JUDGMENT : R.R.K. Trivedi, J. The controversy in both the aforesaid writ petitions is with regard to the office of the head of the institution, namely Janta Inter College, Kharkhaunda, district Meerut (hereinafter referred to as College) and the Petitioner in the first petition is also Petitioner no. 3 in the second petition and common questions of law and facts are involved in both the petitions, hence both the writ petitions can be disposed of conveniently together by a common judgment. Learned counsel for parties in both the petitions have agreed that the petition may be decided finally at this stage. 2. Writ petition No. 28693 of 1993 was initially disposed of finally with certain directions by order dated 6-7-1993. However, Respondent no. 3 in that petition filed Special Appeal No. Nil of 1993 which was allowed on 18-8-1993 and the order dated 6-7-1993 as well as the order dated 9-7-1993 passed by the District Inspector of Schools as a consequence thereof were set aside, and the case has been sent back for passing fresh orders after hearing parties. In this petition a counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner stated that Petitioner does not want to file rejoinder affidavit. 3. The relief claimed in this writ petition is that Respondent no. 1. District Inspector of Schools, may be directed to decide the representations filed by the president of the committee of management which are Annexures 8, 9 and 13 to the writ petition after hearing parties in accordance with law at the earliest. The second relief sought in the writ petition is that Respondents may be directed not to interfere in the working of the Petitioner as ad-hoc principal after 1-7-1993 The representation, Annexure VIII, dated 28-4-1993 has been filed by Mahabir Prasad Tyagi, president of the committee of management of the College, wherein it has been stated that the principal of the College Shri Om Prakash Sharma shall retire on 30-6-1993 and it has been learnt that the Manager in collusion with Om Prakash Sharma wants to give charge of the office of the principal to Desh Raj Singh, Respondent no. 3 who is at the serial no. 5 in the seniority list, which is wholly illegal and the committee of management is also being kept in dark about this activity. 3 who is at the serial no. 5 in the seniority list, which is wholly illegal and the committee of management is also being kept in dark about this activity. Prayer has been made that Petitioner Pramod Kumar Jindal, lecturer in Physics is a senior most lecturer and he should be allowed to officiate as principal of the College and his legitimate rights may not be allowed to be violated. Annexure 9 is a representation of the same by the Petitioner and the contents and the prayer made are substantially the same as of Annexure 8. Annexure 13 dated 2-7-1993 is an application of Petitioner addressed to Respondent no. 1 inviting his attention towards a news item published in Hindi Daily “Daink Jagran” of 2-7-1993 alleging that Respondent no. 3 has been given charge of the office of principal on 30-6-1993. It has been further stated that when Petitioner reached the College at 7.00 A. M. the College was found locked and it was opened upto 10.00 A.M. It has been prayed that the presence of the Petitioner may be marked in the office of Respondent no. 1 and it has also been prayed that he being the senior most lecturer may be given charge of the office of the principal. 4. Writ petition No. 29126 of 1993 has been filed by the committee of management of the College through president and Swaraj Singh Tyagi, Petitioner no. 2 treasurer of the committee of management of the College, and Pramod Kumar Jindal who is already Petitioner in the first petition. The relief sought in this writ petition is to quash the seniority list signed by the Respondent no. 4 manager of the college and submitted along with representation dated 5-7-1993. Annexure 12 to the writ petition. It has also been prayed that Respondents nos. 3 and 4 be restrained from interfering with the working of the Petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid seniority list and for a direction to the other Respondents to ensure peaceful atmosphere and smooth functioning of the College. It has also been prayed that Respondent no. 1. Director of Education, and District Inspector of Schools may be restrained from taking any cognizance of the representation letter sent by the Respondent no. 4 Chandra Prakash Sharma. 5. It has also been prayed that Respondent no. 1. Director of Education, and District Inspector of Schools may be restrained from taking any cognizance of the representation letter sent by the Respondent no. 4 Chandra Prakash Sharma. 