JUDGMENT G. P. Mathur, J. 1. The dispute relating to appointment on the post of Principal of Kishori Raman Girls College, Mathura gave rise to seven writ petitions and five of them were decided by a common order by the learned Single Judge, Special Appeals No. 780/93, 781/93 and 782/93 filed by the Committee of Management, Special Appeal no. 816 of 93 and Writ Petitions No. 25142/89 and 41368/92 filed by ad-hoc/officiating Principal Dr. Radha Agarwal are being disposed of by a common order at the admission stage, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, 2. It is not necessary to give the facts in detail as they have been mentioned in the judgment of learned- Single Judge Suffice it to say that on the retirement of permanent Principal Smt. Gayatri Rawat in the year 1981, the vacancy was notified and U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) after following the prescribed procedure forwarded a panel consisting of (I) Smt. Kusum Srivastava (2) Smt. N. A. Zubairi and (3) Smt. Radha Tripathi, in that order to the Education Authorities on January 19, 1984. The name of Smt. Kusum Srivatava, who tood at SI. No. 1 was intimated to the management of the college under section 11 (3) of the U. P. Secondacy Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and an appointment letter was issued in her favour on February 24, 1984. Smt. Kusum Srivastava joined as Principal on February 25 but died on March 2, 1984. On the application of Smt. N. A. Zubairi, whose name appeared at SI. No. 2 of the panel, the Regional Inspectress of Girls Colleges Agra, passed an order on March 12, 1984 directing the management to issue an appointment letter in her favour. Subsequently, a similar direction was issued by the Regional Dy. Director of Education, Agra, on March, 16, 1985. The Committee of Management then filed writ petition No. 632 of 1985 for quashing the aforesaid orders and it is this petition which has been treated to be the leading petition by learned Single Judge as the fate of other petitioners depends upon the decision in this petition. Director of Education, Agra, on March, 16, 1985. The Committee of Management then filed writ petition No. 632 of 1985 for quashing the aforesaid orders and it is this petition which has been treated to be the leading petition by learned Single Judge as the fate of other petitioners depends upon the decision in this petition. Shri Janardan Sahai, learned counsel for the Committee of Management (Management) after referring to the provisions of section ...9, 10 and 11 of the Act as well as Rule 2 (hh) of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) has submitted that once a candidate recommemded by the Commission joins the post, the panel exhausts and if a vacancy occurs subsequently as a result of death of the incumbent, the same has to be notified again and the Commission has to make a fresh selection. According to the learned counsel, education authorities cannot refer back to the earlier panel as it ceases to be operative and therefore, after the death of Smt. Kusum Srivastava the Services Commission had to advertise the vacancy again and hold fresh selection. Learned counsel has elaborated his argument by placing reliance on Union of India v. Sankal Chand AIR 1977 SC 2328 (para-106) where it has been observed that the appointment means an initial entry into service for the first time and submitted that in view of sub-section (5) of Section-11 of the Act, the panel forwarded by the Commission can be utilised again only if the candidate whose name had been intimated by the education authorities has failed to join the post or such a candidate is otherwise not available for appointment. It has thus been submitted that as Smt. Kusum Srivastava had joined as principal on February 25, 1984 it is not a case where a candidate has failed to join the post or is otherwise not available for appointment and thus the necessary conditions for utilising the earlier panel did not exist. Therefore the orders dated March, 12, 1984 of R. I. G. S. and March 16, 1985 of Regional Dy. Director of Education directing the management to issue appointment letter in favour of Smt. N. A. Zubairi, whose name was at SI. No. 2 in the original panel, is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act. 3. Shri Ashok Khare appearing for Dr. Director of Education directing the management to issue appointment letter in favour of Smt. N. A. Zubairi, whose name was at SI. No. 2 in the original panel, is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act. 3. Shri Ashok Khare appearing for Dr. Radha Agrawal has submitted that Rule-4 (1) (ii) provides that at the time of intimation of vacancy on the post of Head of an Institution to the Commission, the management has to forward the names of two seniormost teachers- and when the vacancy was notified at the initial, stage the names of Smt Kusum Srivastava and Smt. Nirmal Saxena who were the two senior most teachers were forwarded. If the vacancy was notified again the name of Smt. Radha Agarwal will also be forwarded as she is now amongst two senior most teachers of the institution. He has further submitted that methodology of awarding marks to in-college teachers (two senior most teachers of the college) and that of outsider in the interview held by the Commission is different and the chances of Smt Radha Agarwal being selected for the post of Principal now are better than what they were at the time of earlier selection as then she would not have come in the category of in college teachers. According to the learned counsel the earlier panel cannot be utilised as a candidate out of the panel had actually the post and the education authorities, by directing the management to appoint Smt. N. A. Zubairi, have deprived Smt. Radha Agarwal of her chance to compete and get selected for the post of Principal of the College. 