, took leave preparatory to retirement from 9-12-1975. Sri Murlidhar, learned Senior counsel for the Respondents has disputed the aforesaid submissions and has pressed for dismissal of this Special Appeal. 3. Appellant's father Sri Bhanu Pratap Sinha, who was the Principal of the college and was due to retire on 30-6-1976, took leave preparatory to retirement from 9-12-1975. The Appellant, who has working as a lecturer in another college known as Subhash Inter College, Bhatni, Deoria, was appointed by the Committee of Management of the college on 9-12-1975 as ad hoc Principal of the college and on the 'same day the District Inspector of Schools (hereinafter referred to as the D.I.O.S.) approved his appointment. However, the teachers of the college made representations before the Deputy Director of Education against the appointment of the Appellant. The Deputy Director of Education by his order dated 2-2-1976 quashed the appointment of the Appellant on the ground that under the U.P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1975 the senior most teacher of the college ought to have been appointed as ad hoc Principal and the Appellant could not have been appointed being the son of the Principal of the college in view of the prohibition contained in the regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act against an appointment of a person, who is related to 'any member of the committee of management or the Principal. The Committee of management filed a writ petition No. 176-A of 1976 before this Court against the aforesaid order of the Deputy Director of Education. On 10-2-1976 the operation of the order of the Deputy Director of Education mentioned above was stayed till the end of June, 1976. The committee of management however, by resolution dated 5-5-1976 continued the Appellant as Principal of the college till a regular incumbent is selected. The aforesaid resolution of the committee of management was approved by the D.I.O Section by letter dated 12-5-1976 On 7-7-1976 this Court modified the aforesaid interim order dated 10-2-1976 and permitted the management to make a fresh ad hoc appointment of the Principal. As mentioned above the management had already reappointed the Appellant by its resolution dated 5-5-1976. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition Section 16-GG was inserted in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, which provided for regularisation of the services of the ad hoc teachers appointed between 18-8-1975 to 30-9-76. As mentioned above the management had already reappointed the Appellant by its resolution dated 5-5-1976. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition Section 16-GG was inserted in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, which provided for regularisation of the services of the ad hoc teachers appointed between 18-8-1975 to 30-9-76. As Section 16-GG did not provide for regularisation of ad-hoc Principal, the committee of management filed a writ petition No. 1525 of 1976 before this Court on the ground that the services of the Appellant stand regularised u/s 16-GG of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. This Court on 17-8-1977 passed an interim order directing that the Respondent therein shall not insist for holding fresh selection for the appointment of the Principal for the college. As the Appellant was not getting his salary from July, 1977, he also filed a writ petition No. 2056 of 1977. However, on 22-2-1979 the writ petition No. 176-A of 1976 was dismissed in view of the statement of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner to the effect that the writ petition had become infructuous. The writ petition No. 1525 of 1976 was dismissed on 27-3-1979 on merit, holding that the Appellant is not entitled to be regularised as the Principal of the College u/s 16-GG of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. The writ petition No. 2056 of 1977 filed by the Appellant for payment of salary was also dismissed as not pressed. The order of Deputy Director dated 2-2-1976, setting aside the ad hoc appointment of the Appellant as Principal of the college, became final due to dismissal of the writ petition on 22-2-1979 filed against it. After the order dated 2-2-1976 became final and after this Court dismissed the writ petition No. 1525 of 1976 by holding that the Appellant's services as Principal of the college cannot be regularised, the Deputy Director of Education by another order dated 25-7-1979 declared that Appellant's services as Principal of the college stand regularised u/s 16-GG. After the order dated 2-2-1976 became final and after this Court dismissed the writ petition No. 1525 of 1976 by holding that the Appellant's services as Principal of the college cannot be regularised, the Deputy Director of Education by another order dated 25-7-1979 declared that Appellant's services as Principal of the college stand regularised u/s 16-GG. Section 16-GG of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act is reproduced below: 16-GG:- Regulation of appointment of ad hoc teachers--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 16-E, 16-F and 16-FF, every teacher of an institution appointed between August 18, 1975 and September 30, 1976 (both dates inclusive) on ad hoc basis against a clear vacancy and possessing prescribed qualification or having exempted from such qualification in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall, with effect from the date of commencement of this section, be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity, provided such teacher has been continuously serving the institution from the date of his appointment up to the commencement of this section. Explanation--For the purposes of this Sub-section, the period during which may break in service of teacher has occurred between the date of his ad hoc appointment and the date of commencement of this section for any reason not arising out of his misconduct or his own violation shall be disregarded: Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as entitling such teacher to any pay or allowance for any such period of break in his service. (2) Every teacher deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity under Sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be on probation from the date of commencement of this section. (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to entitle any teacher to: (a) substantive appointment on any post, if on the date of commencement of this section, such post has. already been filed or section for such post has already been made in accordance with this Act or the regulation made thereunder; or (b) Substantive appointment if such teacher was related (o any member of the committee of management or the Principal or Head Master of the institution concerned. already been filed or section for such post has already been made in accordance with this Act or the regulation made thereunder; or (b) Substantive appointment if such teacher was related (o any member of the committee of management or the Principal or Head Master of the institution concerned. Explanation--For the purposes of this Sub-section, a person shall be deemed to be related to another if-- (a) they are members of Hindu undivided family; or (b) they are husband and wife; or (c) the one is related to the other in the manner indicated in the (Second Schedule). 