5. The facts, in short, which are common in both the writ petitions are that one Shri Om Prakash Sharma retired as principal of the institution on 30-6-1993 and his retirement gave rise to a serious dispute with regard to the office of the principal and it appears that the members of the committee of management are also divided on this issue. Manager Shri Prakash Chandra Sharma is with Shri Deshraj Singh, another lecturer, claiming himself to be senior most and entitled to be appointed as principal and the presidait and treasurer appear to be on the side of Pramod Kumar Jindal who claims to be the senior most lecturer and entitled for the office of the principal. 6. Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 was amended by U.P. Act no. 24 of 1992 with effect from 14-7-1992 and the amended Section 18 which is relevant for the present controversy, is being reproduced below: 18. Adhoc teacher : (1) Where the management has notified a vacancy to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and the post of such teacher has actually remaind vacant for more than two months, the management may appoint by direct recruitment or promotion a teacher, on purely ad hoc basis, in the manner hereinafter provided in this Section. (2) A teacher, other than a Principal or Headmaster, who is to be appointed by, direct recruitment, may be appointed on the recommendation of the Selection Committee referred to in sub-Section (9). (3) A teacher, other than a Principal or Headmaster who is to be appointed by promotion, may in the manner prescribed be appointed by promoting the seniormost teacher possessing prescribed qualifications. (a) in the trained graduate's grade, as a lecturer, in the case of a vacancy in lecturer's grade; (b) in the Certificate of Teaching grade, as a teacher in the trained graduate's grade, in the case of vacancy in trained graduate's grade. (4) A vacancy in the post of a Principal may be filled by promoting the seniormost teacher in the lecturer's grade. (4) A vacancy in the post of a Principal may be filled by promoting the seniormost teacher in the lecturer's grade. (5) A vacancy in the post of a Headmaster may be filled by promoting the seniormost teacher in the trained graduate's grade. (6) For the purposes of making appointments under sub- Sections (2) and (3), the Management shall determine the number of vacancies, as also the number of vacancies to be reserved for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other categories of persons in accordance with the rules or orders issued by the State Government in this behalf. If in determining the vacancies it is found that persons belonging to such categories are not holding such number of posts as should have been held by them in accordance with such rules or orders, then the vacancies shall be so determined that first and every alternative vacancy shall be reserved for the persons of such categories until the required percentage of posts is held by them. (7) After determine the number of vacancies as' provided in sub-Section (6) the Management shall within 15 days from the date of the Commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board (Second Amendment) Act, 1992 intimate the vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment to the District Inspector of Schools. If the Management fails to intimate such vacancies within the said period of fifteen days, the District Inspector of Schools, may, after verification from such institution or from his own records, determine such vacancies himself. (8) The District Inspector of Schools shall. on receipt of intimation of vacancies or as the case may be, after determining the vacancies under subsection (7), invite applications, from the persons possessing qualifications prescribed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations, made thereunder, for ad-hoc appointment to the post of teachers, other than Principal or Headmasters in such manner as may be prescribed. 7. From a perusal of sub-Section (4) and (5) it is clear that the posts of principal and Headmaster have to be filled by promoting senior most teacher in the College in the lecturer's grade, and in case Headmaster, by promoting senior most Teacher in trained graduates' grade. By this amendment the only criterion laid down by law for making ad hoc arrangement for the office of head of the institution, was the seniority. By this amendment the only criterion laid down by law for making ad hoc arrangement for the office of head of the institution, was the seniority. No exercise was left for committee of management or for the educational authorities for this purpose. Thus the question of seniority became of utmost importance and this led to disputes with regard to seniority even in those cases where it was already settled and continuing for the last several years. It is not disputed that the vacancy for the office of the head of the institution in the present case arose on 30-6-1993 and the provisions of the amended Section 18 were applicable and only senior-most teacher in the lecturer's grade could be given chance to discharge the functions of principal on ad-hoc basis till a