4. Shri D. P. Singh appearing for Smt. N. A. Zubairi has submitted that there is no statutory provision providing for exhaustion of a panel in the event of joining by a candidate and the only limitation put upon a panel by the statute is that it shall hold good for one year from the date of its notification by the commission in view of the Rule 7 (2) of the Rules. He has further submitted that as Smt Kusum Srivastava died within five days from the date of her joining on the post of Principal it should be deemed that the candidate was not available for appointment within the meaning of sub-section (5) of Section-11 of the Act and therefore, the education authorities were fully within their right in intimating a fresh name from the panel forwarded by the Commission. The statement of Objects and Reasons for enacting U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 recites that the appointment of teachers in Secondary Institution recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education was governed by the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and Regulations made thereunder. It was felt that the selection of the teachers under the provisions of the the said Act and the Regulation was some time not free and fair besides the field of the selection was also very much restricted. This adversely affected the availability of suitable teachers and the standard of education. It was, therefore, considered necessary to constitute Secondary Education Services Commission at the State level to select the Principals, Lecturers and teachers for such institution. It is, therefore, clear that the basic object of the Act is to select a qualified and best available person in order to improve the academic standard of the institutions in the State. The State Legislature has also enacted U. P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of teaches and other employees) Act, 1971 to regulate payment of salarises to teachers of the institutions receiving aid out of State Funds Section-3 of this Act provides that the salary of a teacher shall be paid without deductions of any kind and Section-5 ensures the payment of full salary to a teacher by crediting the amount in his account which is to be opened in a scheduled or a Cooperative bank. It is common knowledge that almost the entire salary of teachers of an aided recognised institution run by private management is paid by the State Government. The service conditions of teachers in such College is also regulated by the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act and also U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act. It is common knowledge that almost the entire salary of teachers of an aided recognised institution run by private management is paid by the State Government. The service conditions of teachers in such College is also regulated by the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act and also U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act. It has come on the record that the permanent Principal Smt. Gayatri Rawat retired in 1981 and the Commission took nearly three years in forwarding the panel for filling in the vacancy so caused. Sitting in this jurisdiction, we have come across cases where the Commission has not been able to recommend a panel for as long as 5-6 years. There is no denying of the fact that the Commission is in fact taking several years to recommend a panel. It is also a fact that Smt Kusum Srivastava died within five days of her joining as Principal of the institution and that the name of Smt. N. A. Zubairi finds place at SI. No. 2 in the panel which was recommended by the Commission for making appointment on the post of Principal of the institution. It is in this back-ground that we have to consider the contentions raised by the parties. 5. There is no statutory provision either in the Act or in the Rules specifically laying down that the panel would exhaust with the appointment of a candidate. On the contrary Rule 7 lays down that the life of panel will be one year. We do not think that the moment a candidate from the panel joins the post, the panel exhausts or becomes non-est. If a candidate comes and merely puts his signature at the close of the working hours in token of his having joined the post and does not turn up thereafter to perform his duty, can it be said that the panel has exhausted and the whole process of selection has to be gone into all over again denovo. This will be the logical consequence of accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. We do not think that that is the intention of the Act or the Rules. This will be the logical consequence of accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. We do not think that that is the intention of the Act or the Rules. In the instant case the panel was recommended by the Commission on January 19, 1984 and even before expiry of a period of two months, RIGS directed the management to issue appointment letter in favour of Smt. Zubairi. This was well within the limitation laid down by Rule 7 regarding the life of panel. 