4. Section 16-GG provides for regularisation of the appointment of the ad hoc teachers only and it does not deal with the head of the institution. Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Ram Saran v. State of U.P. 1983 UP LB EC 451 and Pyare Lal v. State of U.P. 1978 ALR 503 has held that Section 16-GG does not apply to the case of the Principal find it deals with the teachers only. In fact a Division Bench of this Court following its earlier decision dismissed the writ petition No. 1525 of 1976 (supra) filed by the committee of management of the college to which the Deputy Director of Education was also a party, holding that the services of the Appellant as Principal of the college cannot be regularised u/s 16GG. This judgment has become final. In view of the aforesaid position the first submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant has got to be rejected. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant in this connection has further argued that as the Appellant was not a party to the writ petition No. 1525 of 1976 filed by the committee of management in which this Court held that the Appellant is not entitled to benefit of Section 16-GG, that judgment is not binding on him and he is entitled to continue as regular Principal of the college. It is not possible to agree with Learned Counsel. It is true that in the above writ petition the Appellant was not a party but the committee of management of the college, which has appointed the Appellant has filed the writ petition for the regularisation of the services of the Appellant, which was, as mentioned above, dismissed. Even if the decision of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition is ignored. Even if the decision of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition is ignored. Benefit of Section 16-GG cannot be extended to the head of the institution as has been held by this Court in its earlier decisions in the case of Ram Saran v. State of U.P. and Ram Pyare v. State of U P. (supra). In those cases this Court has held that the teacher and the head of the institution have been dealt with as distinct personalities by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the word 'teacher' does not include a Principal. On this basis it was laid down that the services of the ad hoc Principal cannot be regularised u/s 16-GG. 6. The second plea is based on the letter dated 25-9-1979 of the Deputy Director of Education addressed to the D.I.O.S. declaring the Appellant as a permanent Principal of the college u/s 16-GG. This order has been passed in clear defiance of this Court's decision in Writ Petition No. 1525 of 1976, decided on 27-3-1979 and the law laid down by this Court in the earlier cases. That apart, Sub-section (3) of Section 16-GG prohibits the regularisation of the services of a teacher who was related to the Principal or the Committee of Management of the institution. The Appellant when appointed on 9-12-1975 and on 5-5-1976 was related to the Principal of the college being his son and regularisation of such a teacher under the said provision is prohibited. In fact the Deputy Director of Education by his order dated 2-2-1976, which has become final due to the dismissal of the writ petition No. 176-A of 1976, has set aside the ad hoc appointment of the Appellant on the ground that he was related to the Principal of the college. Moreover, the teacher of the college, at whose instance the ad hoc appointment of the Appellant was set aside by the Deputy Director of Education by his order dated 2-2-1976 were necessary parties, but were not given any opportunity of being heard before passing the order dated 25-9-1979. For the reasons given above, such an order is a nullity and is liable to be ignored and cannot be acted upon. No benefit can be conferred by such an order on the Appellant. 7. The third submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant also deserves rejection. For the reasons given above, such an order is a nullity and is liable to be ignored and cannot be acted upon. No benefit can be conferred by such an order on the Appellant. 7. The third submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant also deserves rejection. Sub-section (1) of Section 33-A of the Act being relevant is reproduced below: 33-A. Regulation of certain appointment--(1) Every teacher directly appointed before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985, on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in accordance with paragraph 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulty) Order, 1981, as amended from time to time, who possesses the qualifications prescribed, under, or is exempted from such qualifications in accordance with the provision of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, shall, with effect from the date of such commencement, be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity provided such teacher has been continuously serving the institution from the date of such appointment upto the date of such appointment. Under Section 33-A only the service of a teacher directly appointed under paragraph 2 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 can be regularised provided other conditions laid down in that section are fulfilled It is not disputed that the Appellant was not appointed in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. The Appellant as such cannot claim regularisation under the aforesaid provision. 8. After the Appellant was appointed on 9-12-1975, the teachers of the college have been agitating against the Appellant's appointment and in fact it is at their instance that the Deputy Director of Education set aside the ad hoc appointment of the Appellant on 2-2-1976, which order became final due to the dismissal of writ petition No. 176-A of 1976 on 22-2-1979. After the order dated 2-2-1976 of the Deputy Director of Education became final and after this Court on 27-3-1989 dismissed writ petition No. 1525 of 1976, the Appellant was not entitled to work as Principal of the college; but-no action was taken to remove him from the post of the Principal. The teachers, as such, made representations from time to time before the educational authorities and the Government for taking appropriate action against the Appellant; but nothing was done. The teachers, as such, made representations from time to time before the educational authorities and the Government for taking appropriate action against the Appellant; but nothing was done. Not having got any relief from the State, the Respondent No. 1 filed the writ petition in 1984, which has now been allowed by the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. Under the circumstances, in our opinion, there was no delay in filing the writ petition. In case the writ of quo -warranto cannot be defeated on the ground of delay. If the person against whom writ is sought was holding any public office without any authority of law. The last submission of the Learned Counsel is accordingly rejected. 9. The appeal lacks merits and is dismissed with costs.