regularly selected candidate was recommended by the Commission. From the facts of the present case it appears that in 1989 a list of seniority was circulated among the teachers in which Pramod Kumar Jindal was shown at serial no. 8 whereas Desh Raj Singh was shown at serial no. 11. This list has been filed as Annexure 1 to the second writ petition. According to this list Pramod Kumar Jindal was senior. However, Respondent no. 4 manager Prakash Chandra Sharma submitted a representation before the District Inspector of Schools on 5-7-1993 intimating that the committee of management has taken decision to appoint Desh Raj Singh as ad-hoc principal considering his seniority and academic qualifications and also prayed that his appointment may be approved and signatures may be certified. Along with this representation a seniority list has also been annexed showing Desh Raj Singh at serial no. 2 and Pramod Kumar Jindal at serial no. 6. In this list the date of substantive appointment with regard to Deshraj Singh has been stated to be 23-4-1970 whereas the date of substantive appointment of Pramod Kumar Jindal has been shown as 19-1-1976. It may be noticed that in the seniority list of 1989 the date of appointment of Pramod Kumar Jindal has been shown to be 8-7-1969 and the date of appointment of Deshraj Singh is not legible However, in paragraph 3 of the writ petition it has been stated to be 29-8-1973. It may be noticed that in the seniority list of 1989 the date of appointment of Pramod Kumar Jindal has been shown to be 8-7-1969 and the date of appointment of Deshraj Singh is not legible However, in paragraph 3 of the writ petition it has been stated to be 29-8-1973. The manager in his lei ter dated 5-7-1973 in paragraph 7 has talked about the list of 1989 in the following words which are being repreduced below: Aapke samaksh kuchh adhyapako ne 1989 ke aek suchi prastut kee hai us suchi men lagbhag aadhe prabakta sewa nibrit ho chuke hain. Woh is samay nisprabhabi ho gai hai. Usme trutiyan bhi thee jinmen sudhar kiya gaya hai. June 1993 me jo suchi banai gai woh aapko bheji ja rahi hai. Vidyalaya band hone ke karan iske pratiyan abhi prabaktao ko dekar unke apattiyan amantrit nehi ke ja saki hai. Dinank 8-7-93 ko Vidyalaya khulne par prabaktao ko iske pratiyan de ja kar unhe apatti karne ka absar diya jayegatatha prabandh samity unke apattiyan par bichar karke susangat nirnaya legi. Praband samity ke nirnaya se pirit prabakta ko up shiksha nirdeshak ke samaksh apil ka adhikar hai. 8. The material averments made in the aforesaid para 7 are that the seniority list prepared in 1989 has become ineffective as about half of the lecturers have retired. In my opinion, this could hardly be a reason for alleging that seniority list has become infructuous. Then it has been stated that there were certain mistakes in this list which have been corrected and a list has been prepared in June, 1993 which has not been served on the lecturers as the College was closed and their objections have not been received. It has been stated that this shall be done after the opening of the College and after receiving the objections of the teachers, appropriate decision shall be taken by the committee of management and the aggrieved lecturer may file appeal before the Deputy Director of Education against the decision of the committee of management. 9. In this regard Regulation 4 of Chapter I of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is very relevant for consideration. It says that Manager shall prepare and meintain the seniority list showing therein the date from which a teacher is entitled to count his seniority. 9. In this regard Regulation 4 of Chapter I of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is very relevant for consideration. It says that Manager shall prepare and meintain the seniority list showing therein the date from which a teacher is entitled to count his seniority. Before finalising the list he shall supply a copy thereof to every teacher in the institution and any objection filed by a teacher within a month of the receipt of the copy by him shall be decided by the committee of management. From the bare reading of the Regulation 4 it is clear that the list of seniority could not be finalised without serving copy thereof on every teacher. As clear from Para 7, it is admitted position that the alleged list prepared by the Manager in June, 1993 could not be served on the teachers as the College was closed. In these circumstances it could not be termed to be a final list which could be acted upon for giving the chance of officiating as principal of the College. The list of 1989 can be accepted to be very well operating, till the alleged list prepared in June 1993, is finalished by the committee of management after considering the objections filed by the teachers. In my opinion, on the basis of the list prepared in June, 1993, the list of 1989 which was already signed by all the lecturers could not be ignored. From the other documents on record it is clear that Pramod Kumar Jindal was being treated as senior to Deshraj Singh for the last more than 20 years. This already established seniority should not have been unsettled in this fashion. 