6. In the case of Chandradeo Pandey v. Chancellor Allahabad University 1989 (1) UP LB EC 727, relied upon by the appellant the Court was not called upon to consider the existence or the validity of a panel prepared under the Commission Act but was considering a case under U. P. State Universities Act. In the said case certain vacancies on the post of Lecturers in Allahabad University were advertised and the Statutory Selection Committee constituted under section 31 (4) (a) of U. P. State Universities Act prepared four panels and recommended Dr. Pandey against a temporary post but did not place him at SI. No. 1 in the panel. The candidates who were placed higher joined on the post. Subsequently, Pandey was appointed by the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of emergency power under section 13 (6) in a fresh temporary vacancy. He claimed regularisation under section 31 (3) (b) of the Act. It was on these facts that the Court observed that a panel prepared under section 31 is for a particular purpose and once the person selected joins, the panel exhausts. The Court also observed that such a person who was appointed in a temporary vacancy which had arisen afresh cannot claim right under section 31 (3) (b) as he cannot be deemed to be a person who was appointed to that post after reference to the Selection Committee. The Bench also took notice of the fact that no life of the panel had been provided. Here Rule 7 provides for life of the panel. After all there was some purpose for enacting the rule and some meaning has to be given to it to make it effective and workable. In our opinion, the case of Dr. The Bench also took notice of the fact that no life of the panel had been provided. Here Rule 7 provides for life of the panel. After all there was some purpose for enacting the rule and some meaning has to be given to it to make it effective and workable. In our opinion, the case of Dr. Chandradeo Pandey is clearly distinguishable as he was not claiming right to the post for which the panel had been prepared and his name was forwarded but was claiming right to a different post which had been created subsequently and for which no selection had been held by a statutory Selection Committee which is mandatory under section 31 (4) (a) of the State Universities Act. In our opinion, the Committee of Management is not aggrieved by the appointment of Smt. Zubairi as Principal of the institution in a real sense and has thus no locus-standi to file the writ petition. It is not a case where a rank outsider who has no semblance of a right is being implanted as a Principal by education authorities. Smt. Zubairi is working on the post of Lecturer since 4-10-1964 and was placed at SI. No. 2 by the Selection Commission in the selection held for the post of Principal. It is true that she has come on transfer to this institution in July, 1981 and Smt. Radha Agrawal was appointed in July, 1971 but in view of Regulation 59-A (c) of Chapter-Ill of Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, the services rendered by her in the institution from where she was transferred are also liable to be counted towards her total length of service. 7. So far as the appeal of Dr. Radha Agrawal is concerned, it may be pointed out that she has been appointed as ad-hoc/officating Principal after the retirement of the earlier ad-hoc/officiating Principal Smt. Nirmal Saxena on 30-6-1989 i.e. more than five years after the R.l.G.S. had passed the impugned order dated March 12, 1984 directing the management to appoint Smt. Zubairi. She was appointed during the pendency of the Writ Petition in this Court and at the time when there was no interim order staying the operation of the impugned orders dated March 12, 1984 and March 16, 1985 and thus in flagrant violation of orders of the education authorities. She was appointed during the pendency of the Writ Petition in this Court and at the time when there was no interim order staying the operation of the impugned orders dated March 12, 1984 and March 16, 1985 and thus in flagrant violation of orders of the education authorities. In fact at the time when she was appointed the committee of management had no power to make ad-hoc appointment under section 18 of the Act as the recommendation of the Commission was already there and therefore, her initial ad-hoc appointment itself is invalid. An ad-hoc appointment made under sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act automatically cases when a candidate recommended by the Commission joins the post in view of Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 18. Dr. Radha Agrawal has thus hardly any legal right to resist the appointment of Smt. Zubairi. 8. The contention that if the post is advertised again Dr. Radha Agrawal will get a chance to compete as an in college candidate also cannot be accepted. It is too remote a right which may entitle her to challenge the appointment of Smt. Zubairi. That apart, we have to examine the validity of the order dated March 12, 1984 passed by the R.l.G.S. At that time two senior most lecturers were Smt. Urrnil Saxena and Smt. Nirmal Saxena and the latter retired in June, 1989. If the selection would have been held in 1984. Dr. Radha Agrawal's same would not have been forwarded in the category of two senior most lecturers and she would not have completed as in college candidate She cannot get advantage of the period which has elapsed on account of filing of the various writ petitions and now contend that if a fresh selection takes place today she will get a chance to compete as in college candidate. No one prevented her from applying for the post of Principal