10. Shri Ashok Khare, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents relying on a letter of the Meerut University dated 30-6-1993 submitted that Pramod Kumar Jindal passed his Post Graduate Diploma in Physics in 1976. However, submission in this regard appear to be misconceived. From reading of para. 5A of the counter affidavit along with Annexure 1 to the counter-affidavit, i.e. letter of the University dated 30-6-1993, it is clear that Pramod Kumar Jipdal passed his Post Graduate Diploma Examination in 1969. There is no doubt that he appeared in the Examination in 1969. Assuming that the result was declared after revaluation in 1976, it cannot be said that the examination was passed in 1976. There is no doubt that he appeared in the Examination in 1969. Assuming that the result was declared after revaluation in 1976, it cannot be said that the examination was passed in 1976. The year of passing the Examination will be the same, i. e. 1969 when he had appeared in the examination and it is for this reason that the University has in categorical terms stated in the letter dated 30-6-1993 that Shri Pramod Kumar Jindal passed his Post Graduate Diploma in Physics in May, 1969 in grade 'B' with Roll No, 18. Then it has been stated that as per the record his result was consolidated on 19-1-1976. It is on the basis of the subsequent averment that the manager assumed that Pramod Kumar Jindal passed the Post Graduate Diploma in 1976. In my opinion, the whole exercise was based on misconception. However, as under Regulation 4 of Chapter I the manager is entitled to prepare a list of seniority and after receipt of the objections of the concerned teachers a decision has to be taken about the seniority by the committee of management against which the teachers may have right of appeal before the Dy. Director of Education, hence it will not be appropriate to enter into and decide this controversy, finally at this stage. 11. The next submission of Shri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the Respondent, was based on the qualification for principal and headmaster provided in Appendix 'A' to Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. It has been submitted that as Shri Prem Kumar Jindal did not possess a Master's degree and his qualification to the office of the head of the institution is based on Post Graduate Diploma in Physics in Grade 'B' the qualification has to be adjudged under the Third Alternative of the qualifications for the head of the institution under Appendix '?' which requires additional 20 years' exemplary service after acquiring qualification of Post Graduate Degree. Then the learned counsel for Respondent with reference to Annexure VII of the counter affidavit has submitted that it cannot be said that Pramod Kumar Jindal had exemplary service record as required under Item I to Appendix 'A' aforesaid. Then the learned counsel for Respondent with reference to Annexure VII of the counter affidavit has submitted that it cannot be said that Pramod Kumar Jindal had exemplary service record as required under Item I to Appendix 'A' aforesaid. The learned counsel has further submitted that the authority to adjudge as to whether the service record is or is not exemplary is the employer, i.e. the committee of management which after perusal of the service record of the Petitioner he held that the service record is not exemplary as clear from the resolution dated 29-6-1993. Annexure 10 to the counter affidavit. 12. I have seriously considered the submissions of the learned counsel for Respondents and in my opinion the submissions cannot be accepted for more than one year. 13. The first reasons is that Annexure 7 filed along with the counter affidavit does not inspire confidence. It is true that it was for the committee of management to assess the service record but when the matter is before the Court eyes cannot be shut to ignore a glaring fact manifest from the record. A bare perusal of Annexure 7 with naked eyes shows that all the entries right from 1965-66 to 1992-93 appear to have been made in one sitting and by one pen, at one time and at one strcutch and it creates a serious doubt that this document was prepared only to deprive the Petitioner of his legitimate chance to officiate as principal. 