when the Commission made advertisement and held selection for the same and forwarded a panel in January, 1984. She either did not apply or was not selected and at any rate her name was forwarded in the panel. She cannot now be heard saying that a fresh selection be held so that she may get a chance to compete again. Shri Khare has also sought to urge that the transfer of Smt. Zubairi to this institution in 1981 was illegal. She cannot now be heard saying that a fresh selection be held so that she may get a chance to compete again. Shri Khare has also sought to urge that the transfer of Smt. Zubairi to this institution in 1981 was illegal. We do not think that it is open to Dr. Radha Agrawal to challenge the transfer of Smt. Zubairi in these proceedings. That apart it is too late in the day to assail the validity of the transfer which was effected in July, 1981. Necessary foundation in this regard has also not been laid in the writ petition. 9. Looking to the over all facts and circumstances of the case, specially the fact that Smt. Kusum Srivastava died within five days of her joining and that the name of Smt. Zubairi finds place at sl. no. 2 in the panel which was prepared for the same post, we do not think that it is a fit case where we should exercise our discreation in favour Of the appellants while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India oh purely technical grounds which have been raised to thwart the orders passed by the education authorities and to deprive Smt. Zubairi of the right to Work as Principal of the College. The effect of accepting the contention raised by the appellant would be that the institution would continue to be headed by an ad-hoc or officiating Principal for a long period who would be appointed at the sweet will of the management and such an appointment would not be conducive for maintaining proper academic atmosphere in the institution. An institution is run for imparting education to large body of students and it is their interest which is supreme and not the remote chance of a lecturer to work as Principal. 10. Writ petition no. 41368 of 1992 has been filed by Dr. Radha Agrawal praying that the respondents (RIGS, Agra, DIOS, Mathura and Management) may be restrained from interfering in her functioning as officiating Principal of the College and that the respondents be directed to pay salary to her in the Principal's grade w.e.f. July 1st, 1989. 10. Writ petition no. 41368 of 1992 has been filed by Dr. Radha Agrawal praying that the respondents (RIGS, Agra, DIOS, Mathura and Management) may be restrained from interfering in her functioning as officiating Principal of the College and that the respondents be directed to pay salary to her in the Principal's grade w.e.f. July 1st, 1989. The petition has been filed on the allegations that permanent Principal of the College Smt. Kusum Srivastava expired on March 2, 1984 and the Management notified the vacancy but the Commission did not make any regular selection that thereafter Smt. Nirmala Saxena was appointed as officiating Principal by the Management and after her retirement on June 30, 1989 she was appointed as the officiating Principal by the Committee of Management, that she has been continuously working since the date of her appointment and that inspite of several representations made by her she is not being paid salary of the post of officiating Principal. The petition was filed on November 3, 1992 and an ex-parte interim order was passed on November 6, 1992 to the effect that in case the petitioner is officiating as Principal w.e.f. July 1, 1989, her salary shall be paid within six weeks or cause be shown within the same period. The petitioner deliberately concealed the fact that a regular selection had been held by the Commission in which Smt. N. A. Zubairi had been placed at SI. No. 2 and that after the death of Smt. Kusum Srivastava, the RIGS Agra had passed on order on March 12, 1984 directing the management to issue an appointment latter in her favour and that she had herself filed WRIT Petition No. 383/85 at Lucknow Bench (re-numbered as PW No. 25142/89 in this Court) seeking quashing of the order of RIGS dated March 12, 1984 and other orders passed by Education Authorities in this regard as well as for a direction to the respondents to notify the vacancy for the post of Principal afresh. She has been acting in league with the Management in not allowing Smt Zubairi to function as Principal of the College and has usurped the said office in defiance of the orders passed by the Education Authorities. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to grant the relief claimed by her namely for payment of salary of the post of Officiating Principal of the College. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to grant the relief claimed by her namely for payment of salary of the post of Officiating Principal of the College. She is only entitled to the salary of the post of Lecturer. Since we have upheld the validity of the orders passed by the Education Authorities ; WRIT Petition No. 25142 of 1989 is also liable to be dismissed. In the result, all the Special Appeal and writ petitions are dismissed. The Management is directed to abide by the orders passed by learned Single Judge and to issue an appointment letter to Smt, N. A. Zubairi and to allow her to work effectively as Principal of the institution failing which the Education Authorities would be well within their rights to take such legal steps as are permissible under law. Petition dismissed.