14. The second reasons for not accepting the submission of the learned counsel is the legal position, which comes out from a perusal of the amended Section 18 of the Act. The legislature while making provision to fill up the vacancies in the post of principal and headmaster in sub-Sections (4) and (5) has not said anything about the qualification for the post, while in sub-Section (3) which also deals with the promotion and in sub-Section (8), has specifically said with regard to qualifications in case of appointment of teacher. In sub-Section (3) which also deals with promotion, the principal and headmasters have been specifically excluded. In my opinion, this departure in case of principal is not without any purpose. In sub-Section (3) which also deals with promotion, the principal and headmasters have been specifically excluded. In my opinion, this departure in case of principal is not without any purpose. In sub-Sections (4) and (5) of Section 18 the post of head of the institution is allowed to be filled in by promoting the senior most teacher in the college in the lecturer grade until a regularly selected candidate is recommended by the Commission or the Board under sub-Section (1) thereof. For this temporary chance the legislature did not think it proper to give chance only to those senior most teachers who were qualified for the post of principal. There appears to be logical and sound reason behind this departure as the senior most teacher though not strictly qualified for the post of the head of the institution may command respect amongst teachers and thus there may be discipline. If a junior teacher is promoted as principal for this temporary period that may create heart-burning amongst the senior teachers and it could be a source of indiscipline. The other reason for this may be to bring to an end to all kinds of disputes with regard to appointment of the head of the institution on ad hoc basis. A judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in this Court the disputes with regard to principal and headmasters are being raised so frequently and while raising disputes the role .of the committee of management has not been very good. Invariably the already settled seniority list have been disturbed and persons of choice Were attempted to be brought as head of the institution. In my opinion, the departure made by the legislature under sub-Sections (4) and (5) of Section 18 was thus with a specific purpose, to bring an end to the maneuverings on the part of the junior teachers and the management to deny chance of ad-hoc appointment as principal to the senior teacher. 15. The Third reason is that it cannot be said that Pramod Kumar Jindal is not qualified for the office of the principal. He possesses requisite qualification. However, this qualification shall be subject to scrutiny by the Commission or the Board while recommending the name for appointment of the regular principal. So far as Respondent no. 15. The Third reason is that it cannot be said that Pramod Kumar Jindal is not qualified for the office of the principal. He possesses requisite qualification. However, this qualification shall be subject to scrutiny by the Commission or the Board while recommending the name for appointment of the regular principal. So far as Respondent no. 3 Desh Raj Singh is concerned, in my opinion, he being a junior teacher in lecturer's grade could not be legally given chance. 16. In view of the discussion made above, in my opinion, it is not necessary to discuss the plea raised on behalf of the Petitioner that the alleged abverse entries were not communicated to him as is required under the Regulations and the reply thereof given by the Respondents. In view of the clear cut legal position in Section 18 of the Act with regard to ad-hoc appointment of the head of the institution, the provisions of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 could also not help the Respondents. Learned counsel relied on certain judgments. However, I do not feel that they are any way relevant for determination of the controversy in the present writ petitions. The cases are completely distinguishable. 17. For the reasons recorded above, both the writ petitions are disposed of finally with the direction that Pramod Kumar Jindal, Petitioner in the first petition, shall be allowed to continue as ad-hoc principal of Janta Inter College, Kharkhunda until a candidate is selected and recommended by the Commission or the Board for regular appointment. As this chance to the Petitioner is only based on his seniority mentioned in the seniority list of 1984, in case his seniority is disturbed in accordance with law, the teacher who is ultimately found senior most in lecturer's grade shall be given; the chance. It is further made clear that observations and findings made is this judgment are only for determining the present dispute so that the College may be provided with a head of the institution without any further delay and shall not come in the way of the committee of management or the educational authorities or the Commission or the Board while determining the seniority of the teachers in the lecturer's grade or while assessing suitability for regular appointment as principal of the College. There will be no order as to costs.